The Foundation Engineering Hand Book

Page i
THE FOUNDATION ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Page ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Page iii
THE FOUNDATION ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Edited by
Manjriker Gunaratne
Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group Boca Raton London New York
A CRC title, part of the Taylor & Francis imprint, a member of the Taylor & Fran
cis Group, the academic division of T&F Informa plc.
Page iv
Published in 2006 by CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group 6000 Broken Sound Parkway
NW, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 334872742 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC CRC Pr
ess is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor
& Francis e-Library, 2006. To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor &
Francis or Routledges collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookst
ore.tandf.co.uk. No claim to original U.S. Government works 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
ISBN 0-203-48441-X Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 0-203-61133-0 (OEB Format) International Standard Book Number-10: 0-8493-11
59-4 (Print Edition) (Hardcover) International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-84
93-1159-8 (Print Edition) (Hardcover) Library of Congress Card Number 2005050886
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sour
ces. Reprinted material is quoted with permission, and sources are indicated. A
wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable efforts have been made to publ
ish reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannot assum
e responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of th
eir use. No part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or util
ized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or her
eafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the pub
lishers. For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this wo
rk, please access www.copyright.com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the C
opyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC) 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 9787
508400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registrat
ion for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy
license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged. Trademark N
otice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, an
d are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. L
ibrary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The foundation engineering han
dbook/edited by Manjriker Gunaratne. p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8493-1159-4 1. FoundationsH

andbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Soil mechanicsHandbooks, manuals, etc. I.Gunaratne, Ma
njriker. TA775.F677 2006 624.1 5dc22 20050508
Taylor & Francis Group is the Academic Division of T&F Informa plc. Visit the Ta
ylor & Francis Web site at http://www.taylorandfrancis.com and the CRC Press Web
site at http://www.crcpress.com
Page v
Preface
A genuine need existed for an updated foundation engineering handbook that incor
porates, in addition to classical principles of foundation designs, significant
contributions made to the art of foundation design by practitioners and research
ers during the last two decades. Of special significance in this regard is the k
nowledge of (1) innovative in situ testing and site improvement techniques that
have evolved recently; (2) cost-effective design methods that make use of geogri
ds for mechanically stabilized earth retaining structures; (3) concepts involved
in ground deformation modeling using finite elements; and (4) latest modificati
ons in the ACI codes applicable to structural design of foundations. This handbo
ok largely fulfills the above needs, since the editor and the contributors have
focused on discussing the state of the art of theoretical and applied foundation
engineering and concrete design in a concise and simple fashion. Reliability-ba
sed design concepts that have been incorporated in most up-to-date structural an
d pavement design guidelines are making inroads into foundation engineering as w
ell. Hence, the editor decided to include reliability-based design and LRFD (loa
d resistance factor design) concepts along with relevant illustrative examples i
n this handbook. This step not only makes this handbook somewhat unique among ot
her currently available foundation engineering literature, but also it provides
an opportunity for practitioners and students alike to familiarize themselves wi
th the basics of limit state design applied to foundation engineering. Furthermo
re, the editors extensive experience as an engineering educator has constantly in
dicated that, in spite of the availability of a number of excellent textbooks in
foundation engineering, a quick reference that mostly focuses on significant an
d commonly-used foundation engineering principles and illustrative examples has
been in demand. This handbook also addresses such a need, since it can be adopte
d conveniently as a textbook, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. It
is indeed my pleasure to have worked with a distinguished set of contributors wh
o took time off of their extremely busy professional careers and produced their
best in keeping with their usual professional performance. My appreciation is co
nveyed to Ingrid Hall of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Uni
versity of South Floridas civil engineering graduate students Alex Mraz, Ivan Sok
olic, Mathiyaparanam and Kalyani Jeyisankar, Dumina Randeniya, and undergraduate
student Mercedes Quintas for their help in preparing the manuscript. The suppor
t of my children, Ruwan and Aruni, and my wife, Prabha, during the arduous task
of making this project a reality is also gratefully acknowledged. I wish to exte
nd my special thanks to Cindy Renee Carelli, former engineering acquisitions edi
tor; Matt Lamoreaux, current engineering acquisitions editor; Elizabeth Spangenb
erger; and other staff of Taylor & Francis for their meticulous work on publishi
ng this handbook. Thanks are also due to the relevant publishers who permitted t
he use of material from other references. I also express my profound gratitude t
o late Professor Alagiah Thurairajah, former dean of the Faculty of Engineering,
Peradeniya University, Sri Lanka, and prominent member of the Cambridge Univers
itys Cam Clay group for introducing me to North America and postgraduate studies
in geotechnics.
Page vi Finally, it is to my mother, Jeannette Gunaratne, and my late father, Ra

ymond Gunaratne, that I dedicate this book. Manjriker Gunaratne University of So
uth Florida Tampa
Page vii
Abstract
This handbook contains some of the most recent developments in theoretical and a
pplied foundation engineering in addition to classical foundation design methods
. The inclusion of recent developments mostly enriches the classical design conc
epts in Chapters 37, 10 and 11. It also enables the reader to update his or her k
nowledge of new modeling concepts applicable to foundation design. Most recently
developed in situ testing methods discussed in detail in Chapter 2 certainly fa
miliarize the reader with state-of-the-art techniques adopted in site testing. I
n addition, modern ground stabilization techniques introduced in Chapter 12 by a
n experienced senior engineer in Hayward-Baker Inc., a leading authority in site
improvement work across North America, provides the reader with the knowledge o
f effective site improvement techniques that are essential for foundation design
. Innovative and widely used methods of testing pile foundations are introduced
with numerical illustrations in Chapters 2 and 7. LRFD designs in Chapters 3 and
6 and the design of retaining structures with geogrids included in Chapter 10 a
re unique features of this foundation engineering handbook. For the benefit of t
he reader, the basic and advanced soil mechanics concepts needed in foundation d
esign are elaborated with several numerical examples in Chapter 1.
Page viii
Page ix
Editor
Manjriker Gunaratne is a professor of civil engineering at the University of Sou
th Florida. He completed his pre-engineering education at Ananda College, Colomb
o, Sri Lanka, receiving the S.A.Wijetileke prize for the highest ranking student
. Thereafter, he obtained his bachelor of science in engineering (Honors) degree
from the Faculty of Engineering, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, in 1978.
In 1977, he was awarded the Professor E.O.E.Pereira prize for the highest rankin
g student at the Part (II) examination in the overall engineering class. Subsequ
ently, he pursued postgraduate education in North America, earning master of app
lied science and doctoral degrees in civil engineering from the University of Br
itish Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indian
a, respectively. During his 18 years of service as an engineering educator, he h
as authored 25 papers in a number of peer-reviewed journals, such as the America
n Society of Civil Engineering (geotechnical, transportation, civil engineering
materials, and infrastructure systems) journals, International Journal of Numeri
cal and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Civil Engineering Systems, and other
s. In addition, he has made a number of presentations at various national and in
ternational forums in geotechnical and highway engineering. He has held fellowsh
ips at the United States Air Force (Wright-Patterson Air Force Base) and the Nat
ional Aeronautics and Space Administration (Robert Goddard Space Flight Center)
and a consultants position with the United Nations Development Program in Sri Lan
ka. He has also been a panelist for the National Science Foundation and a member
of the task force for investigation of dam failures in Florida, U.S.A.
Page x
Page xi
Contributors
Dr. Austin Gray Mullins is an associate professor of civil engineering at the Un
iversity of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, who specializes in geotechnical and s
tructural engineering. He obtained B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in civil engine
ering from the University of South Florida. Prior to joining USFs department of c
ivil and environmental engineering, he worked as an engineer at Greiner Inc. Roa
dway Group, Tampa. His most recent research work has been in the areas of statna
mic testing of building foundations and drilled shafts as well as structural tes
ting of bridges. He is a professional engineer registered in the state of Florid
a. Dr. Alaa Ashmawy is an associate professor of civil engineering at the Univer
sity of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, with specialization in geotechnical and g
eoenvironmental engineering. He obtained the B.S. degree in civil engineering fr
om Cairo University, Egypt, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Purdue University. P
rior to joining USFs department of civil and environmental engineering, he was a
postdoctoral research associate at the Georgia Institute of Technology. His most
recent research work has been in the areas of hydraulic and diffusion character
istics of surface amended clays, evaluation of the Purdue TDR Method for soil wa
ter content and density measurement, and discrete element modeling of angular pa
rticles. He is a professional engineer registered in the state of Florida. Dr. P
anchy Arumugasaamy graduated with first class honors bachelor degree in civil en
gineering from the University of Sri Lanka, Katubedde Campus, and is the recipie
nt of the 1973 gold medal from the UNESCO Team for ranking first in the Faculty
of Engineering and Architecture of that year. He earned his Ph.D. degree in stru
ctural engineering in 1978 from the University of Sheffield, England. In 1998, h
e earned his Executive M.B.A. graduate degree from Ohio University. He has over
25 years of extensive experience in engineering consulting (civil and structural
engineering), project management, teaching, advanced research, and product deve
lopment. He is well respected by his peers for his competencies in the analysis
and design of complex structural systems for buildings, bridges, and other struc
tures for different types of applications, and assessment of behavior of element
s using both classical and computer aided methods. He is familiar with many code
s of practices including American Codes (ACI, AISC, ASCE, SEAOC, and AASHTO), CE
P-FIP codes, BSI (for bridges), and CSA. He has hands-on experience in computer
modeling, computer aided design including 2D and 3D frame analysis, grillage ana
lysis for bridges, 2D and 3D finite element analysis, and plate analysis to opti
mize the structural system (steel and concrete structures). He is also proficien
t in 3D computer modeling. He has also specialized in optical engineering and ho
lds many patents for his inventions. He has published many papers on national an
d international journals as a coauthor and has received the following awards for
the best designs and research papers. He is currently working with MS Consultan
ts Inc. as the head of the structural division in Columbus, Ohio.
Page xii
He has been a research scholar and senior adjunct faculty at University of West
Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago (WI), Florida Atlantic University, Bo
ca Raton, and research associate professor at the University of Nebraska, Lincol
n-Omaha. James D.Hussin received his B.S. in civil engineering from Columbia Uni
versity and M.S. in geotechnical engineering from California Institute of Techno
logy (CalTech). Dr. Hussin has been with Hayward-Baker Inc. for 20 years and in
his current position of director is responsible for the companys national busines
s development and marketing efforts and oversees engineering for the southeast U
.S. and the Caribbean. Before joining HaywardBaker, Dr. Hussin was a geotechnica
l consultant in Florida and South Carolina. Dr. hussin is a member and past chai
rman of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Geoinstitute National Soi
l Improvement Committee and is a current board member of the National ASCE Techn
ical Coordination Council that oversees the technical committees. Dr. Hussin has
over 20 publications, including associate editor of the ASCE Special Publicatio
n No. 69, Ground Improvement, Ground Reinforcement, Ground Treatment, Development
s 19871997.
Page xiii
Contents
1. Review of Soil Mechanics Concepts and Analytical Techniques Used in Foundatio
n Engineering Manjriker Gunaratne 2. In Situ Soil Testing Gray Mullins 3. Spread
Footings: Analysis and Design Manjriker Gunaratne 4. Geotechnical Design of Com
bined Spread Footings Manjriker Gunaratne 5. Structural Design of Foundations Pu
nchy Arumugasaamy 6. Design of Driven Piles and Pile Groups Manjriker Gunaratne
7. Design of Drilled Shafts Gray Mullins 8. Design of Laterally Loaded Piles Man
jriker Gunaratne 9. Construction Monitoring and Testing Methods of Driven Piles
Manjriker Gunaratne 10. Retaining Walls: Analysis and Design Alaa Ashmawy 11. St
ability Analysis and Design of Slopes Manjriker Gunaratne 12. Methods of Soft Gr
ound Improvement James D.Hussin 13. Impact of Groundwater on the Design of Earth
en Structures Manjriker Gunaratne Index 1
47 87 145 179 235 299 327 363 427 485 529 567
595
Page xiv
Page 1
1 Review of Soil Mechanics Concepts and Analytical Techniques Used in Foundation
Engineering
Manjriker Gunaratne CONTENTS 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Soil Classification 1.2.1 Mech
anical Analysis 1.2.2 Atterberg Limits 1.2.3 Unified Soil Classification System
1.3 Effective Stress Concept 1.4 Strength of Soils 1.4.1 Drained and Undrained S
trengths 1.4.2 Triaxial Tests 1.4.2.1 Triaxial Testing of Rocks 1.4.2.2 Selectio
n of Triaxial Test Type Based on the Construction Situation 1.4.2.3 Computation
of Strength Parameters Based on Triaxial Tests 1.4.3 Unconfined Compression Test
1.5 Compressibility and Settlement 1.5.1 Estimation of Immediate Settlement in
Soils 1.5.1.1 Elastic Properties and In Situ Test Parameters 1.5.2 Estimation of
Foundation Settlement in Saturated Clays 1.6 Soil Densities and Compaction 1.6.
1 Bulk Unit Weight 1.6.2 Dry Unit Weight 1.6.3 Saturated Unit Weight 1.6.4 Subme
rged (Buoyant) Unit Weight 1.6.5 Soil Compaction 1.6.5.1 Laboratory Compaction 1
.6.5.2 Evaluation of Field Compaction 2 2 2 4 6 6 9 9 10 11 11 13 15 16 17 19 20
25 25 26 26 27 27 27 29
1.7 Finite Element Concepts Used in Modeling of Earthen Structures 1.7.1 Finite
Element Approach 1.7.2 Finite Element Formulation 1.7.3 Equilibrium and Compatib
ility Conditions 1.8 Common Methods of Modeling the Yielding Behavior of Soils 1
.8.1 Modified Cam-Clay Model 1.8.1.1 Isotropic Consolidation of Clays 1.8.1.2 Cr
itical State of Deformation of Clay
31 31 31 33 35 36 36 37
Page 2 1.8.1.3 Stress-Strain Relations for Yielding Clays 1.8.2 Cap Model 1.8.3
Nonlinear Elastic Stress-Strain Relations 1.8.3.1 Evaluation of Nonlinear Elasti
c Parameters 1.8.3.2 Evaluation of Gmax from Standard Penetration Tests 1.8.4 Co
ncepts of Stress Dilatancy Theroy for Granular Soils References 39 39 42 42 43 4
3 44
1.1 Introduction
Geotechnical engineering is a branch of civil engineering in which technology is
applied in the design and construction of structures involving geological mater
ials. Earths surface material consists of soil and rock. Of the several branches
of geotechnical engineering, soil and rock mechanics are the fundamental studies
of the properties and mechanics of soil and rock, respectively. Foundation engi
neering is the application of the principles of soil mechanics, rock mechanics,
and structural engineering to the design of structures associated with earthen m
aterials. On the other hand, rock engineering is the corresponding application o
f the above-mentioned technologies in the design of structures associated with r
ock. It is generally observed that most foundation types supported by intact bed
rock present no compressibility problems. Therefore, when designing common found
ation types, the foundation engineers primary concerns are the strength and compr
essibility of the subsurface soil and, whenever applicable, the strength of bedr
ock.
1.2 Soil Classification
1.2.1 Mechanical Analysis
According to the texture or the feel, two different soil types can be identified.
They are: (1) coarse-grained soil (gravel and sand) and (2) fine-grained soil (s
ilt and clay). While the engineering properties (primarily strength and compress
ibility) of coarse-grained soils depend on the size of individual soil particles
, the properties of fine-grained soils are mostly governed by the moisture conte
nt. Hence, it is important to identify the type of soil at a given construction
site since effective construction procedures depend on the soil type. Geotechnic
al engineers use a universal format called the unified soil classification syste
m (USCS) to identify and label different types of soils. The system is based on
the results of common laboratory tests of mechanical analysis and Atterberg limi
ts. In classifying a given soil sample, mechanical analysis is conducted in two
stages: (1) sieve analysis for the coarse fraction (gravel and sand) and (2) hyd
rometer analysis for the fine fraction (silt and clay). Of these, sieve analysis
is conducted according to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D42
1 and D422 procedures, using a set of U.S. standard sieves (Figure 1.1) the most
commonly used sieves are U.S. Standard numbers 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 140, and 20
0, corresponding to sieve openings of 0.85, 0.425, 0.25, 0.18, 0.15, 0.106, and
0.075mm, respectively. During the test, the percentage (by weight) of the soil s
ample
retained on each sieve is recorded, from which the percentage of soil (R%) passi
ng through a given sieve size (D) is determined. On the other hand, if a substan
tial portion of the soil sample consists of fine-grained soils (D<0.075mm), then
sieve analysis has to be followed by hydrometer analysis
Page 3
FIGURE 1.1 Equipment used for sieve analysis. (Courtesy of the University of Sou
th Florida.)
(Figure 1.2). The hydrometer analysis test is performed by first treating the fin
e fraction with a deflocculating agent such as sodium hexametaphosphate (Calgon)
or sodium silicate (water glass) for about half a day and then allowing the susp
ension to settle in a hydrometer jar kept at a constant temperature. As the heav
ier particles settle, followed by the lighter ones, a calibrated ASTM 152H hydro
meter is used to estimate the fraction (percentage, R%) that is still settling a
bove the hydrometer bottom at any given stage. Further, the particle size (D) th
at has settled past the hydrometer bottom at that stage in
FIGURE 1.2 Equipment used for hydrometer analysis. (Courtesy of the University o
f South Florida.)
Page 4 time can be estimated from Stokes law. Then, it can be seen that R% is the
weight percentage of soil finer than D. Complete details of the above-mentioned
tests such as the correction to be applied to the hydrometer reading and determ
ination of the effective length of the hydrometer are provided in Bowles (1986)
and Das (2002). For soil samples that have significant coarse and fine fractions
, the sieve and hydrometer analysis results (R% and D) can be logically combined
to generate grain (particle) size distribution curves such as those indicated i
n Figure 1.3. As an example, from Figure 1.3, it can be seen that 30% of soil ty
pe A is finer than 0.075mm (U.S. Standard no. 200 sieve), with R%=30 and D=0.075
mm being the last pair of results obtained from sieve analysis. In combining sie
ve analysis data with hydrometer analysis data, one has to convert R% (based on
the fine fraction only) and D (size) obtained from hydrometer analysis to R% bas
ed on the weight of the entire sample in order to ensure continuity of the curve
. As an example, let the results from one hydrometer reading of soil sample A be
R% =90 and D=0.05 mm. To plot the curve, one requires the percentage of the ent
ire sample finer than 0.05 mm. Since what is finer than 0.05 mm is 90% of the fi
ne fraction (30% of the entire sample) used for hydrometer analysis, the convert
ed R% for the final plot can be obtained by multiplying 90% by the fine fraction
of 30%. Hence, the converted data used to plot Figure 1.3 are R% =27 and D=0.05
mm.
1.2.2 Atterberg Limits
As mentioned earlier, properties of fine-grained soils are governed by water. He
nce, the effect of water has to be considered when classifying fine-grained soil
s. This is achieved
FIGURE 1.3 Grain (particle) size distribution curves. (From Concrete Design Hand
book, CRC Press. With permission.)
Page 5
FIGURE 1.4 Variation of the fine-grained soil properties with the water content.
by employing the Atterberg limits or consistency limits. The physical state of a
fine-grained soil changes from brittle to liquid state with increasing water co
ntent, as shown in Figure 1.4. Theoretically, the plastic limit (PL) of a soil i
s defined as the water content at which the soil changes from semisolid to plastic (
Figure 1.4). For a given soil sample, this is an inherent property of the soil t
hat can be determined by rolling a plastic soil sample into a worm shape to grad
ually reduce its water content by exposing more and more of an area until the so
il becomes semisolid. This change can be detected by cracks appearing on the sam
ple. According to ASTM 4318, the PL is the water content at which cracks develop
on a rolled soil sample at a diameter of 3 mm. Thus, the procedure to determine
the PL is one of trial and error. Although the apparatus (ground glass plate an
d moisture cans) used for the test is shown in Figure 1.5, the reader is referre
d to Bowles (1986) and Das (2002) for more details. On the other hand, the liqui
d limit (LL), which is visualized as the water content at which the state of a s
oil changes from plastic to liquid with increasing water content, is determined in t
he laboratory using the Casagrande liquid limit device (Figure 1.5). This device
is specially designed with a standard brass cup on which a standard-sized soil
paste is applied during testing. In addition, the soil paste is grooved in the m
iddle by a standard grooving tool thereby creating a gap with standard dimensions.
When the brass cup is made to drop through a distance of 1 cm on a hard rubber
base, the number of drops (blows) required for the parted soil paste to come bac
k into contact through a
FIGURE 1.5 Equipment for the plastic limit/liquid limit tests. (Courtesy of the
University of South Florida.)
Page 6 distance of 0.5 in. is counted. Details of the test procedure can be foun
d in Bowles (1986) and Das (2002). ASTM 4318 specifies the LL as the water conte
nt at which the standard-sized gap is closed in 25 drops of the cup. Therefore,
one has to repeat the experiment for different trial water contents, each time r
ecording the number of blows required to fulfill the closing condition of the so
il gap. Finally, the water content corresponding to 25 blows (or the LL) can be
interpolated from the data obtained from all of the trials. The plasticity index
(PI) is defined as follows: PI=LL PL (1.1)
1.2.3 Unified Soil Classification System
In the commonly adopted USCS shown in Table 1.1, the aforementioned soil propert
ies are effectively used to classify soils. Example 1.1 illustrates the classifi
cation of the two soil samples shown in Figure 1.3. Definitions of the following
two curve parameters are necessary to accomplish the classification:
where Di is the diameter corresponding to the ith percent passing. Example 1.1 C
lassify soils A and B shown in Figure 1.3. Solution Soil A. The percentage of co
arsegrained soil is equal to 70%. Therefore, A is a coarsegrained soil. The per
centage of sand in the coarse fraction is equal to (7030)/70100 =57%. Thus, accord
ing to the USCS (Table 1.1), soil A is sand. If one assumes a clean sand, then
C c=(0.075)
/(20.013)=0.21 does not meet criterion for SW (wellgraded) Cu=(2)/(0.013)=153.85
meets criterion for SW Hence, soil A is a poorly graded sand, or SP (poorly gra
ded). Soil B. The percentage of coarsegrained soil is equal to 32%. Hence, soil
B is a finegrained soil. Assuming that LL and PL are equal to 45 and 35, respec
tively (then PI is equal to 10 from Equation (1.1)), and using Casagrandes plasti
city chart (Table 1.1), it can be concluded that soil B is a silty sand with cla
y (ML or lean clay).
2
1.3 Effective Stress Concept
Pores (or voids) within the soil skeleton contain fluids such as air, water, or
other contaminants. Hence, any load applied on a soil is partly carried by such
pore fluids in addition to being borne by the soil grains. Therefore, the total
stress at any given location
Page 7
TABLE 1.1 Unified Soil Classification System
Division
More than 50% soil US 200 sieve (0.075 mm
Description Group Identification Symbol
More Clean than 50% gravels US No 4 (4.75mm) Gravel with fines GW GP GM GC More
Clean sand than 50% passing US N 4 (4.75mm) Sand with fines SW SP SM SC Well gra
ded gravels Poorly graded gravels Silty gravel Clayey gravel Well graded sand Po
orly graded sand Silty sand Clayey sand Inorganic silts with low plasticity Inor
ganic clays with low plasticity Organic clays/silts with low plashcity Inorganic
silts with high plasticity Inorganic clays with high plasticity Organic clays/s
ilts with low plasticity
Laboratory Classification Criteria
Cu >4, 1<Cc<3 Not meeting GW criteria Falls below A line in the plasticity chart
, or PI less than 4 Falls above A line in the plasticity chart, or PI greater th
an 7 Cu >4, 1<Cc<3 Not meeting SW criteria Falls below A line in the plasticity
chart, or PI less than 4 Falls above A line in the plasticity chart, or PI great
er than 7
More than Fine grained soils 50% soil (LL<50) passing US 20 sieve (0.075mm)
ML
CL
OL
Fine grained soils (LL>50)
MH
CH
Use the Casagrande Plasticity chart shown above
OH
Highly organic soils
Pt
Page 8 within a soil mass can be expressed as the summation of the stress contri
butions from the soil skeleton and the pore fluids as = '+up (1.2) where i the t
otal tre (above atmopheric preure), ' i the tre in the oil keleton (
above atmopheric preure), and up i the pore (fluid) preure (above atmophe
ric preure). The tre in the oil keleton or the intergranular tre i al
o known a the effective tre ince it indicate that portion of the total t
re carried by grain to grain contact. In the cae of dry oil in which the p
ore fluid i primarily air, if one aume that all pore anywhere within the o
il are open to the atmophere through interporou connectivity, from Equation (1
.2) the effective tre would be the ame a the total tre: '= (1.3) On the o
ther hand, in completely wet (aturated) oil, the pore fluid i motly water a
nd the effective tre i completely dependent on the pore water preure (uw).
Then, from Equation (1.2): '= uw (1.4a) Uing the unit weight of oil ( ) and wa
ter ( w), Equation (1.4a) can be modified to a more useful form as shown in Equat
ion (1.4b): (1.4b) where z is the depth of the location from the round surface
(Fiure 1.6) and dw is the depth of the location from the roundwater table (Fi
ure 1.6). A detailed discussion of the unit weihts of soil is provided in Secti
on 1.6. Finally, in partly saturated soils, the effective stress is overned by
both the pore water and pore air pressures (ua ). For unsaturated soils that con
tain both air and water with a hih deree of saturation (85% or above), Bishop
and Bliht (1963) showed that = '+ua (ua u w) (1.5) where (ua uw) is the soil matri
x sution that depends on the surfae tension of water and is a parameter in the
range of 0 to 1.0 that depends on the degree of saturation. One an verify the
appliability of Equation (1.4a) for saturated soils based on Equation (1.5), si
ne =1 for ompletely saturated soils.
FIGURE 1.6 Illustration of in situ stresses.
Page 9
1.4 Strength of Soils
The two most important properties of a soil that a foundation engineer must be
onerned with are strength and ompressibility. Sine earthen strutures are not
designed to sustain tensile loads, the most ommon mode of soil failure is shea
ring. Hene, the shear strength of the foundation medium onstitutes a diret in
put to the design of strutural foundations.
1.4.1 Drained and Undrained Strengths
The shear strength of soils is assumed to originate from the strength properties
of ohesion () and internal frition Using Coulombs priniple of frition, the
shear strength of a soil, an be expressed as (1.6) where n i the effective nor
mal tre on the failure plane. More extenive tudie on tretrain relation
of oil (Section 1.8) indicate that more conitent and reliable trength par
ameter are obtained when Equation (1.6) i expreed with repect to the interg
ranular or the effective normal tre. Hence, c and are alo known a the effec
tive trength parameter and ometime indicated a cN and NN. It i obviou tha
t the trength parameter obtained from a hear trength tet conducted under dr
ained condition would yield effective trength parameter due to the abence of
pore water preure. Hence, the effective trength parameter cN and NN are al
o termed the drained trength parameter. Similarly, failure load computed bae
d on effective or drained trength parameter are applicable in contruction it
uation that either do not involve development of pore water preure or where
an adequate time elape for diipation of any pore preure that could develo
p. Effective trength parameter can alo be obtained from any hear trength te
t conducted under undrained condition if the pore water preure developed dur
ing hearing i monitored accurately and Equation (1.6) i applied to etimate t
he hear trength in term of the effective normal tre n. On the other hand,
during any hear trength tet conducted under undrained condition, if Equation
(1.6) i applied to etimate the hear trength in term of the total normal t
re , one would obtain an entirely different et of trength parameter c and N
, which are called the total trebaed trength parameter. Uing the concept
provided in the Section 1.7 and relevant tre path, it can be hown that th
e total trebaed trength parameter are generally lower in magnitude than t
he correponding effective tre parameter. From the dicuion of oil treng
th it i realized that the meaured hear trength of a oil ample depend on t
he extent of pore preure generation and therefore the drainage condition that
prevail during a hearing tet. Hence, the type of oil and the loading rate ex
pected during contruction have an indirect bearing on the election of the appr
opriate laboratory drainage condition that mut be et up during teting. A wide
variety of laboratory and field method i ued to determine the hear trength
parameter of oil, c and The laboratory triaxial and dicrete hear teting,
the in itu tandard penetration teting (SPT), tatic cone penetration teting
(CPT), and vane hear teting (VST) are the mot common tet ued to obtain fou
ndation deign parameter. The determination of the trength parameter uing SP
T and CPT i addreed in detail in Chapter
2. Hence, only method of evaluating trength parameter baed on the triaxial te

t will be dicued in thi chapter.
Page 10
1.4.2 Triaxial Tet

In thi tet, a ample of unditurbed oil retrieved from a ite i teted under
a range of preure that encompae the expected field tre condition impo
ed by the building foundation. Figure 1.7(a) how the chematic of the importa
nt element of a triaxial etup; the actual teting apparatu i hown in Figure
1.7(b). The pore preure increae that can be expected during triaxial loading
of a oil can be expreed uing Skemptons pore pressure parameters, A and B, fo
r that partiular soil as u=B 3+A [ 1 3] (1.7) where 1 and 3 are the in
the major and the minor prinipal stresses, respetively. When A and B for a giv
en soil type are determined using a set of preliminary triaxial tests, one would
be able to predit the magnitude of the pore pressure that would be generated i
n that soil under any triaxial stress state. It an be shown that, for saturated
soils, B=1.0. An alternative way of expressing the pore pressure inrease due t
o triaxial loading is as follows: (1.8) where a is the Henkel pore pressure para
meter and oct and tree defined, repectively, a oct=[ 1+ 2 + 3] /3 (1.9a) are
octahedral normal and hear
(1.9b)
FIGURE 1.7 (a) Schematic diagram of triaxial tet. (From Concrete Deign Handboo
k, CRC Pre. With Permiion.) (b) Triaxial teting apparatu for oil. (Court
ey of the Univerity of South Florida.)
Page 11 where 2 i the intermediate principal tre. Under the triaxial tate o
f tre, Equation (1.9a) and (1.9b) implify to oct=[ 1+2 3]/3 (1.10a)
(1.10b) With repect to the drainage condition that i employed during teting,
three type of triaxial tet can be conducted: (1) conolidated drained tet (
CD), (2) conolidated undrained tet (CU), and (3) unconolidated undrained te
t (UU). In CU and CD tet, prior to applying the axial compreion, the preu
re of the cell fluid i ued to conolidate the oil ample back to the in itu
effective tre tate that exited prior to ampling. On the other hand, in the
UU tet, the cell preure i applied with no accompanying drainage or conoli
dation, imply to provide a confining preure. 1.4.2.1 Triaxial Teting of Rock
When foundation are deigned on rock, a in the cae of pile foundation dri
ven to bedrock and pile and drilled haft foundation cat on bedrock, an accura
te etimate of the hear trength of the in itu rock i eential. A variety of
method i available in the literature (Goodman, 1989) to determine the hear
trength of rock. Of them, the mot accurate method of hear trength etimation
i perhap through triaxial teting. Triaxial teting i even more reliable for
rock ample than in oil ince ample diturbance i not a major iue in the
cae of rock. Moreover, correlation that have been developed between the hear
trength of rock and the unconfined compreion trength (Section 1.4.3) and th
e rock quality deignation (RQD) alo provide convenient mean of etimating the
hear trength parameter of rock. Further detail of uch correlation are pr
ovided in Section 6.10. Triaxial teting of rock ample i performed uing a p
ecial apparatu that can utain the relatively large confining preure and de
viator tree that mut be applied on rock ample to induce hear failure. A
et of uch apparatu i illutrated in Figure 1.8(a) and (b). 1.4.2.2 Selection
of Triaxial Tet Type Baed on the Contruction Situation The CD trength i cr
itical when conidering longterm tability. Example of uch ituation are: 1.
Slowly contructed embankment on a oft clay depoit 2. Earth dam under teady
tate eepage 3. Excavation of natural lope in clay On the other hand, CU tre
ngth i more relevant for the following contruction condition: 1. Raiing of a
n embankment ubequent to conolidation under it original height 2. Rapid draw
down of a reervoir of an earthen dam previouly under teadytate eepage 3. R
apid contruction of an embankment on a natural lope
Page 12
FIGURE 1.8 (a) Triaxial cell and membrane ued in teting of rock ample. (b) T
riaxial teting of rock.
Page 13
TABLE 1.2 Meaured CU Triaxial Tet Data
Tet Cell Preure (kPa) Deviator Stre at Failure (kPa) Pore Preure at Failu
re (kPa)
1 2 20 40 20.2 30.4 5.2 8.3
Finally, the UU trength i applicable under the following condition: 1. Rapid
contruction of an embankment over a oft clay 2. Large dam contructed with no
change in water content in the clay core 3. Footing placed rapidly on a clay dep
oit 1.4.2.3 Computation of Strength Parameter Baed on Triaxial Tet Computat
ion involving CU and UU tet are given in Example 1.2 and 1.3, and the reader
i referred to Holtz and Kovac (1981) for more detail of the teting procedur
e. Example 1.2 Aume that one conduct two CU triaxial tet on a andy clay
ample from a tentative ite in order to determine the trength propertie. The a
pplied cell preure, deviator tree, and meaured pore preure at failure
are given in Table 1.2. The trength parameter can be etimated uing the Mohr
circle method a follow: Solution Total trength parameter. The total tree
( 1 and 3 ) acting on both tet ample at failure are indicated in Figure 1.9(
a). Accordingly, the Mohr circle for the two tre tate can be drawn a how
n in Figure 1.10. Then the total trength parameter (alo referred to a the un
drained trength parameter) can be evaluated from the lope of the direct commo
n tangent, which i the Coulomb envelope (Equation (1.6)), plotted on the Mohr c
ircle diagram a c =4.0 kPa and It i obviou that the generated pore preure h
a been ignored in the above olution. The mot appropriate application of c an
d obtained above are cae where foundation are rapidly contructed on a wellc
onolidated ground. Effective trength parameter. The effective tree on bot
h (aturated) tet ample at failure are computed by ubtracting the pore pre
ure from the total tre (Equation (1.4a)), a indicated in Figure 1.9(b). The
Mohr circle correponding to the two tre
FIGURE 1.9 Stre tate at failure for Example 1.2: (a) total tre (kPa); (b)
effective tre (kPa). (From Concrete Deign Handbook, CRC Pre. With permi
ion.)
Page 14
FIGURE 1.10 Mohr circle diagram for a CU tet in Example 1.2. (From Concrete De
ign Handbook, CRC Pre. With permiion.)
tate are hown in Figure 1.10. The effective trength parameter (alo referre
d to a the drained trength parameter) can be found from the lope of the Coul
omb envelope for effective tree plotted on the Mohr circle diagram a
The mot appropriate application of the c' and are cae where found ati contr
ucted rather lowly on a wellconolidated ground. Example 1.3 Aume that one w
ihe to determine the trength propertie of a medium tiff clayey foundation u
nder hortterm (undrained) condition. The mot effective method for achieving
thi i to conduct a UU (quick) tet. For the reult preented in Table 1.3, e
timate the undrained trength parameter. Solution In thee tet, ince the por
e preure generation i not typically monitored the total tree can be plott
ed, a hown in Figure 1.11. From Table 1.3, it can be een that the deviator t
re at failure doe not change with the changing cell preure during UU tet.
Thi i becaue, in UU tet, ince no drainage i permitted the oil ample a
re not conolidated to the correponding cell preure. Therefore, the oil tr
ucture i largely unaffected by the change in cell preure. Hence, the followin
g trength parameter can be obtained from Figure 1.11:
TABLE 1.3 Meaured UU Triaxial Tet Data
Tet Cell Preure (kPa) Deviator Stre at Failure (kPa) Pore Preure at Failu
re (kPa)
1 2 40 60 102.2 101.4 NA NA
Page 15
FIGURE 1.11 Mohr circle diagram for a UU tet for Example 1.3. (From Concrete De
ign Handbook, CRC Pre. With permiion.)
It hould be noted that the ubcript u i ued to ditinguih the UU tet paramet
er. Under UU condition, if Equation (1.6) i applied, then the undrained hear
trength u=c u. The mot critical foundation deign cenario preented by atu
rated, low draining oil uch a clay and ilt involve undrained condition
prevailing immediately after the foundation i contructed. Therefore, the undra
ined hear trength (u) i typically ued to deign foundation on oil where
the predominant oil type i clay or ilt.
1.4.3 Unconfined Compreion Tet
Very often, it i convenient to ue the unconfined compreion trength to expre
the undrained hear trength of clayey oil epecially when in itu tet ar
e ued for uch determination. An unconfined compreion tet can be ued to de
termine the cu value baed on the meaured unconfined compreion trength (qu)
. Since thi tet can be viualized a an undrained triaxial tet with no confin
ing preure (hence unconolidated), the Mohr circle for tre condition at a
mple failure can be hown a in Figure 1.12. Then, it can be een that (1.11) Th
e ame triaxial apparatu including the loading frame hown in Figure 1.8 can be
ued to tet a clayey oil ample under unconfined compreion condition a we
ll. Example 1.4 Determine the unconfined compreion trength and the undrained
hear trength of the oil teted in unconfined compreion condition a hown
in Table 1.4. Solution The compreion tet data in Table 1.4 are plotted in Fig
ure 1.13. From Figure 1.13, the unconfined compreion trength i determined to
be 320 kPa. Therefore, from Equation (1.11), the undrained trength of the clay
i etimated to be 160 kPa.
Page 16
FIGURE 1.12 Mohr circle plot for failure tre condition in unconfined compre
ion tet.
1.5 Compreibility and Settlement
Soil, like any other material, deform under load. Hence, even if the condition
of tructural integrity or bearing capacity of a foundation i atified, the g
round upporting the tructure can undergo compreion, leading to tructural e
ttlement. In mot dry oil, thi ettlement will ceae almot immediately after
the particle readjut in order to attain an equilibrium with the tructural lo
ad. For convenience, thi immediate ettlement i evaluated uing the theory of
elaticity although it i very often nonelatic in nature.
TABLE 1.4 Data for Example 1.8 (Height of Sample7.5cm; CroSectional Area of Sa
mple10.35cm2)
Vertical Diplacement (mm)
0.030 0.315 0.757 1.219 1.666 2.179 2.682 3.152 3.612 4.171 4.740 5.291
Axial Force (N)
23.478 52.174 71.739 90.000 106.957 127.826 143.478 163.043 211.304 240.000 260.
870 280.435
Strain (%)
0.04 0.39 0.95 1.52 2.08 2.72 3.35 3.94 4.51 5.21 5.92 6.61
Stre (kPa)
22.68 50.22 68.66 85.64 101.20 120.15 133.99 151.34 194.96 219.82 237.14 253.06
5.850 6.340 7.224 7.991 8.623 9.360

300.000 314.348 358.696 365.217 349.565 290.870
7.31 7.92 9.03 9.99 10.78 11.70
268.69 279.68 315.30 317.65 301.37 248.18
Page 17
FIGURE 1.13 Plot of the unconfined compreion tet reult in Example 1.4.
However, if the ground material conit of wet, finegrained (low permeability)
oil, the ettlement will continue for a long period of time with low drainage
of water accompanied by the readjutment of the oil keleton until the exce
pore water preure completely diipate. Thi i uually evaluated by Terzaghis
onsolidation theory. In some situations involving very fine lays and organi
soils, settlement ontinues to our even after the pore water pressure in the f
oundation viinity attains equilibrium with that of the far field. Seondary om
pression onepts introdued later in this hapter are needed to estimate this p
rolonged seondary settlement.
1.5.1 Estimation of Immediate Settlement in Soils
The most ommonly adopted analytial methods for immediate settlement evaluation
in soils are based on the elasti theory. However, one must realize that reliab
le estimates of elasti moduli and Poisson ratio values for soils are not easily
obtained. This is mainly beause of the sampling diffiulty and, partiularly,
the dependeny of the elasti modulus on the stress state. On the other hand, re
liable field methods for obtaining elasti moduli are also sare. Very often, s
ettlement of footings founded on granular soils or unsaturated lays is determin
ed on the basis of plate load tests (Chapter 4). The following expression an be
used to determine the immediate settlement (Bowles, 1896): (1.12) where is f
ctor to be determined from Figure 1.14, B is the width of the foundtion, L is t
he length of the foundtion, q0 is the contct pressure (P/BL), se is the immedi
te settlement, E s is the elstic modulus of soil, vs is the Poisson rtio of s
oil, nd f is equl to 0.5 or 1.0 (depending on whether se is evluted t the c
orner or center of the foundtion). Another widely used method for computing gr
nulr soil settlements is the Schmertmnn nd Hrtmn (1978) method bsed on the
elstic theory s well:
Pge 18
FIGURE 1.14 Chrt for obtining the fctor.
(1.13) where Iz is the strin influence fctor in Figure 1.15 (Schmertmnn nd H
rtmn, 1978), C1 is the foundtion depth correction fctor (=1 0.5[q/( q)]), C2
i the correction factor for creep of oil (=1+0.2log[time in year/0.1]), i th
e tre at the foundation level (=P/BL), and q i the overburden tre at the
foundation level (= z).
FIGURE 1.15 Strain influence factor.
Pae 19
TABLE 1.5 Poisson Ratios ( ) for Geomaterials
Type of Soil
Clay, saturated Clay, unsaturated Sandy clay Silt Sand, ravelly sand Commonly u
sed Rock Loess Ice Concrete Steel 0.40.5 0.10.3 0.20.3 0.30.35 0.1 to 1.00 0.30.4
0.10.4 (depends somewhat on type of rock) 0.10.3 0.36 0.15 0.33

Source: From Bowles, J.E., 2002, Foundation Analysis and Desin, McGrawHill, Ne
w York. With permission.
The elastic properties needed to manipulate the above expressions are provided i
n Tables 1.5 (Bowles, 1995) and Table 1.6, where the author, based on his experi
ence, has extracted approximate values from Bowles (1995) for most common soil t
ypes. 1.5.1.1 Elastic Properties and In Situ Test Parameters The most commonly u
sed in situ tests that can be used to determine elastic properties of soil are t
he SPT and CPT tests (discussed in Chapter 2). Some useful relationships that ca
n provide the elastic properties from in situ test results are iven in Table 1.
7. However, in
TABLE 1.6 Approximate Elastic Moduli of Geomaterials
Soil Type
Soft clay Medium clay Stiff clay Loose sand Medium dense sand Dense sand Loose
ravel (sandy) Dense ravel (sandy) Silt
Elastic Modulus (MPa)
2 25 1550 50100 1020 2050 5080 50150 100200 220
Pae 20
TABLE 1.7 Soil Elastic Moduli from In Situ Test Data
Soil
Sand (normally consolidated)
SPT
CPT
Sand (saturated)
Es=250(N+15)
Es=Fq c e=1.0, F=3.5 e=0.6, F=7.0 Es=(630)qc
Sands, all (norm, consol.) Sand (overconsolidated) Gravelly sand
E s=(2,6002900)N
Es=1,200(N +6) =600( N+6) N<15 =600( N+6)+2,000 N>15 Es=320(N+15) Es=(36)q c Es=(
1 2)qc Es=(3 8)qc
Clayey sand Silts, sandy silt, or clayey silt Soft clay or clayey silt
*Es (elastic modulus) for SPT (Standard penetration test) and units q c for CPT
(Cone penetration test). Notes: E s in kPa for SPT and units of qc for CPT; divi
de kPa by 50 to obtain ksf. The N values should be estimated as N 55 and not N70
. Source: From Bowles, J.E., 2002, Foundation Analysis and Desin, McGrawHill,
New York. With permission.
foundation enineerin, it is also common to assume the followin approximate re
lations with respect to ranular soils: E s(tsf)=8N (1.14a) E s(kPa)=768N (1.14b
) where N is the SPT blow count, and E s=2qc (1.15) where qc is the cone resista
nce in CPT measured in units of stress; Es and qc have the same units. A compreh
ensive example illustratin the use of the above relations is provided in Sectio
n 3.3.
1.5.2 Estimation of Foundation Settlement in Saturated Clays
When the foundation load is applied on a saturated finerained soil, it is imme

diately acquired by the pore water, as illustrated in Fiure 1.16(a). However, w
ith the radual dissipation of pore pressure accompanied by drainae of water, t
he applied stress (total stress, ) i gradually tranerred to the ortkeleton a
an effective (Figure 1.16b). The longterm rearrangement of the oil keleton a
nd the conequent foundation ettlement that take place during thi proce i k
nown a the phenomenon of conolidation ettlement.
Page 21
FIGURE 1.16 Illutration of conolidation ettlement: (a) uburface profile; (b
) effective tre ditribution; and (c) pore preure ditribution. (From Concr
ete Deign Handbook, CRC Pre. With permiion.)
The oil propertie required for etimation of the magnitude and rate of conoli
dation ettlement can be obtained from the onedimenional (1D) laboratory cono
lidation tet. Figure 1.17 how the conolidometer apparatu where a aturated
ample (typically 2.5 in. or 62.5mm diameter and 1.0 in. or 25.0mm height) i u
bjected to a contant load while the deformation and (ometime) the pore preu
re are monitored until the primary conolidation proce i complete, reulting
in what i known a the ultimate primary ettlement. A detailed decription of thi
tet can be found in Da (2002). The ample i teted in thi manner for a wid
e range of tree that encompa the expected average preure increae produc
ed by the foundation at the clay layer. Figure 1.18 how the reult of a cono
lidation tet conducted on a clay ample. The coefficient of conolidation (Cv)
for the oil can be obtained from the above reult uing Caagrandes logrithmo
ftime method (Holtz nd Kovcs, 1981). The coefficient of consolidtion, Cv, is
defined bsed on Eqution (1.16):
FIGURE 1.17 Lbortory consolidometer pprtus. (Courtesy of the University of
South Florid.)
Pge 22
FIGURE 1.18 Settlement versus logrithmoftime curve.
(1.16) where Hdr is the longest dringe pth in the consolidting soil lyer n
d T is the nondimensionl time fctor. It should be noted tht wter is permitte
d to drin from both sides of the lbortory soil smple during consolidtion. H
ence, Hdr=0.5 in. or 12.5 mm. Furthermore, for cly lyer tht is subjected to
constnt or liner pressure increment throughout its depth, the reltionship
between the verge degree of consolidtion, U (settlement t ny time t s pe
rcentge of the ultimte primry settlement) nd the nondimensionl time fctor,
T, shown in Tble 1.8, cn be derived using Terzghis 1D consolidtion theory. E
xmple 1.5 Compute the vlue of Cv using Figure 1.18. Solution From Figure 1.18,
when U=50%, t=135 sec However, from Tble 1.8, when U=50%, T=0.197 2 Substitute
in Eqution (1.16), Cv=5.9610 mm2/sec When the bove consolidtion test is repet
ed for severl different pressure increments, ech time doubling the pressure, t
he vrition of the postconsolidtion (equilibrium) void rtio (e) with pressure
(p) cn be plotting the following reltions: (1.17)
Pge 23
TABLE 1.8 Degree of Consolidtion versus Time Fctor
Uvg
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.95 1.0 0.008 0.031 0.071 0.126 0.197 0.287
0.403 0.567 0.848 1.163
T
e =e 0 e (1.17b) where e0 and H are the initial void ratio and the sample height,
respetively, while H and e are their respetive hanges. It must be noted that
for an applied pressure of p when the primary onsolidation is over with omple
te dissipation of pore pressure and the equilibrium void ratio is reahed, the e
ffetive stress in the soil (p ) is equal to p. Hene, when e values orrespondi
ng to the applied pressure p are plotted, it is realized that, in effet, the re
sulting plot is an e versus p plot. A typial laboratory onsolidation urve (e
versus log p ) for a layey soil sample is shown in Figure 1.19. The following
important parameters an be obtained from Figure 1.19:
FIGURE 1.19
Laboratory onsolidation urve (e versus log p ). (From Conrete Design Handboo

k, CRC Press. With permission.)
Page 24 Reompression index, Cr=(1.0951.045)/(log 60 log 10)=0.064 Compression in

dex, C =(1.0450.93)/(log 120 log 60)=0.382 Preonsolidation pressure, p =60 kPa
All of the above information an be used to estimate the ultimate onsolidation
settlement of a saturated lay layer (of thikness H) due to an average pressure
inrease of p. The ultimate onsolidation settlement (s on ) an be determined
by the following expressions, depending on the initial effetive stress state a
nd the load inrement p, as illustrated in Figure 1.20. Case 1 (1.18a) Case 2 (1
.18b) Case 3 (1.18) Equations (1.18) an be derived easily based on Equation (1
.17a) and Figure 1.19. The average pressure inrease in the lay layer due to th
e foundation an be aurately determined by using Newmarks hart, as shown in Fi
gure 1.21. When the footing is drawn on the hart to a sale of OQ=d , the dept
h of the midplane of the lay layer from the bottom of footing, p, an be evalu
ated by p=qIM (1.19) where q, I, and M are the ontat pressure, the influene f
ator (speifi to the hart), and when the saled footing is drawn on the hart
, the number of elements of the hart overed
FIGURE 1.20 Illustration of the use of onsolidation equation: (a) ase 1, (b)
ase 2, and () ase 3. (From Conrete Design Handbook, CRC Press. With permissio
n.)
Page 25
FIGURE 1.21 Newmarks influene hart.
by the drawn footing, respetively. The footing must be drawn so that the verti
al projetion of the loation where the settlement is desired oinides with the
enter of the hart.
1.6 Soil Densities and Compation
It is essential for designers of foundations and retaining strutures to possess
knowledge of the density of soils under different moisture states. In addition,
sound knowledge of how to determine and improve soil densities is vital as well
. For this purpose, ommonly used soil densities and orresponding density, wate
r ontent, and void ratio relations are introdued in the following setions.
1.6.1 Bulk Unit Weight
The bulk or moist unit weight ( b) is the total weiht (WT) of a unit volume of s
oil that includes water and air. In order to determine b, one has to accurately
estimate the volume (V T) of a soil mass (Equation (1.20a)). Hence, the estimati
on of in situ b becomes
Pae 26 somewhat of a difficult task that is enerally addressed by specially de

sined tests like the sandcone test (Section 1.6.5.2): (1.20a) Typically unit w
eihts are expressed in kN/m 3 or Ibf/ft 3. On the other hand, usin basic quant
ification properties of soil (such as the moisture content and the void ratio),
the bulk unit weiht of a soil can also be expressed conveniently as (1.20b) whe
re w is the moisture content, e is the void ratio, Gs is the specific ravity of
solids that 3 typically ranes between 2.5 and 2.75, and w is the unit weiht o
f water (9.8 kN/m or 62.4 3 lbf/ft ).
1.6.2 Dry Unit Weiht
The dry unit weiht ( d) is the weiht of solids (WS ) of a unit volume of soil t
hat includes water and air: (1.21a) Similarly, by settin the water content in E
quation (1.20b) to zero, it can be seen that the dry unit weiht of a soil can b
e expressed conveniently as (1.21b) Then, usin Equations (1.20b) and (1.21b), o
ne can derive the relationship that enables the dry unit weiht of a soil to be
determined conveniently from the bulk unit weiht: (1.22)
1.6.3 Saturated Unit Weiht
The subsurface soil beneath the roundwater table or within the capillary zone i
s saturated with water. The bulk unit weiht under saturated conditions is conve
niently expressed by the saturated unit weiht ( sat), which implies a deree of
saturation (s) of 100%. The relationship between the basic quantification proper
ties of soil furnishes a valuable computational tool in unit weiht estimations:
se=wGs (1.23) Then, usin an s value of 100%, one can use Equations (1.20b) and
(1.23) to express the saturated unit weiht as
Pae 27
(1.24)
1.6.4 Submered (Buoyant) Unit Weiht
In foundation stress computations (Equation (1.4b)) involvin underwater soil con
ditions, the buoyant effect due to the water table can be included directly by u
sin the submered or buoyant unit weiht ' (Equation (1.25)), in place of the s
aturated unit weiht. This is especially useful in effective stress computations
because the need for separate consideration of pore pressure (Equations (1.4b))
can be precluded: ' = sat w (1.25)
1.6.5 Soil Compaction
Prior to construction of buildin foundations newly constructed embankments and
natural subrades must be compacted to density specifications within limitations
of water content. One has to enerally perform a laboratory compaction test on
the foundation soil in advance, in order to set the appropriate compaction speci
fications. The two commonly performed tests are: (1) standard Proctor compaction
test and (2) modified Proctor compaction test. This section provides a summary
of the laboratory compaction computations. The reader is referred to Das (2002)
for experimental details of these tests. 1.6.5.1 Laboratory Compaction Durin la
boratory compaction tests, a sample from the foundation soil is compacted at dif
ferent water contents usin the standard compaction equipment shown in Fiure 1.
22. The weiht of the compacted soil fillin the standard mold and its water con
tent are
FIGURE 1.22 Laboratory soil compaction equipment. (Courtesy of the University of

South Florida.)
Pae 28
FIGURE 1.23 Laboratory compaction plot for Example 1.6.
recorded in each trial as shown in Table 1.9. Then, the laboratory compaction cu
rve is plotted based on these data as indicated in Fiure 1.23. Example 1.6 Plot
the compaction curve for the data provided in the first two columns of Table 1.
9 for a standard Proctor compaction test and determine the maximum dry unit wei
ht achievable under standard compaction conditions and the correspondin optimum
water content. Note: The volume of the standard compaction mold (Fiure 1.22) i
s 940 cc. Solution Table 1.9 also shows the computational procedure used to obta
in the bulk unit weiht and the dry unit weiht for each trial based on Equation
s (1.20a) and (1.22). Fiure 1.23 illustrates the plot of dry unit weiht of the
compacted soil versus the water content. It can be seen from Fiure 1.23 that (
i) the maximum dry unit weiht=17.1 kN/m3 (ii) optimum water content=10%
TABLE 1.9 Data for Example 1.6
Mass of Compacted Soil and Mold ()
5873 6012 6001 6046
Compacted Water Content (%)
4.48 10.18 15.99 20.33
Unit Weiht (kN/m3), Equation (1.20a)
17.383 18.840 18.722 19.193
Dry Unit Unit Weiht (kN/m3) Weiht for 100% (kN/m3), Saturation, Equation Equat
ion (1.22) (1.24)
16.637 17.100 16.142 15.951 23.214 20.452 18.241 16.877
Pae 29 It is also quite common to plot the 100% deree of saturation line on th
e same plot (Table 1.9, column 5). Based on the above laboratory results, the sp
ecifications for field compaction of the particular soil can be set as follows.
The compacted dry unit weiht in the field must be at least 98% of the laborator
y maximum dry unit weiht (i.e., 17.1 kN/m3). The field water content must be wi
thin 2% of the optimum water content found in the laboratory (i.e., between 8 an
d 12%). 1.6.5.2 Evaluation of Field Compaction Unit weihts of compacted in situ
soils and newly laid embankments can be evaluated usin many methods. The most
common ones are: (1) the sandcone test, (2) the rubber balloon test, and (3) th
e nuclear ae method. Experimental details of the first two methods are found i
n Holtz and Kovacs (1981) while use of the nuclear ae is described in detail i
n Wray (1986). In this chapter, a numerical example illustratin the sandcone t
est procedure is presented. The equipment used in the sandcone test is shown in
Fiure 1.24. Example 1.7 Estimate the field dry unit weiht of a iven embankme
nt fill based on the sandcone test readins provided below. For the benefit of
the reader, the recorded data are italicized to differentiate them from the comp
utations. Solution Step 1. Determination of density of sand in the laboratory A
uniformly raded sand (typically Ottawa sand), which is not very sensitive to co
mpaction, is used for the calibration. Hence, the density of this sand, which is
assumed to be invariant, can be first established based on measurements made wi
th a mold of a known volume (e.., standard compaction mold of volume 940 cc). D
iameter of mold=10.13cm Heiht of mold=11.65cm Mass of mold and sand=5602 Mass
of empty mold=4252
FIGURE 1.24
Equipment for sandcone test. (Courtesy of the University of South Florida.)
Pae 30 Volume of mold=938.94cm3 Mass of sand in mold=1350 Density of sand=1.4

378 /cm3=1437.8 k/m 3 Step 2. Determination of mass of sand to fill cone The n
ext step is to determine the volume of the cone (Fiure 1.24) by fillin it with
the calibrated sand (Ottawa sand): Mass of jar and cone before fillin the cone
=3516 Mass of jar, cone, and sand after fillin the cone=1934 Mass of sand f
illin the cone=1582 Step 3. In place measurements Then, the sandcone apparat
us is placed on a previously du hole in the field compacted layer and Ottawa sa
nd is poured in ently until it completely fills the hole. On the other hand, th
e in situ soil removed from the hole is collected into a pan and weihed. The vo
lume of the hole created by the removal of soil is estimated by knowin the amou
nt of calibrated sand required to fill the hole and the cone: Mass of jar and sa
nd before use=6538 Mass of jar and sand after use=4325 Mass of collected soi
l=870 Mass of sand in hole+cone=2213 Mass of sand in hole=2213 1582=631 Volum
e of sand in hole=631 /1.4378=438.9cm3 From Equation (1.20a), Bulk density of s
oil=870/438.9=1.9824 /cm3 =1982.4 k/m3 Step 4. In place moisture content measu
rements Finally, a simple water content test is performed for the soil fill as i
ndicated in Table 1.10. Averae moisture content=1/3 (6.16%+4.52%+6.13%)=5.6% Ba
sed on Equation (1.22), Dry density=1982.4/1.056=1877 k/m3 3 Dry unit weiht=18
77(9.8)/10 =18.39 kN/m3
TABLE 1.10 Water Content for Example 1.7
Trial 1
Mass of container+wet soil () Mass of container+dry soil () 146.54 144.63
Trial 2
142.52 140.89
Trial 3
147.32 144.83
Mass of container ()

113.65
104.89
104.18
Pae 31
1.7 Finite Element Concepts Used in Modelin of Earthen Structures
1.7.1 Finite Element Approach
The finite element method (FEM) is widely used to model the loaddeformation beh
avior of foundations, piles, retainin walls, and other earthen structures and d
erive important parameters relatin to their desin. With the availability of so
phisticated and efficient computational facilities, finite element analysis can
facilitate effective desin criteria, even on a casebycase basis, with the aid
of parametric studies that involve desin parameters relevant to each case. It
is particularly attractive for situations that involve the desin of irreular a
nd relatively complex earthen structures. The basic philosophy involved in model
in an earthen structure with the FEM can be summarized by the followin basic p
rinciples that form the framework of FEM formulation: 1. Satisfy the force equil
ibrium of each finite soil or structural element. 2. Satisfy the deformation com
patibility at nodal points of each finite element considered. 3. Incorporate an
appropriate stressstrain behavior model for each soil or structural material th
at composes the structure. The mathematical techniques used to achieve the above
mentioned tasks will be summarized later in this chapter. However, because of i
ts very nature, finite element solutions also suffer from all drawbacks characte
ristic of numerical approximations. Based on the above discussion one realizes t
hat the two most important steps that require the special attention of the analy
st are: 1. Discretization of the soilstructure influence zone into finite soil
or structural elements that could capture all of the load, deformation, eometri
c, and boundary effects that determine the overall behavior of the particular ea
rthen structure under the iven loadin conditions. 2. Selection of the appropri
ate constitutive models that would describe, as accurately as possible, the stre
ssstrain behavior of different soil and structural materials that make up the e
arthen structure bein analyzed.
1.7.2 Finite Element Formulation
The first step involved in the formulation is the determination of the type of e
lement to be used in modelin. Then, the strain field at any point on the select
ed soil (or structural) element must be expressed in terms of the nodal deflecti
ons. Analysts have employed a variety of different elements such as linear trian
ular elements, bilinear quadrilateral elements, trilinear hexahedral elements d
ependin on their applicability to model different situations (Huhes, 1987). Th
e use of isoparametric quadrilateral elements has been common in eotechnical mo
delin because they can be desined to take on convenient shapes, such as curved
boundaries, often encountered in eotechnical problems. Standard nodal shape fu
nctions (N) for many elements are available in the literature (Zienkiewich, 1977
; Huhes, 1987). The sinificance of the nodal shape function of a quadrilateral
element, Nj , where j (j = 1 to 4) denotes the local node number, is that the c
oordinates, displacement, velocity, or
Pae 32 the acceleration of any point within a iven soil (or structural) elemen
t can be expressed in terms of correspondin nodal values usin the shape functi
ons as follows: (1.26) where N j( , ) is te sape function for te local node j i
n te local isoparametric coordinates is te time variation of any pysical quan
tity i (coordinates, displacement, velocity, or acceleration) of te nodal point
j, and ui(t) is te time variation of te corresponding pysical quantity i at
any oter point witin te element. An eample of sape functions for isoparamet
ric bilinear quadrilateral elements is provided below: (1.27a)
(1.27b)
(1.27c)
(1.27d) It is realized tat if one is only concerned wit te static beavior of
te earten structure, ten te time variation need not be considered and te m
odeling problem becomes far less complicated. Ten, te quantity u will only rep
resent te displacement of te points (or te nodes) of interest. Te strain fie
ld ( ) at any location can b xprssd in trms of th diffrntial form of th
displacmnt fild (u) of that point as (1.28) Following ar som xampls of st
rain-displacmnt matrics [B] . For 2D (plan strss or plan strain) situation
s (.g., rtaining wall and dams) that involv two displacmnts (u and ) and th
ree strains ( x, y, xy), (1.29) For 3D axisymmetric sit ations (e.., axial loadi
n of piles), which can be described by only two displacements ( and w) and thr
ee strains ( , r, z, rz ),
(1.30)
On th othr hand, strain componnts can b rlatd to th corrsponding strss
s using th constitutiv rlations matrix as follows:
Pag 33
(1.31) For 2D (plan strss or plan strain) situations, (1.32) For 3D axisymmt
ric situations, (1.33) In th cas of structural lmnts that xhibit lastic b
havior, th [D] matrix can b xprssd as follows for plan strain conditions:
(1.34) whr E and v ar th lastic modulus and th Poisson ratio of th lm
nt matrial, rspctivly. Similarly, th incrmntal form of E
uation (1.31) ca
n b usd to modl th nonlinar lastic bhavior that is prdominantly xhibit
d by soils at low strss lvls as follows: [ ]=[D] [ ] (1.35)
(1.36) whr E t and v t ar th rspctiv instantanous (tangntial) lastic m
odulus and th Poisson ratio applicabl to th currnt strss lvl. Howvr, it
is th yilding of soils that govrns th bhavior of soils in most loading cas
s. Thrfor, som soil constitutiv rlations that ar commonly usd to modl
th yilding (plastic) bhavior of soil ar discussd sparatly in Sction 1.8.
By combining E
uations (1.31) and (1.28), th strss vctor can b xprssd in
trms of th displacmnt as (1.37)
1.7.3 E
uilibrium and Compatibility Conditions
Whn th FEM is usd to solv gomchanics problms undr static or dynamic cond
itions, on must satisfy th forc
uilibrium
uations or th
uations of mot
ion, rspctivly, for both soil sklton and por watr phass. On th othr ha
nd, undr transint conditions, th
uations of motion must b satisfid invari
ably for both soil sklton and por watr phass of any gnral foundation syst
m. In addition, th volumtric compatibility btwn th por watr and th soi
l sklton must b assurd as wll. Thrfor, th
uations of
uilibrium (or
motion) can b combind with thos of volumtric compatibility btwn th por
watr and th soil sklton. As an xampl, in th cas of axisymmtric problms
, th rsulting
uation can b xprssd for any givn point in th radial (r)
dirction as (Zinkiwich t al., 1977)
Pag 34
(1.38) whr is th displacmnt of a point in th r dirction, v is th avrag
volumtric strain in th lmnt, k is th cofficint of prmability assumd
to b th sam in all dirctions (isotropic condition), p is th por watr prs
sur, ), n m i the mean normal tre (= r+ z + is the porosity of the soil skelet
on (=void ratio/[1+void ratio]) (Section 1.6), Ks is the compressibility of the
solid rains, and Kw is the compressibility of water. Similar e
ations can be w
ritten in the other directions (i.e., z and ) as well. Then, by sin the standa
rd Galerkin method (Zienkiewich, 1977), E
ation (1.38) for a sinle point can b
e eneralized for an entire isoparametric finite element in the followin inter
al form: (1.39) where (1.40) where N i are defined by E
ation (1.27) and V is t
he vol me of the finite element. Finally, by applyin the standard finite elemen
t proced re and s mmin p E
ation (1.39) over m n mber of elements coverin th
e entire domain that is modeled, the followin stiffness relationship can be der
ived (Zienkiewich, 1977): (1.41) where V n is the vol me of the nth finite eleme
nt, bn is the bo ndary of nth finite element, and t is the traction (force per
nit lenth) alon the bo ndary of the nth element. It is also seen how E
ation
(1.31) has been sed in s bstit tin for [ ] in Equation (1.39). Equation (1.41)
i uually integrated within each element uing the Gau quadrature method. The
integration point ued in the 22 Gau quadrature technique are indicatedin Fig
ure 1.25. After the integration operation and mathematical manipulation, Equatio
n (1.41) can be expreed in term of the nodal force vector [F] and diplacemen
t vector [ ] an arrange in a format similar to Equation (1.42). Then the corres
poning stiffness matrix, [K], of the founation structure can be obtaine by co
mparison with Equation (1.42): [F]=[K] [ ] (1.42) When the stiffness matrix, [K],
of the founation structure is available, one can use a linear algebraic soluti
on scheme to solve for the unknown eflections an forces (such as reactions) wi
th the known bounary conitions (eflections an forces). The solution techniqu
e is illustrate in Section 8.3.2.1.
Page 35
FIGURE 1.25 Illustration of an isoparametric finite element an integration poin
ts.
1.8 Common Methos of Moeling the Yieling Behaviour of Soils
Analytical solutions to founation engineering problems, irrespective of whether
they are numerical or eterministic in their approach, must incorporate criteri
a for moeling the stressstrain behavior of founation material as accurately as
possible. Most geomaterials exhibit nonlinear elastic properties at low stress
levels, an therefore elastic methos escribe in Section 1.5, such as the Schm
ertmann metho, woul provie reasonable estimates of settlements at relatively
low stress levels only. However, when relatively large loas are applie on a fo
unation, the founation soils generally start to yiel uner these loas prouc
ing irrecoverable eformation. For instance, it was shown in Section 1.5 that lo
w permeability soils like clay an silt exhibit time-epenent irrecoverable con
soliation, which cannot be moele using the elastic or the incremental elastic
theory. Furthermore, excessive settlements unergone by uncompacte coarse-grai
ne soils like loose an meium ense san an gravel cannot be analytically pre
icte satisfactorily using the elastic or the incremental elastic theory alone.
In aition, if the analyst is equippe with a comprehensive stress-strain theo
ry that coul moel the complete behavior of a loae earthen structure from ini
tial small eformation stages through large eformation yieling to ultimate fai
lure, the analyst woul be able to extract vital esign parameters that woul be
useful in the esign of that earthen structure not only to satisfy strength lim
its but also the esire serviceability limits. Hence, founation engineers have
to employ sophisticate constitutive (stress-strain) moels that can moel eart
hen structures, analytically or numerically. Two such popular moels, (1) moifi
e Camclay moel for clays an (2) cap moel that is typically use for granular
soils, will be iscusse in the subsequent sections. However, the effective app
lication of any constitutive moel to preict the behavior of an earthen structu
re accurately epens on the fulfillment of the following experimental tasks: 1.
Appropriate laboratory testing to etermine the specific material parameters ne
ee to execute the theoretical moel. 2. Fiel pilot testing base on scale mo
els or prototypes themselves to verify the analytical or numerical preictions f
or actual fiel applications, an perhaps to further calibrate the analytical mo
el.
Page 36
1.8.1 Moifie Cam-Clay Moel
The moifie Cam-clay moel is base on research performe by Roscoe an Burlan
(1968). It has been applie successfully in many fiel applications involving
eformation of soft clays. In this theory, the isotropic consoliation behavior o
f clays is approximate by the following relationships. 1.8.1.1 Isotropic Consol
iation of Clays The following terminology applies to Figure 1.26. The mean norm
al effective stress, p, is efine by (1.43) where an are the major an minor p
rincipal effective stresses, respectively. It is seen that uner laboratory tria
xial conitions (Section 1.4), the above stresses correspon, respectively, to a
xial an cell pressures. The specific volume is efine as 1+voi ratio or 1+e.
Then, the stanar equation of the normal consoliation line is =N n (p) (1.44)
Simiary, the standard equation of any recompression ine (RCL) is = n (p) (1.4
5) where N, , and are mode parameters that can be obtained from aboratory isot
ropic consoidation tests performed using the triaxia ce. During isotropic co
nsoidations tests, the cay sampe is compressed in 3D conditions as compared t
o conventiona 1D tests. Figure 1.26 aso shows that there are an infinite numbe
r of RCLs that form a famiy of RCLs for different vaues. Figure 1.26 aso shows
how can be reated to the over-consoidation ratio (OCR) that is characteristic
of each RCL. OCR is defined as the
FIGURE 1.26 Isotropic consoidation parameters for the modified Cam-cay mode.
Page 37 ratio of the maximum past effective pressure ( pc in Figure 1.26) to the
current effective pressure as =N ( ) n [(OCR)p0] (1.46) or ( ) n [pc] =N
It is important to realize that the deformation behavior of overly consolidated
(OC) clay samples within a iven RCL is elastic in nat re. However, plastic def
ormations occ r if the stress path correspondin to a specific loadin sit ation
displaces the stressvol me state of an OC sample onto a different RCL. 1.8.1.2
Critical State of Deformation of Clay Shear strenth testin of clays nder tri
axial (Section 1.4) or direct shear conditions shows that the ltimate fail re o
cc rs at a critical state where excessive shear deformation occ rs with no f rth
er chane in the stress conditions, i.e., shear or mean normal effective stress.
This final state reached is a ni
e state for a iven clay type independent of
the initial consolidation state of the clay sample, i.e., normally consolidated
(NC) or OC, and the drainae condition that exists d rin shearin, i.e., drain
ed (CD) or ndrained (CU). If the shear stress is defined by the followin expre
ssion: (1.48) then the critical state line can be depicted on a
p plot as in Fi
re 1.27. The e
ation of the CSL can be expressed as
=Mp (1.49) where M is an
other modified Camclay model parameter that can be obtained from any triaxial t
est performed on a sample from that clay. In order to better vis alize the rad
al deformation of a field clay sample startin nder K0 conditions (Fi re 1.27)
ntil it ltimately reaches the critical state line and fails, its combined str
ess and vol metric strain path can be plotted on a 3D
p plot shown in Fi re 1.2
8. Fi re 1.28 also shows that the stress and vol metric deformation states of c
lays are bo nd by a convex s rface known as the state bo ndary s rface (SBS) and
a
FIGURE 1.27 Ill stration of the critical state line and the field stress state o
f a clay layer.
Pae 38
FIGURE 1.28 Three dimensional representation of the deformation of clay p to fa
il re.
r led Hvorslev s rface, on both of which yieldin can take place. The CSL define
s the bo ndary of the above two s rfaces. Therefore, CSL is, in fact, a line in
3D space whose correspondin
p projection is shown in Fi re 1.27. The e
ation
of the CSL projection on p is iven by (Fi re 1.27) =N ( ) n 2 n(p) (1.50)
efore, in 3D space, the CSL is a ine represented by Equations (1.49) and (1.50)
. On the other hand, the equation of the Hovrsev surface (Figure 1.28) can be e
xpressed as foows:
( ) n 2 / ] q=(M h)e[N +hp
(1.51) where h, which defines the slope of the Hvorslev s rface on the
p plane,
is another material constant that can be determined from triaxial tests. F rthe
rmore, the e
ation of the SBS (Fi re 1.28) can be expressed as (1.52) The foll
owin observations are made based on Fi re 1.28: 1. Stress states of NC clays p
lot on the state bo ndary s rface. 2. Under ndrained shearin, NC clays start f
rom K0 conditions on SBS and exhibit strain hardenin behavior (path 1 in Fi re
1.29) ntil fail re on the CSL. 3. Under ndrained shearin, slihtly OC clays
start from K0 conditions immediately inside the SBS and exhibit strain hardenin
behavior (path 2 in Fi re 1.29) p to the SBS and s bse
ently strain hardens
f rther ntil it reaches fail re on the CSL.
4. Under ndrained shearin, hihly OC clays start from K0 conditions well insid
e the SBS and exhibit strain hardenin behavior (path 3 in Fi re 1.29) p to th
e Hvorslev s rface and s bse
ently strain hardens f rther ntil fail re is reac
hed on the CSL.
Pae 39 5. Under shearin, OC samples exhibit elastic behavior ntil they approa
ch either the SBS or the Hovrslev s rface dependin on the overconsolidation ra
tio. Therefore, d rin ndrained shearin with the specific vol me remainin con
stant, the only way in which they can retain their elastic properties witho t mo
vin onto a different RCL is to retain the same mean effective stress, p. Hence
ndrained stress paths of OC clays remain vertical ntil they approach either th
e SBS or the Hovrslev s rface (Fi re 1.29). This disc ssion ill strates that th
e SBS and Hovrslev s rfaces can be considered as yield s rfaces in the st dy of
plastic behavior of clays. 1.8.1.3 StressStrain Relations for Yieldin Clays Th
e normality condition or the associated flow r le in plastic theory states that
the plastic flow vector (for 2D yield s rfaces) is normal to the yield s rface a
t the stress point correspondin to any stress state. By ass min the normality
condition, Roscoe and B rland (1968) derived the followin plastic stressstrain
relationship for clay yieldin on the SBS: (1.53) where =q/p represents te cur
rent stress state on te SBS. Equation (1.53) amply illustrates te sear-volume
coupling penomenon or te occurrence of volumetric strains due to searing str
esses. Tis is particularly noticeable in te case of granular material, suc as
medium dense and dense sands, for wic more applicable stress-strain models ar
e discussed in te Sections 1.8.2 and 1.8.3. Te usefulness of relationsips suc
as Equation (1.53) is tat tey can be used conveniently in te [D] matri of
te finite element formulation (Section 1.7) providing a convenient mecanism to
incorporate plastic deformation in finite element modeling of foundation proble
ms. Table 1.11 sows te model parameters tat must be evaluated for calibration
of te modified Cam-clay model and te appropriate laboratory tests tat can be
used for te evaluation.
1.8.2 Cap Model
Te cap model, more appropriately considered as a collection of many models, is
based on concepts introduced by Drucker et al. (1957) and furter developed by D
iMaggio and Sandler (1971). Tis model as been used to represent bot ig-pres
sure and
FIGURE 1.29 Undrained stress pats of field clay samples.
Page 40
TABLE 1.11 Evaluation of Modified Cam-Clay Model Parameters
Model Parameter
M N K h
Laboratory Test
Triaxia (CU or CD) Isotropic consoidation Isotropic consoidation Isotropic co
nsoidation Triaxia (CU)
Type of Sampe
NC or OC NC NC OC OC
ow-pressure mechanica behaviors of many geoogic materias, incuding sand, c
ay, and roc . As shown in Figure 1.30 and mathematicay represented in Equation
s (1.56)(1.63), the cap mode consists of a strain hardening eiptica cap and a
n eastic perfecty pastic Druc erPrager faiure surface potted on a p (mean n
orma effective stress) versus q (deviator stress) pot. Athough the p versus q
pot in Figure 1.30 is adequate to represent triaxia stress states, the genera
ized cap mode is potted with I1 versus I1 and J 2 are the first invariant of
the stress tensor (Equation (1.54)) and the second invariant of the deviatoric s
tress tensor (Equation (1.55)), respectivey: I1= x + y+ z (1.54)
(1.55) where and repreent the normal and hear tree on the x, y, and z plan
e. Then, for triaxial (axiymmetric) tre tate, from Equation (1.54) and (
1.55), it i een that I1=3p and In the cap model, the oil i aumed to be lin
ear elatic inide the yield urface while on the yield urface it i aumed to
deform platically baed on an aociative flow rule a in the cae of the Cam
clay model dicued in Section 1.8.1. The cap model ha widepread ue a a con
titutive model in many finite element computational methodologie that are ued
in earthen tructure deign. Thi i primarily becaue the preence of the tra
in hardening cap provide a facility to model the hearinduced dilatancy behavi
or of overconolidated clay and dene and and imilarly the hearinduced co
mpreion behavior of normally conolidated clay and looe and.
FIGURE 1.30 Illutration of the cap model.
Page 41 The mathematical repreentation of the cap model i decribed below: Dru
cker and Prager failure urface 3 p+q k=0 (1.56) Von Mises filure surfce q xn/ R=
0 (1.57) Ellipticl hrdening cps Lrge cp (3p ln)2+R2q2 (X n ln )2=0 (1.58) Sm
ll cp (1.59) Tension cutoff 3p T=0 (1.60) where (1.61)
(1.62)
(1.63) D, W, nd R re soil prmeters, nd (1.64)
It is noted tht the plstic volumetric strin is ccumulted only if the stress
(p) nd strin increments re both compressive. The prmeter l n is limited to
negtive vlues to void development of tension. For positive ln vlues, modi
fied smll cp is ssumed in the tensile stress rnge together with the Von Mise
s filure surfce s shown in Figure 1.30. If the mximum tensile stress tht th
e soil cn tke, T, is known, then tension cutoff cn lso be introduced s seen
in Figure 1.30. The bove reltionships cn be used to express the plsti c nor
ml nd sher strins p and in trms of th strss incrmnts p and q and form t
he orresponding [D] matrix in a q relevant finite element formulation (Setion
1.7) as in the ase of the Camlay model (Equation (1.53)). The main advantage
of using suh stressstrain models in finite element modeling of foundations is
that they provide a onvenient mehanism to inlude the plasti deformation of s
oils in design onsiderations enabling the formulation of more realisti and eo
nomi design methodologies. Table 1.12 shows the model parameters that must be e
valuated for alibration of the ap model and the appropriate laboratory tests t
hat an be used for the evaluation.
Page 42
TABLE 1.12 Evaluation of Cap Model Parameters
Model Parameter
D a K R W T
Laboratory Test
Isotropi onsolidation Triaxial (CU or CD) Triaxial (CU or CD) Triaxial (CU) Is
otropi onsolidation Triaxial extension
Type of Soil
NC lay, loose sand NC lay, loose sand NC lay, loose sand OC/NC lay, loose/de
nse sand NC lay, loose sand OC lay, dense sand
1.8.3 Nonlinear Elasti StressStrain Relations
Another stressstrain relationship popularly used to model foundation soils in f
inite element formulations is the nonlinear elasti shear stressshear strain mo
del developed by Hardin and Drnevih (1972). This an be mathematially expresse
d by Equation (1.65) and plotted on a stressstrain plot as shown in Figure 1.31
: (1.65) where Gmax and are the initial shear modulus and the maximum shear stre
ss, respetively, as shown in Figure 1.31. It an be seen from Figure 1.31 that
the shear modulus dereases in magnitude with inreasing shear and Gmax an also
be interpreted as the shear modulus under very low strain levels. Equation (1.6
5) is of speial signifiane when the response of soils is analyzed under dynam
i loading onditions. 1.8.3.1 Evaluation of Nonlinear Elasti Parameters The no
nlinear elasti stressstrain parameters Gmax and an be determined from diret
shear and simple shear tests under stati loading onditions and yli simple s
hear tests under dynami loading onditions. While an be evaluated using the Mo
hrCoulomb riterion as presented in Equation (1.6), (1.6)
FIGURE 1.31 Nonlinear elasti relationship.
Page 43 Analytial expressions are also available for evaluating Gmax. For examp
le, Gmax for sandy soils an be expressed by the following expression: (1.66) wh
ere is the mean (otahedral) normal stress (Equation (1.9)) and e is the void ra
tio. When Gmax and are measured in kPa, the values of A and B are as follows: Fo
r roundgrained sands, A=6908 and B=2.17 For angulargrained sands, A=3230 and B
=2.97 On the other hand, in the ase of lays, the following modified form of Eq
uation (1.66), presented by Hardin and Drnevih (1972), an be used to evaluate
Gmax from basi index and onsolidation properties as well as the stress state:
(1.67) where both Gmax and 0 are expreed in kPa and OCR i the overconolidat
ion ratio. Furthermore, A =3230, B =2.97 K=0.4+0.007(PI) for 0<PI<40 K=0.68+0.00
1(PI 40) for 40<PI<80 when PI i the platicity index (Section 1.2.2). 1.8.3.2 Ev
aluation of Gmax from Standard Penetration Tet Seed (1986) preented the follo
wing correlation between Gmax and the SPT blow count: (1.68) where both Gmax and
0 are expreed in kPa. N60 i the SPT blow count obtained with a tet etup th
at deliver 60% of the theoretical freefall energy of the hammer to the drill r
od.
1.8.4 Concept of Stre Dilatancy Theory for Granular Soil
In contrat to the popular approach to tretrain relation for oil aumin
g a linear elatic (Section 1.5), nonlinear elatic (Section 1.8.3), and elato
platic (Section 1.8.1 and 1.8.2) continua, particulate mechanic ha alo been
ued to explain the behavior of oil, epecially in the cae of and. Stre
dilatancy theory (Rowe, 1963) i a reult of the reearch conducted toward under
tanding the deformation of oil a dicrete particulate matter. The following
aumption form the framework of thi theory: 1. During deformation particle t
end to lide much more frequently than rolling.
2. The individual particle are rigid and cannot contribute an elatic component
toward deformation. 3. Intant liding i confined to ome preferred angle. The
following expreion can be ued to decribe the tretrain relationhip at
a given tre level:
Page 44
FIGURE 1.32 Shear dilatation of granular oil.
(1.69) where i the angle of friction under large hear train (reidual fricti
on) where hearing would occur under contant volume. The principal tre ratio
under triaxial condition, can be related to the developed angle of friction a
(1.70) and the rate of volume change at a contant confining preure with rep
ect to hear train, dv /d , can be expressed in terms of the dilation anle, ,
as (1.71) Inspection of E
ation (1.69) shows that when shearin occ rs in ran
lar soils witho t any vol metric strains ( =0), then On the other hand, accordin
to this theory, in the case of dense or medi m dense sands, shear fail re wo l
d occ r at maxim m dilation conditions (Fi re 1.32). Under those conditions, th
e developed anle of friction will be e
al to the anle of interparticle fricti
on, or This condition will also correspond to the occ rrence of the maxim m prin
cipal stress ratio, E
ation (1.69) can also be rearraned to derive the [D] mat
rix of the finite element form lation (Section 1.7) and provides a mechanism to
incorporate plastic deformation of ran lar soils in finite element modelin of
fo ndation problems.
References
Bishop, A.W. and Bliht, G.E., 1963, Some aspects of effective stress in sat rat
ed and partly sat rated soils, Gotechni
e, 13(3):177197. Bowles, J.E., 1986, Eni
neerin Properties of Soils and their Meas rements, McGrawHill, New York.
Pae 45
Bowles, J.E., 2002, Fo ndation Analysis and Desin, McGrawHill, New York. Das,
B.M., 2002, Soil Mechanics Laboratory Man al, Oxford University Press, New York.
DiMaio, F.L. and Sandler, I.S., 1971, Material models for ran lar soils, Jo
rnal of the Enineerin Mechanics Division, ASCE, 97 (EM3): 935950. Dr cker, D.C.
, Gibson, R.E., and Henkel, D.J., 1957, Soil mechanics and workhardenin theori
es of plasticity, Transactions of the ASCE, 122:338346. Goodman, R.E., 1989, Intr
od ction to Rock Mechanics, John Wiley, New York. Hardin, B.O. and Drnevich, V.P
., 1972, Shear mod l s and dampin in soils; desin e
ations and c rves, Jo rna
l of the Soil Mechanics and Fo ndations Division, ASCE , 98(SM7):667692. Harr, M.
, 1962. Gro ndwater and Seepae, McGrawHill, New York. Chapter 13 Holtz, R.D. a
nd Kovacs, W.D., 1981, An Introd ction to Geotechnical Enineerin, Prentice Hal
l, Enlewood Cliffs, NJ. H hes, T.J.R., 1987, The Finite Element Method, Prenti
ce Hall, Enlewood Cliffs, NJ. Roscoe, K.H. and B rland, J.B., 1968, On the Gene
ralized StressStrain Behavior of Wet Clay, Enineerin Plasticity, Cambride Un
iversity Press, Cambride. Rowe, P.W., 1963, The stress dilatancy relation for s
tatic e
ilibri m of an assembly of particles in contact, Proceedins of the Roy
al Society of Soil Mechanics and fo ndation Enineers. Schmertmann, J.H. and Har
tman, J.P., 1978, Improved strain infl ence factor diarams. Jo rnal of the Geot
echnical Enineerin Division, American Society of Civil Enineers, 104(GT8):113
11135. Schofield, A.N. and Wroth, C.P., 1968, Critical State Soil Mechanics, McGr
awHill, New York. Seed, H.B., Won, R.T., Idriss, I.M., and Tokimats , K., 1986
, Mod li and dampin factors for dynamic analysis of cohesive soils, Jo rnal of
Geotechnical Enineerin, ASCE, 112(GT 11): 10161032. Wray, W., 1986, Meas rin E
nineerin Properties of Soils, Prentice Hall, Enlewood Cliffs, NJ. Zienkiewich
, O.C., H mpheson, C., and Lewis, R.W., 1977, A nified approach to soil mechani
cs problems (incl din plasticity and viscoplasticity) In Finite Element in Geo
mechanics, G deh s, D., ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Pae 46
This pae intentionally left blank.
Pae 47
2 In Sit Soil Testin
Gray M llins CONTENTS 2.1 Introd ction to S bs rface Exploration 2.1.1 Prelimina
ry Site Exploration 2.1.2 Site Exploration Plan 2.1.2.1 Soil Borin 2.2 Need for
In Sit Testin 2.2.1 Sample Dist rbance 2.3 Geophysical Testin Methods 2.3.1
Gro nd Penetratin Radar 2.3.2 Resistivity Tests 2.3.2.1 Seismic Refraction 2.4
Physical Samplin and Penetration Tests 2.4.1 Standard Penetration Test 2.4.1.1
SPT Correlations with Shear Strenth Properties 2.4.1.2 Efficiency of Standard P
enetration Testin 2.4.2 In Sit Rock Testin 2.4.2.1 Timed Drillin 2.4.2.2 Cor
in Methods 2.4.2.3 In Sit Rock Strenth Tests 2.5 Cone Penetration Test 2.5.1
Cone Penetration Testin with Pore Press re Meas rements (Piezocone) 2.6 The Fie
ld Vane Shear Test 2.7 The Press remeter Test 2.8 The Dilatometer Test 2.8.1 Mea
s rement Proced re 2.8.2 Determination of Fo ndation Desin Parameters 2.9 Calif
ornia Bearin Ratio Test 48 48 49 49 53 53 54 54 57 58 59 59 59 62 65 65 65 67 6
9 73 75 75 79 80 81 82
2.10 Borehole Shear Test 2.10.1 Test Proced re References

84 84 86
Pae 47
2 In Sit Soil Testin
Gray M llins CONTENTS 2.1 Introd ction to S bs rface Exploration 2.1.1 Prelimina
ry Site Exploration 2.1.2 Site Exploration Plan 2.1.2.1 Soil Borin 2.2 Need for
In Sit Testin 2.2.1 Sample Dist rbance 2.3 Geophysical Testin Methods 2.3.1
Gro nd Penetratin Radar 2.3.2 Resistivity Tests 2.3.2.1 Seismic Refraction 2.4
Physical Samplin and Penetration Tests 2.4.1 Standard Penetration Test 2.4.1.1
SPT Correlations with Shear Strenth Properties 2.4.1.2 Efficiency of Standard P
enetration Testin 2.4.2 In Sit Rock Testin 2.4.2.1 Timed Drillin 2.4.2.2 Cor
in Methods 2.4.2.3 In Sit Rock Strenth Tests 2.5 Cone Penetration Test 2.5.1
Cone Penetration Testin with Pore Press re Meas rements (Piezocone) 2.6 The Fie
ld Vane Shear Test 2.7 The Press remeter Test 2.8 The Dilatometer Test 2.8.1 Mea
s rement Proced re 2.8.2 Determination of Fo ndation Desin Parameters 2.9 Calif
ornia Bearin Ratio Test 48 48 49 49 53 53 54 54 57 58 59 59 59 62 65 65 65 67 6
9 73 75 75 79 80 81 82
2.10 Borehole Shear Test 2.10.1 Test Proced re References

84 84 86
Pae 48
2.1 Introd ction to S bs rface Exploration
2.1.1 Preliminary Site Exploration
The desiner of a s perstr ct re fo ndation m st invariably perform a detailed
s rface and s bs rface (soil) exploration of the potential site prior to decidin
on the nat re and type of the fo ndation. The s bs rface investiation proram
for a iven site sho ld acco nt for the type, size, and importance of the propo
sed str ct re. These parameters help foc s the desin of the site exploration pr
oram by determinin the
antity and depth of soil so ndins (or borins) re
i
red. Plannin for a site investiation sho ld also incl de the location of nder
ro nd tilities (i.e., phone, power, as, etc.). As s ch, a local call before yo
di service sho ld be notified several days prior to the anticipated investiat
ion. These services are s ally s bsidized by the vario s local tilities and ha
ve no associated cost. S bs rface exploration and testin specifically serve the
followin p rposes (FHWA, 1998): 1. Aid in the preliminary selection of s bstr
ct re types that are viable for a partic lar site and the type of s perstr ct re
to be s pported. 2. Provide a basis for selectin soil and rock properties need
ed for s bstr ct re desin. 3. Identify special s bstr ct re conditions re
irin
special provisions to s pplement standard constr ction specifications. For mos
t projects, the followin types of s bs rface information are needed for the sel
ection, desin, and constr ction of s bstr ct res: 1. Definition of soilrock st
rat m bo ndaries 2. Variation of ro ndwater table 3. Location of ade
ate fo nd
ationbearin layers 4. Manit de of str ct re settlement and heave 5. Dewaterin
re
irements d rin constr ction 6. Potential problems incl din b ildin crac
ks, slope instability, etc. 7. Constr ction access In developin site exploratio
n prorams, the eotechnical enineer sho ld
alitatively assess the effects of
variables s ch as the expected type and importance of the str ct re, manit de
and rate of loadin, and fo ndation alternatives with respect to technical, econ
omic, and constr ctability considerations (FHWA, 1998). An exha stive s bs rface
exploration can be separated into two distinct phases: (1) preliminary investi
ation and (2) detailed investiation. In the preliminary investiation, one wo l
d attempt to obtain as m ch val able information abo t the site as possible with
least expense. In this respect, a wealth of sef l information can be collected
sin the followin so rces: 1. Toporaphic maps: landforms, ro nd slopes and
shapes, and stream locations 2. Aerial photoraphs: landforms, soil types, rock
str ct re, and stream types 3. U.S. Department of Aric lt re (USDA) Aronomy so
il maps: landforms and soil descriptions close to the ro nd s rface
Pae 49 4. Well drillin los: identification of soil and rock as well as ro nd
water levels at the time 5. Existin borin los 6. Local department of transpor
tation (DOT) soil man als 7. Local U.S. Geoloical S rvey (USGS) soil maps 8. Lo
cal U.S. Army Corps of Enineers hydroloical data 9. Local niversity research
p blications In addition to screenin of possible sites based on information fro
m doc mentation of previo s st dies, a thoro h site visit can provide vital inf
ormation reardin the soil and ro ndwater conditions at a tentative site, lead
in to more efficient selection of fo ndation depth and type as well as other co
nstr ction details. Hence, a site inspection can certainly aid in economizin th
e time and cost involved in fo ndation constr ction projects. D rin site visits
(or reconnaissance s rveys) one can observe s ch site details as toporaphy, ac
cessibility, ro ndwater conditions, and nearby str ct res (especially in the ca
se of expected pile drivin or dynamic ro nd modification). Firsthand inspectio
n of the performance of existin b ildins can also add to this information. A p
reliminary investiation can be an effective tool for screenin all alternative
sites for a iven installation.
2.1.2 Site Exploration Plan
A detailed investiation has to be cond cted at a iven site only when that site
has been chosen for the constr ction, since the cost of s ch an investiation i
s enormo s. G idelines for plannin a methodical site investiation proram are
provided in Table 2.1 (FHWA, 1998). This stae of the investiation invariably i
nvolves heavy e
ipment for borin. Therefore, at first, it is important to set
p a definitive plan for the investiation, especially in terms of the borehole
layo t and the depth of borin at each location. In addition to plannin borin
locations, it is also pr dent on the part of the enineer to search for any s b
s rface anomalies or possible weak layers that can ndermine constr ction. As fo
r the depth of borin, one can se the followin criteria: If the bedrock is in
the vicinity, contin e borin ntil a so nd bedrock is reached, as verified from
rock core samples. If bedrock is nreachable, one can seek depth idelines for
specific b ildins s ch as those iven by the followin expressions (Das, 1995)
: D=3S0.7 (for liht steel and narrow concrete b ildins) D=6S0.7 (for heavy ste
el and wide concrete b ildins) If none of the above conditions is applicable, o
ne can explore p to a depth at which the fo ndation stress atten ation red ces
the applied stress by 90%. This enerally occ rs aro nd a depth of 2B, where B i
s the minim m fo ndation dimension. 2.1.2.1 Soil Borin The
antity of borins
is larely dependent on the overall acreae of the project, the n mber of fo nda
tions, or the intended se of the site. For fo ndations, the depth of borins de
pends on the zone of soil infl enced by the fo ndation eometry and the iven
Pae 50
TABLE 2.1 G ideline Minim m Borin and Samplin Criteria
Geotechnical Feat re
Str ct re fo ndation
Minim m N mber of Borins
One per s bstr ct re nit for width 30 m
Minim m Depth of Borins
Advance borins: (1) thro h ns itable fo ndation soils (e.., peat, hihly or
anic soils, soft finerained soils) into competent material of s itable bearin
capacity; (2) to a depth where stress increases d e to estimated footin load i
s less than 10% of the existin effective soil overb rden stress; or (3) a minim
m of 3 m into bedrock if bedrock is enco ntered at shallower depth
Two per s bstr ct re nit for width >30 m Retainin walls C lverts Bride approa
ch embankments over soft ro nd Borins alternatively spaced every 30 Extend bor
ins to depth of two times wall to 60 m in front of and behind wall heiht or a
minim m of 3 m into bedrock Two borins dependin on lenth For approach embankm
ents placed over soft ro nd, one borin at each embankment to determine problem
s associated with stability and settlement of the embankment (note: borins for
approach embankments are s ally located at proposed ab tment locations to serve
a d al f nction) See str ct re fo ndations See str ct re fo ndations
Additional shallow explorations at approach embankment locations are an economic
al means to determine depth of ns itable s rface soils C ts and embankments Bor
ins typically spaced every 60 (erratic conditions) to 150 m ( niform conditions
) with at least one borin taken in each separate landform For hih c ts and fil
ls, two borins alon a straiht line perpendic lar to centerline or planned slo
pe face to establish eoloic cross section for analysis C t: (1) in stable mate
rials, extend borins a minim m of 3 to 5 m below c t rade (2) in weak soils, e
xtend borins below c t rade to firm materials, or to the depth of c t below r
ade whichever occ rs first
Embankment: extend borins to firm material or to depth of twice the embankment
heiht
So rce: Modified after FHWA, 1993, Soils and Fo ndations, Workshop Man al, 2nd e
d., FHWA HI88009, National Hihway Instit te, NHI Co rse No. 13212, Revised, J
ly. With permission.
loadin. For instance, a proposed roadway alinment typically re

ires a handa
er investiation every 100 ft alon the centerline to a depth of 5 ft to define
niformity of the s brade material as well as spatial variability. Therein, th
e importance of the str ct re,
Pae 51 in the form of ca sal effects sho ld a fail re occ r, is somewhat minima
l. F rther, if ndesirable soil conditions were identified, a follow p investi
ation co ld be re
ested. In contrast, preliminary borins alon the alinment o
f a proposed bride fo ndation can be more fre
ent and are m ch deeper dependin
on the depth to a s itable bearin strat m. At a minim m, one borin sho ld be
performed at each pier location to a depth of 3 to 5 fo ndation diameters below
the anticipated fo ndation. Likewise, b ildins with lare col mn loads often r
e
ire a borin at each col mn location nless the soil shows extremely consiste
nt behavior. For extremely important str ct res, the desiner or client not only
re
ires more scr tiny from the s bs rface investiation, b t also re
ires an
amplification factor (or importance factor) be applied to the load to ass re a l
ow probability of fail re (FHWA, 1998). In virt ally all cases, the additional c
ost of a thoro h s bs rface investiation can be reconciled with a costeffecti
ve fo ndation desin. Uncertainty in s bs rface conditions in most instances pro
motes needless overdesin. Dependin on the type of desin to be considered, th
e desiner m st reconize the effect of site variability as well as the type of
testin that can be cond cted to increase confidence and red ce the probability
of fail re. Hand a ers and contin o s fliht a ers (Fi re 2.1) can be sed fo
r borin p to a depth of abo t 3 m in loose to moderately dense soil. For extre
me depths, a mechanized a er (Fi re 2.2) can be sed in loose to medi m dense
sands or soft clays. When the c t soil is bro ht to the s rface, a technically
alified person sho ld observe the text re, color, and the type of soil fo nd a
t different depths and prepare a borehole lo layin o t soil types at differen
t depths. This type of borin is called dry sample borin. On the other hand, if
relatively hard strata are enco ntered, the investiators have to resort to a t
echni
e known as wash borin. Wash borin is carried o t sin a mechanized a
er and a watercirc lation system that aids in c ttin and drawin the c t mater
ial to the s rface. A schematic diaram of the washborin apparat s is shown in
Fi re 2.2(a), and the Florida Department of Transportation drill ri, which t
ilizes the above techni
e, is shown in Fi re 2.2(b).
FIGURE 2.1 Drillin e
ipment: (a) hand a ers; (b) mechanized a er. (Co rtesy
of the Uxzniversity of So th Florida.)
Pae 52
FIGURE 2.2 (a) Schematic diaram of the Florida Department of Transportations CME
75 drill ri. (b) Wash borin.
Pae 53
2.2 Need for In Sit Testin
In addition to vis al classification, one has to obtain soil type and strenth a
nd deformation properties for a fo ndation desin. Hence, the soil at vario s de
pths has to be sampled as the bore holes advance. Easily obtained dist rbed samp
les s ffice for classification, index, and compaction properties in this reard.
However, more sophisticated laboratory or in sit tests are needed for determin
in compressibility and shear strenth parameters.
2.2.1 Sample Dist rbance
In sit testin is the ltimate phase of the site investiation where fo ndation
desin parameters can be eval ated to a relatively hiher deree of reliability
than nder laboratory conditions. This is beca se the reliability and the acc r
acy of the desin parameters obtained in the laboratory depend on the dist rbanc
e nderone by the retrieved samples d rin the retrieval, transport, extr sion,
and sample preparation processes. The predominant factors ca sin soil sample d
ist rbance are as follows: 1. Use of samplers that have a relatively hih metal
percentae in the cross section. For this p rpose, the area ratio of a sampler i
s defined as
(2.1a) where Do and Di are, respectively, the external and internal diameters of
the sampler. The common samplers that are sed for collectin dist rbed samples
are known as standard splitspoon samplers (described in Section 2.4.1) in rela
tion to standard penetration tests. For these samplers, the val e of Ar exceeds
100%. On the other hand, Shelby t bes (another sampler type) (Fi re 2.3) have a
relatively small metal cross section and hence an Ar val e of less than 15%. 2.
Friction between the internal sampler wall and the collected sample ca sin a c
ompression or shortenin of the sample. This can be addressed by introd cin a m
in te inward protr sion of the c ttin ede of the sampler. 3. Loosenin of the
samplin d e to pheaval of roots, escape of entrapped air, etc. Effects of ca s
es 2 and 3 can be eval ated by the recovery ratio of the collected sample define
d as (2.1b) where dp and lr are the depth of penetration of the sampler and len
th of the collected sample, respectively. F rthermore, it is realized that Lr va
l es close to 100% indicate minim m sample dist rbance. 4. Evaporation of moist
re from the sample ca sin particle reorientation and chane in density. This ef
fect can be eliminated by wrappin and sealin the soil sample d rin transport
to the testin laboratory.
In terms of fo ndation enineerin, in sit (or in place) testin refers to thos

e methods that eval ate the performance of a eotechnical str ct re or the prope
rties of the soils or rock
Pae 54
FIGURE 2.3 Shelby t be samplers. (Co rtesy of the University of So th Florida.)
sed to s pport that str ct re. This testin can rane from a soil borin at a s
rveyed location to monitorin the response of a f lly loaded bride pier, dam,
or other fo ndation element. The reliability of a iven str ct re to f nction a
s desined is directly dependent on the
ality of the information obtained from
s ch testin. Therein, it is imperative that the desin enineer be familiar wi
th the types of tests and the proced res for proper exec tion as well as the ass
ociated advantaes and disadvantaes. Methods of in sit eval ation can be invas
ive or noninvasive, destr ctive or nondestr ctive, and may or may not recover a
specimen for vis al confirmation or laboratory testin. Invasive tests (e.., s
oil borins or penetration tests) tend to be more time cons min, expensive, and
precise, whereas noninvasive tests (e.., ro nd penetratin radar or seismic r
efraction) provide a lare amo nt of information in a short period of time that
is typically less
antifiable. However, when sed collectively, the two methods
can complement each other by: (1) definin areas of concern from noninvasive te
chni
es and (2) determinin the fo ndation desin parameter from invasive techn
i
es. This is partic larly advantaeo s on lare sites where extreme variations
in soil strata may exist. All of the relevant in sit tests except the plate lo
ad test are disc ssed in this chapter. A description of the plate load test is p
rovided in Chapter 4 alon with the methodoloy for desinin combined footins.
2.3 Geophysical Testin Methods
2.3.1 Gro nd Penetratin Radar
Gro nd penetratin radar (GPR) is a eophysical exploration tool sed to provide
a raphical cross section of s bs rface conditions. This crosssectional view
is created from the reflections of repeated shortd ration electromanetic (EM)
waves that are enerated by an
Pae 55 antenna in contact with the ro nd s rface as the antenna traverses acro
ss the ro nd s rface. The reflections occ r at the interfaces between materials
with differin electrical properties. The electrical property from which variat
ions ca se these reflections is the dielectric permittivity, which is directly r
elated to the electrical cond ctivity of the material. GPR is commonly sed to i
dentify nderro nd tilities, nderro nd storae tanks, b ried debris, or eol
oical feat res. The information from GPR can be sed to make recommendations fo
r more invasive techni
es s ch as borins. Fi re 2.4 shows a ro ndla nch GPR
system bein p shed alon a predetermined transect line. The hiher the electri
cal contrast between the s rro ndin earth materials and the taret of interest,
the hiher the amplit de of the reflected ret rn sinal. Unless the b ried obje
ct or taret of interest is hihly cond ctive, only part of the sinal enery is
reflected back to the antenna located on the ro nd s rface with the remainin
portion of the sinal contin in to propaate downward to be reflected by deeper
feat res. If there is little or no electrical contrast between the taret of in
terest and the s rro ndin earth materials, it wo ld be very diffic lt if not im
possible to identify the object sin GPR. The GPR nit consists of a set of int
erated electronic components that transmits hihfre
ency (100 to 1500 MHz) EM
waves into the ro nd and records the enery reflected
FIGURE 2.4 GPR field device. (Co rtesy of Universal Enineerin, Inc.)
Pae 56 back to the ro nd s rface. The GPR system comprises an antenna, which s
erves as both a transmitter and a receiver, and a profilin recorder that proces
ses the data and provides a raphical display of the data. The depth of penetrat
ion of the GPR is very site specific and is controlled by two primary factors: s
bs rface soil conditions and antenna fre
ency. The GPR sinal is atten ated (a
bsorbed) as it passes thro h earth materials. As the enery of the GPR sinal i
s diminished d e to atten ation, the enery of the reflected waves is red ced, e
vent ally to a level where the reflections can no loner be detected. In eneral
, the more cond ctive the earth materials, the hiher the GPR sinal atten ation
. In Florida, typical soil conditions that severely limit the GPR sinal penetra
tion are nears rface clays, oranic materials, and the presence of sea water in
the soil pore water space. A GPR s rvey is cond cted alon s rvey lines (transe
cts), which are meas red paths alon which the GPR antenna is moved. Known refer
ence points (i.e., b ildin corners, driveways, etc.) are placed on a master map
, which incl des traces of the GPR transects overlyin the s rvey eometry. This
s rvey map allows for correlation between the GPR data and the position of the
GPR antenna on the ro nd. For eoloical characterization s rveys, the GPR s rv
ey is cond cted alon a set of perpendic larly oriented transects. The s rvey is
cond cted in two directions beca se s bs rface feat res are often asymmetric fo
r residential s rveys. Spacin between the s rvey lines is initially set at 10 f
t. More closely spaced rids may be sed to f rther characterize a recorded anom
aly. The feat res observed on the GPR data that are most commonly associated wit
h potential sinkhole activity are: 1. A downwarpin of GPR reflector sets, whic
h are associated with s spected litholoical contacts, toward a common center. S
ch feat res typically have a bowl or f nnelshaped confi ration and are often
associated with deflection of overlyin sediment horizons ca sed by the mirati
on of sediments into voids in the nderlyin limestone (Fi re 2.5). In addition
, b ried depressions ca sed by
FIGURE 2.5 GPR imae. (Co rtesy of Universal Enineerin, Inc.)
Pae 57 differential s bsidence over b ried oranic deposits and debris may also
ca se these observed feat res. 2. A localized sinificant increase in the depth
of penetration or amplit de of the GPR sinal response. The increase in GPR si
nal penetration depth or amplit de is often associated with a localized increas
e in sand content at depth. 3. An apparent discontin ity in GPR reflector sets t
hat are associated with s spected litholoical contacts. The apparent discontin
ities or disr ption of the GPR reflector sets may be associated with the downwa
rd miration of sediments. The reater the severity of the abovementioned feat
res or a combination of these feat res, the reater the likelihood that the ide
ntified feat re is related to past or present sinkhole activity. Depth estimates
to the top of the litholoical contacts or tarets of interest are derived by d
ividin the time of travel of the GPR sinal from the ro nd s rface to the top
of the feat re by the velocity of the GPR sinal. The velocity of the GPR sinal
is s ally obtained for a iven eoraphic area and earth material from p blish
ed so rces. In eneral, the acc racy of the GPRderived depth estimates ranes f
rom 25% of the total depth. Altho h the GPR is very sef l in locatin sinifica
nt litholoical soil chanes, strata thickness, and inferred s bs rface anomalie
s, the GPR cannot identify the nat re of earth materials or their condition (i.e
., loose vers s dense sand, soft vers s stiff clay). The GPR data are best sed
in conj nction with other eotechnical and physical tests to constrain the inter
pretation of the virt al crosssection profiles.
2.3.2 Resistivity Tests
Electrical resistivity imain (ERI) (Fi re 2.6) is a eophysical method that m
aps the differences in the electrical properties of eoloic materials. These ch
anes in electrical properties can res lt from variations in litholoy, water co
ntent, porewater chemistry, and the presence of b ried debris. The method invol
ves transmittin an electric c rrent into the ro nd between two electrodes and
meas rin the voltae between two other electrodes. The direct meas rement is an
apparent resistivity of the area beneath the electrodes that incl des deeper la
yers as the electrode spacin is increased. The spacin of
FIGURE 2.6 Renderin of soil cross section from ERI o tp t. (Co rtesy of Univers
al Enineerin, Inc.)
Pae 58 electrodes can be increased abo t a central point, res ltin in a vertic
al electric so ndin that is modeled to create a 1D eoelectric cross section. R
ecent advances in technoloy allow for rapid collection of adjacent m ltiple so
ndins alon a transect that are modeled to create a 2D eoelectric pse docross
section. The cross section is sef l for mappin both the vertical and horizont
al variations in the s bs rface (see Fi re 2.6). Altho h the res lts from this
method are not absol te, the resistivity trends obtained are sef l for mappin
stratiraphy s ch as a
atards, bedrock, fa lts, and fract res. It can delineat
e anomalo s formations or voids in karstic material, the presence of salt water
intr sion in coastal reions, and detect leaks in dams as well as other applicat
ions. It is most s ccessf l in lare cleared areas witho t severe chanes in top
oraphy; it is not recommended for small conested or rban sites. B ried tilit
ies or other hihly cond ctive anomalies can adversely affect the res lts. This
method is fast, noninvasive, and relatively inexpensive when compared to drillin
. When compared to EM methods, it is less s sceptible to interference from over
head power lines. It is easily calibrated to existin boreholes to allow for cor
relations between meas red resistivity and estimated soil properties. As with ot
her eophysical test methods, it is best s ited for environmental or water reso
rces disciplines that re
ire stratiraphy or soil property mappin of lare lan
d parcels. 2.3.2.1 Seismic Refraction The seismic refraction techni
e meas res
the seismic velocity of s bs rface materials and models the depth to interfaces
with a velocity increase. Soil conditions and eoloic str ct re are inferred fr
om the res lts, since chanes in material type, or soil conditions, are often as
sociated with chanes in seismic velocity. Seismic enery, which is introd ced i
nto the s bs rface sin a drop weiht or explosive so rce, propaates thro h t
he earth as a wave front that is refracted by the material thro h which it pass
es. As ill strated in Fi re 2.7, the wave front intersects a hihvelocity inte
rface, creatin a head wave that travels in the hihvelocity material nearly paral
lel to the interface. The enery in this head wave leaves the interface and pass
es back thro h the lowvelocity material to the s rface. Geophones placed at se
lected intervals alon the ro nd s rface detect the ro nd motion and send an e
lectrical sinal, via a cable, to a recordin seismoraph.
FIGURE 2.7 Concept al sketch of seismic refraction layo t and wave paths. (Co rt
esy of Universal Enineerin, Inc.)
Pae 59 The objective is to determine the arrival times of these refracted waves
in order to calc late the velocity of the material and model the depth to vario
s interfaces. This test is sed to determine stratiraphy s ch as the depth to
bedrock. It is best s ited for stratiraphy that increases in density (or seismi
c velocity) with depth. In s ch cases, it can estimate the depth of borrow mater
ials, aid in mappin fa lts and fract red rock zones, locate the water table, an
d estimate material elastic properties s ch as shear mod l s and Poissons ratio.
The depth of exploration is limited by the enery so rce and the maxim m lenth
of eophone spacin. The test is less expensive when compared to other soil expl
oration methods and other comparable seismic reflection methods. The vertical re
sol tion is s ally better than electrical, manetic, or ravity methods of site
investiation.
2.4 Physical Samplin and Penetration Tests
2.4.1 Standard Penetration Test
The standard penetration test (SPT) is ndo btedly the most common method of soi
l exploration for fo ndation desin. It is an invasive test that not only provid
es information from which soil strenth can be estimated, b t also provides a ph
ysical sample that can be vis ally inspected or sed for laboratory classificati
on. Altho h the test method has nderone several iterations with respect to p
radin e
ipment, it is sensitive to operator and e
ipment variability. Reard
less, the eneral concept of penetration resistance and the hands on soil sample
recovery make it the choice of many desiners. The SPT is described by the Amer
ican Society for Testin and Materials (ASTM) as test n mber D1586, entitled Sta
ndard Method for Penetration Test and SplitBarrel Samplin of Soils. This standa
rd defines the appropriate manner in which the test sho ld be cond cted which in
volves drillin techni
es, penetration and samplin methods, proper e
ipment,
and the reportin of res lts. In eneral, a 2 in. o ter diameter splitspoon sam
pler is driven into the ro nd with a 140 lb (0.622 kN) drop hammer dropped 30 i
n. (0.77 m) repeatedly ntil a penetration of 18 in. is achieved. The n mber of
blows of the hammer is recorded for each of three 6in. (15.24 cm) intervals (to
talin 18 in. or 45.72 cm). The n mber of blows re
ired for advancin the sampl
er to the last 12 in. or 30.48 cm (second and third intervals) is defined as the
SPT Nval e. Upon extraction of the sampler, the soil retrieved is vis ally ins
pected, doc mented, and placed in jars for more elaborate testin (if so determi
ned by the enineer). At best, contin o s samplin prod ces a sinle SPT Nval e
every 1.5 ft. At minim m, a sample sho ld be taken every 5 ft (1.54 m) of depth
. Between each penetration test, a borin sho ld be advanced to permit the next
sample witho t interference from side shear resistance alon the lenth of the d
rill rod. Several borin techni
es are acceptable: onehole rotary drillin, co
ntin o s fliht hollow stem a erin, wash borin, or contin o s fliht solid st
em a erin. However, nder no circ mstance sho ld the soil beneath the advanced
borehole be dist rbed by jettin or s ction action ca sed by improper drillin
techni
es. For instance, extractin a contin o s fliht a er from s bmered so
ils will red ce the in sit stresses and prod ce lower Nval es. 2.4.1.1 SPT Cor
relations with Shear Strenth Properties Apart from the vis al and physical clas
sifications that can be obtained from an SPT, correlations have been established
that provide estimates of in sit soil properties based on the soil type and bl
ow co nt. The basic principle nderlyin the SPT test is the relation
Pae 60 between the penetration resistance and shear strenth of the soil, which
can be vis alized as a ni
e relationship. These correlations can be based on
the corrected or ncorrected SPT blow co nt N or N, respectively. Corrected blo
w co nts provide a method of acco ntin for the in sit state of stress s rro nd
in a soil sample while it was bein tested. For instance, sands with identical
str ct re which appear stroner (hiher blow co nts) at reater depths than when
at shallower depths. As s ch, soil properties s ch as nit weiht may be better
estimated if overb rden effects are removed or normalized. However, soil proper
ties s ch as shear strenth or available end bearin are enhanced by reater in
sit stresses and are enerally correlated to ncorrected blow co nts. The follo
win expression is sed to correct SPT Nval es by normalizin it to a 1 tsf (95.
5 kPa) overb rden in sit state: N =CNN (2.2a) where N is the meas red (field)
SPT val e, N is the SPT val e corrected for the overb rden stress, and (2.2b) w
here is the effective overb rden press re of the test location (in kPa) expresse
d by E
ation (1.4b): (1.4b) where z is the depth of the test location and dw th
e depth of the test location from the ro nd water table. Table 2.2Table 2.6 prov
ide estimated val es for corrected and ncorrected blow co nts. It m st be noted
from E
ation (2.3) that the nconfined compression strenth and the ndrained
cohesion (strenth) are related by
TABLE 2.2 Determination of the Frictional Shear Strenth of Sands and Clays from
SPT Blow Co nt
moist Corrected SPTN
Sands 0 4 10 30 50 Very loose Loose Medi m Dense Very dense 70100 90115 110130 12014
0 130150 11.015.7 14.118.1 17.320.4 18.822.0 20.423.6 2530 2732 3035 3540 3843
Description
pcf
kN/m3
Deree
Clay 0 2 4 8 16 32 Very soft Soft Medi m Stiff Very stiff Hard 120140 18.822.0 1101
30 17.320.4 100120 15.718.8
, ksf (47.92 kPa) 0 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 8.0

So rce: Modified after FHWA, 1993, Soils and Fo ndations, Workshop Man al, 2nd e
dn, FHWA HI88009, National Hihway Instit te, NHI Co rse No. 13212, Revised, J
ly.
Pae 61
TABLE 2.3 Determination of the Frictional Shear Strenth of Sands and Clays from
SPT Blow Co nt
sat SPTN
Sands 02 34 410 1020 20 30 30 4 >40 Clay 02 24 48 815 1530 >30 105 110 115 120 125
17.3 18.1 18.9 19.6 19.6 100 100 105 110 115 120 125 15.7 15.7 16.5 17.3 18.1 1
8.9 19.6
s b kN/m3 pcf
37.6 37.6 42.6 47.6 52.6 57.6 62.6 42.6 47.6 52.6 57.6 62.6 62.6
pcf
kN/m3
5.9 5.9 6.7 7.5 8.3 9.1 9.8 6.7 7.5 8.3 9.1 9.8 9.8
Deree
26 28 29 30 32 33 34 0 0 0 0 0 0
Notes: Clay shear strenth C= N/Ti in ksf (47.92 kPa, where Ti is the soil type
factor); Ti=8 for most clay, T i= 10 for low plasticity, Ti=12 for peat. So rce:
From K lhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W., 1990, Man al on Estimatin Soil Properties
for Fo ndation Desin, EPRI EL6800 Research Project 14936, Electric Power Resear
ch Instit te, A st. With permission.
(2.3) Alternatively, the frictional properties of ran lar soils can be obtained
sin the followin simple expression (Bowles, 2002): (2.4a) The standard penet
ration val e can also be sed estimate the overconsolidation ratio of a soil ba
sed on E
ation (2.4b) (Bowles, 2002): (2.4b)
TABLE 2.4
Determination of the Frictional Shear Strenth of Limestone from SPT Blow Co nt

Shear Strenth SPTN
1020 2050 50100
3
psf
4,000 8,000 15,000
3
kN/m2
190 380 720
Notes: Ka=1.0; Kp =1.0. sat=135 pcf (21.2 kN/m ); s b=72.6 pcf (11.4 kN/m ); So
rce: From K lhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W., 1990, Man al on Estimatin Soil Propert
ies for Fo ndation Desin, EPRI EL6800 Research Project 14936, Electric Power Re
search Instit te, A st. With permission
Pae 62
TABLE 2.5 Empirical Val es for and Unit Weiht of Gran lar Soils Based on the SP
T at abo t 6 m Depth and Normally Consolidated (Approximately,
Description
Relative density Dr Fine Medi m Coarse Fine Medi m Coarse wet, kN/m
a
Very Loose
0 12 23 36 2628 2728 2830
Loose
0.15 36 47 59 2830 3032 3034 1418
Medi m
0.35 715 820 1025 3034 3236 33 4 1720
Dense
0.65 1630 2140 26 4 3338 3642 4050 1722 ?
Very Dense
0.85 >40 >45
<50 2023
3
1116
a
Excavated soil or material d mped from a tr ck has a nit weiht of 11 to 14 kN/
m3 and m st be
ite dense to weih m ch over 21 kN/m3 . No existin soil has a
D r=0.00 nor a val e of 1.00. Common ranes are from 0.3 to 0.7. So rce: From Bo
wles, J.E., 2002, Fo ndation Analysis and Desin, McGrawHill, New York. With pe
rmission.
As disc ssed in Section 2.4.1.2, the s bscript 70 indicates 70% efficiency in en
ery transfer from the hammer to the sampler. This val e has been shown to be re
levant for the North American practice of SPT. 2.4.1.2 Efficiency of Standard Pe
netration Testin The act al enery effective in the drivin of the SPT e
ipmen
t varies d e to many factors. Hence, in addition to the effective overb rden str
ess at the tested location, the SPT parameter depends on the followin additiona
l factors: 1. Hammer efficiency 2. Lenth of drill rod 3. Sampler 4. Borehole di
ameter
TABLE 2.6 Consistency of Sat rated Cohesive Soilsa
Consistency
Increasin NC Yo n clay Very soft Soft Medi m 02 35 69
, kPa
Remarks
<25 2550 50100
S
ishes between finers when s
eezed Very easily deformed by s
eezin ??
OCR Aed/cemented Stiff Very stiff Hard

a
1016 1730 >30
100200 200400 >400
Hard to deform by hand s
eezin Very hard to deform by hand s
eezin Nearly im
possible to deform by hand
Blow co nts and OCR division are for a idein clay exceptions to the r le are very
common. So rce: From Bowles, J.E., 2002, Fo ndation Analysis and Desin, McGraw
Hill, New York. With permission.
Pae 63 Accordinly, the followin e

ation has been s ested for obtainin an
appropriate standard SPT parameter to be sed in fo ndation desins: (2.5a) wher
e is the standard hammer efficiency (=70%), N is the SPT val e corrected for th
e effective overb rden stress (E
ation (2.2a)), and i are te factors tat acco
unt for te variability due to factors 14 mentioned above. Te ammer used to dri
ve te sampler can be eiter manual or automatic. Numerous configurations of bot
ammer types ave been manufactured. Te safety type is te most common manual
ammer as it is equally suited to bot drive and etract te split spoon. Tis
type of ammer is lifted by te friction developed between a rope and a spinning
catead power take-off. Te number of wraps around te catead as well as te d
iameter of catead are specified as well as te condition of te rope and catea
d surface (Figure 2.8). Due to te incomplete release of te drop weigt from t
e catead, te total potential energy of te drop is not available to advance t
e sampler. A recent study sowed tat manual ammers transfer anywere between 3
9% and 93% of te energy (average 66%), wile automatic ammers transfer between
52% and 98% (average 79%). Altoug te reproducibility of an automatic ammer
is better tan manual ammer, te variation in energy efficiency cited is depend
ent on te upward velocity of te ammer as controlled by te revolutions per mi
nute (rpm) of te drive cain motor (Figure 2.9). To tis end,
FIGURE 2.8 SPT apparatus wit manual ammer: (a) manual ammer; (b) ammer drop
onto te catead; (c) pull rope wrapped around spinning catead.
Page 64
FIGURE 2.9 Automated SPT apparatus: (a) truck-mount drill rig; (b) cain-driven
automatic SPT ammer.
a given macine sould be calibrated to produce an eact 30-in. drop eigt and
te rpm required to produce tat drop recorded and maintained. As te standard
ammer efficiency is 70%, it must be noted tat for an SPT system wit a ammer e
fficiency of 70% (E=70), 1=1.0. However, te ammer efficiencies of most commonl
y used SPT apparatus are 55% and 60%. Terefore, it is common for foundation eng
ineers to encounter equations for design parameters were te SPT blow count is
epressed as However, te standard can easily be converted to te equivalent usi
ng te corresponding 1 factors in Equation (2.5a) as follows: (2.5a)
(2.5b) If it is assumed tat te only difference between and is due to te diffe
rences in te corresponding 1 factors, ten one can simplify Equations (2.5a) an
d (2.5b) to (2.5c) Since te 1 values would be directly proportional to te corr
esponding efficiencies, te following relationsip olds:
(2.5d)
Page 65 One realizes te reason for tis conversion based on te logic tat te
penetration must be directly proportional to te energy available for te penetr
ation action and ence te efficiency of te system since te energy input into
any SPT apparatus is fied under standard operating conditions. Terefore, can b
e deduced from using te factors of 55/70 (or 0.787) and 60/70 (or 0.857), respe
ctively, wen te available correlations demand suc a conversion. Furtermore,
information tat can be used to obtain 2 to 4 is given in Bowles (2002). Altoug
it is relatively easy to perform, SPT suffers because it is crude and not repe
atable. Generally, a variation up to 100% is not uncommon in te SPT value wen
using different standard SPT equipment in adjacent borings in te same soil form
ation. On te oter and, a variation of only 10% is observed wen using te sam
e equipment in adjacent borings in te same soil formation.
2.4.2 In Situ Rock Testing
Te design of rock-socketed drilled safts is igly dependent on te integrity
of te rock core samples obtained from field investigation. Wen sufficient samp
les are recovered, laboratory tests can be conducted to determine te splitting
tensile strengt, qt (ASTM D 3967), and te unconfined compressive strengt, qu
(ASTM D 2938). Te sear strengt of te saftlimestone interface, fsu, is ten
epressed as a function of qt and qu (McVay et al., 1992). Tis value is typical
ly adjusted by rock quality indicators suc as te rock quality designation, RQD
(ASTM D 6032), or te percent recovery, REC. For eample, te State of Florida
outlines a metod using te percent recovery to offset te igly variable stren
gt properties of te Florida limestone formation. Terein, a design value, (fsu
)DESIGN, is epressed as REC * f su (Lai, 1999). Tese metods work well in cons
istent, competent rock but are subject to coring tecniques, available equipment
, and driller eperience. Sampling problems are compounded in low-quality rock f
ormations as evidenced by te occurrence of zero RQD and low REC values. 2.4.2.1
Timed Drilling To counter poor-quality samples (or no sample at all), some desi
gners wit etensive local eperience use timed drilling tecniques to estimate
rock quality and saft design values in addition to, or in lieu of, te previous
metods. Wit tis tecnique, te driller must record te time to advance a was
boring troug a bearing stratum wile maintaining a constant crowd pressure, fl
uid flow, and rotational bit speed. Advance times would typically need to be gre
ater tan 2 to 3 min/ft to be useful. Lower advance times are common in weaker s
oils tat are more effectively tested by standard penetration testing. Like SPT
and CPT, te equipment sould be maintained in reasonably consistent pysical di
mensions (i.e., te bit sould stay in good working condition). Altoug tis me
tod is very simple, it is igly empirical and largely dependent on te uniform
ity of te drilling tecniques. Additionally, te designer must ave developed a
large enoug database (wit load test calibration) to design wit confidence. S
uc databases eist, but are proprietary and not common knowledge. 2.4.2.2 Corin
g Metods Wen designing from rock core samples, it is important to consider te
factors affecting sample retrieval and ence teir quality. Te recovered sampl
es can range in diameter from
0.845 to 6 in. (2.15 to 15.25 cm) were larger samples are preferred in soft lim
estone. Te State of Florida requires a minimum core diameter of 2.4 in. (6.1 cm
) but recommends
Page 66
FIGURE 2.10 Scematic for double-tube core barrel. (After Wittke, W., 1990, Rock
Mecanics, Teory and Application wit Case Histories, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Wit permission.)
4 in. (10.2 cm). Te drill core samples can be obtained from tree different typ
es of core barrels: single tube, double tube, and triple tube. Te simplest is t
e single tube in wic te drill core and flusing fluid occupy te same space
and consequently can lead to erosion of low strengt or fragmented rock samples.
As a result, tis type of core barrel is not permitted for use wit Florida lim
estone (FDOT, 1999). Double-tube core barrels differ from single-tube barrels by
essentially isolating te drill core from te flusing fluid (Figure 2.10). Sim
ple versions of tis type of core barrel use a rotating inner tube tat requires
a small fraction ( 10%) of te drilling fluid to circulate around te drill core
to prevent binding and direct contact of te sample wit te tube. Most doubletube systems now use a fied inner tube tat requires no flus fluid around te
drill core and tus causes fewer disturbances to te sample. During etraction o
f te entire barrel assembly, a core trap-ring at te leading edge of te inner
barrel snares te drill core preventing its loss (see Figure 2.11). Recovering t
e sample from te inner tube witout disturbing it is difficult in soft, fragme
nted, or interlayered rock deposits. Bot fied and rotating inner core barrels
are permitted by FDOT but significant variations in recovery values sould be e
pected.
FIGURE 2.11 In situ rock coring apparatus: (a) single tube; (b) double tube wit
rotating inner tube; (c) double tube wit fied inner tube. (After Wittke, W.,
1990, Rock Mecanics, Teory and Application wit Case Histories, Springer-Verla
g, Berlin. Wit permission.)
Page 67
FIGURE 2.12 Triple-tube core barrel components.
Te triple-tube core barrel, in concept, is essentially te same as te double t
ube (wit te fied inner tube). It differs in te way te specimen is recovered
in tat te inner tube is fitted wit yet a tird sleeve or split tubes in wic
te drill core is oused. Te entire sleeve or split tube is etruded from te
inner barrel using a plunger and pressure fitting tat puses directly on te s
plit tubes. Te etrusion process is similar to tat of Selby tube samples ece
pt te sample is not stressed. In tis manner, te sample is not compressed or s
aken loose. Figure 2.12Figure 2.15 sow te components of te triple-tube core b
arrel and sample etruder. Furter variables affecting core drilling results inc
lude: te type of drill bit, te flow rate of te flusing fluid, te end gap be
tween te inner and outer barrels, te crowd pressure, and te advance rate tro
ug softer interlayered deposits. Wit so many variables controlling sample reco
very, metods of investigating te remaining boreole for te in situ limestone
caracteristics could ave significant merit. 2.4.2.3 In Situ Rock Strengt Test
s Direct measurements of te in situ bond or sear strengt of te drilled saft
-to-rock interface can be obtained troug small-scale ancor pull-out tests or
full-scale load tests. Ancor pullout tests are purported to ave produced reaso
nable correlations wit full-scale results (Bloomquist et al., 1991). Te test m
etod involves simply grouting a ig-strengt posttensioning rod into a boreol
e, and measuring te load required to pull te grout plug free. (Note: load is d
irectly applied to te base of te plug to produce compression and te associate
d Poisson epansion in te specimen.) Attention must be given to te surface are
a formed by te volume of grout actually placed. Tis test is an attractive opti
on in tat it is relatively inepensive, requires minimal equipment mobilization
, and can be conducted at numerous locations trougout a site. However, it as
received little attention as a wole and remains comparatively unused. Design-p
ase, full-scale, in situ testing of te saft-limestone interface is by far te
surest metod to determine te design parameters of a drilled saft. Tis can be
accomplised by
several means: top down static loading, bi-directional static loading, statnamic
loading, or drop-ammer dynamic loading (discussed later). However, due to te
Page 68
FIGURE 2.13 Sample etruder.
associated costs, only a small fraction of rock sockets are tested in tis fasi
on, and rarely at te design pase. Additionally, a single test may not adequate
ly account for te spatial variability of rock formations witout correlation to
standard site investigation metods. As suc, a ost of in situ boreole device
s ave been developed to aid in estimating soil and rock strengt parameters. In
situ boreole modulus devices are classified into two categories based on teir
loading apparatus: (1) rotationally symmetric boreole loading devices and (2)
diametrically arranged lateral loading plates (Wittke, 1990). Figure 2.16 sows
te loading sceme of te two conceptual mecanisms. Type 1 probes apply load vi
a a rubber diapragm tat is pressurized by eiter gas or liquid. In general, me
asurements of displacement are made directly wen using gas pressure, and indire
ctly troug cange in volume wen using fluid pressure. Table 2.7 lists Type 1
devices tat ave been developed by various manufacturers. Type 2 probes use two
semicylindrical trust plates diametrically aligned to apply loads to te arc o
f te boreole. Measurements of displacement are obtained directly at a minimum
of two locations along te longitudinal ais of te plates. Wereas Type 1 devic
es produce uniformly distributed radial stresses in te boreole, te stress dis
tribution in Type 2 devices is dependent on te relative stiffness of te rock a
nd te plate. Table 2.8 lists Type 2 devices tat ave been developed by various
manufacturers.
Anoter mecanism (not originally intended for rocks) tat as interesting featu
res wit respect to weak rocks is te Iowa boreole sear device (Section 2.10).
Te test
Page 69
FIGURE 2.14 Cutting bits used by Florida Department of Transportation District I
.
FIGURE 2.15 HQ3 triple-tube cutting tip, Devils Nigtmare 3.78 in. (9.6 cm) of oute
r diameter.
sceme for tis device is a combination of bot te ancor pull-out test and te
boreole modulus test. Te device is epanded into te walls of te boreole an
d is ten pulled to determine te sear strengt of te soil. Typically, several
lateral pressures are investigated (Demartinecourt, 1981).
2.5 Cone Penetration Test
Te cone penetration test (CPT) is an invasive soil test tat defines soil strat
a type, soil properties, and strengt parameters. It is igly repeatable, insen
sitive to operators, and best suited for uncemented soils, sands, or clay. Alto
ug tis test retrieves no sample for
Page 70
FIGURE 2.16 Loading sceme of te two types of modulus devices. (After Wittke, W
., 1990, Rock Mecanics, Teory and Application wit Case Histories, Springer-Ve
rlag, Berlin. Wit permission.)
laboratory testing or visual inspection, it as te capability of producing enor
mous amounts of pysical information based on correlations wit side-by-side tes
ts wit oter test metods suc as SPT. Furter, as te test provides direct mea
surements of ultimate end bearing and side sear, it is directly applicable for
design of foundations of all kinds.
TABLE 2.7 List of Type 1 Boreole Devices
Name
Metod of Measuring
Indirect ( v) Indiret ( v) Diret ( d) Diret ( d) Diret ( d) Diret ( d) Diret ( d
Diret ( d) 3 2 3 4 4 2
Number of Measuring Devies
Max. Applied Borehole Pressure, P max Diameter, d (MN/m2) (mm)
10 70 15 4/7.5 15 15 4 20 34140 38 168 200/300 160 76 297 46
Test Length, l (mm)
502910 165 770 1000/1200 1600 540 1300 680
l/d
Menard pressuremeter CSM ell Janod Mermin probe Sounding dilatometer Comes prob
e LNEC dilatometer Tube deformeter Prigozhin pressuremeter
65 4.3 4.6 5/4 10 7.1 4.4 14.8
Atlas dilatometer BGR dilatometer Dilatometer 112 Elastometer 100 Elastometer 20

0
Diret ( d) Diret ( d)
8 4 3 3 2 3
10 40 12 12 10 20
144 86 100 116 62 62
890 1000 1000 1000 520 520
6.2 11.6 10 8.6 8.4 8.4
Dilatometer 95 Diret ( d) Diret ( d) Diret ( d) Diret ( d)
Soure: Wittke, W., 1990, Rok Mehanis, Theory and Appliation with Case Histo
ries, SpringerVerlag, Berlin.
Page 71
TABLE 2.8 List of Type 2 Borehole Devies
Name
Angle of Opening of Thrust Plates
34 64 35 2 =900 2 =1200
Max. Applied Pressure, P max (MN/m 2)
Borehole Diameter, d (mm)
76 7480 76
Test Length, l (mm)
306 204 280
l/d
Geoextensometer 2 =1430 Goodman jack CSIRO pressiometer
4.0 2.6 2.8 3.7
Source: Wittke, W., 1990, Rock Mechanics, Theory and Application with Case Histo
ries, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
The CPT is descried in ASTM test numer D-3441, entitled Standard Test Method fo
r Deep, Quasi-Static, Cone and Friction-Cone Penetration Tests of Soil. This is t
o include cone penetration type tests that use mechanical or electronic load det
ection, tip or tip and friction stress delineation, and those tests where the pe
netration into the soil is slow and steady in a vertically aligned orientation.
Those tests conducted with mechanical load detection are typically denoted as Dut
ch cone tests and those using electronic detection are simply called cone penetrat
ion tests. The term quasi-static refers to a steady rate of penetration where the a
cceleration is zero, ut the velocity of penetration is constant (1 to 2 cm/sec 2
5%). The test apparatus consists of a 60 conical tip of known cross-sectional are
a that is thrust into the soil at a near constant rate. Behind the cone tip, a f
riction sleeve of known surface area is also included that is used to detect the
side shear or adhesion etween the steel sleeve and the surrounding soil. The f
orce required to advance the tip through the soil is divided y the cross-sectio
nal area to determine the tip stress, qc. Similarly, the force required to advan
ce the friction sleeve is divided y the sleeve surface area to produce the loca
l friction value, fs. The tip area and sleeve area vary from device to device u
t the most common areas are 10 and 150 cm 2, respectively. The tip area (diamete
r) can influence the magnitude of the resulting qc value similar to the effects
of foundation diameter on capacity. This is due to the increased zone of influen
ce eneath the tip as the cone diameter increases for various devices. Therefore
, in relatively uniform soils, the tip diameter has little effect. In layered or
more heterogeneous strata, a smaller tip diameter will etter register the minu
te changes in soil type and strength. Larger diameter cones physically average t
he effects of thin layers. Figure 2.17 shows two differentsized cone tip and sle
eve assemlies. Another feature that CPT equipments usually incorporate is the c
apaility of monitoring the pore-water pressure while advancing the cone-sleeve
assemly. There can e a significant amount of excess pore pressure developed y
forcing the volume of the cone into a somewhat fixed volume of a poorly drainin
g material. In contrast, in dense fine-grained soils, the cavity expansion can c
ause a decrease in pore pressure. The assemlies shown in Figure 2.17 have a pre
ssure transducer within the tip ody that registers the pore pressure directly
ehind the tip (etween the tip and the sleeve). This information can e used to
convert the total stress registered y the tip to effective stress similar to a
consolidated undrained triaxial compression test. When pore pressure measurement
s are taken the test is denoted as CPTU. Smaller cones tend to induce less cavit
y expansion and therefore fewer effects on total stress.
The thrust required to advance the cone assemly is dependent on the strength of
the soil as well as the size of the tip. Given the disparity etween the cone s
izes in Figure 2.17, it is not surprising that the size of the equipment require
d to advance these cones is also disparate. Figure 2.18 shows the associated tru
ck-mounted CPT rigs that use these
Page 72
FIGURE 2.17 Two-cone tip and sleeve assemlies of different sizes.
devices. The larger diameter cone requires a 20-ton (178 kN) thrust mechanism an
d can reach depths of 100 m; the mini-cone requires aout one fifth the thrust a
nd can e mounted on the front of a standard truck or utility vehicle. Mini-CPTs
are limited to a practical maximum depth 20 m. The thrust mechanisms also vary
etween the two systems in Figure 2.18. The standard CPT system uses 1-m segment
al rods to advance the cone tip-sleeve assemly. The thrusting ram is designed t
o grip, thrust downward 1 m, release and stroke upward 1 m, re-grip, and repeat.
At a penetration rate of 2 cm/sec, the process progresses at an average advance
rate of 1 cm/sec to account for the re-gripping. An average sounding to 30 m sh
ould take on the order of 1.5 to 2 h (in and out). An SPT to a similar depth cou
ld take multiple days. The mini-cone uses a more time efficient method of advanc
ing the cone. It uses a contiguous length of mild stainless steel tuing (10 to
20 m long) that is continuously fed at a constant rate without having to re-stro
ke and re-grip. Therein, the tuing is straightened from a large diameter coil a
s it is continuously gripped y
Page 73
FIGURE 2.18 Field cone penetration devices: (a) standard 20-ton cone truck (Cour
tesy of the Florida Department of Transportation.); () 4-ton mini-cone vehicle.
(Courtesy of the University of South Florida.)
side-y-side opposing chains specially designed to mate to the coil diameter. Fi
gure 2.19 shows oth thrust mechanisms. The data collection during cone penetrat
ion testing is typically performed at 5-cm intervals ut can e as frequent as p
ermitted y the data acquisition system. This gives a virtually continuous sound
ing of tip and sleeve stresses. As oth of these devices use strain gage-ased l
oad cells, the instrumentation leads are routed through the center of the thrust
ing rod-tue. The data are processed to produce the soil type as well as other p
arameters in real time. The asis for the data regression is ased on correlatio
ns developed y Roertson and Campanella (1983). Although many correlations exis
t, the most significant uses a calculated parameter that defines the ratio of me
asured side to the measured tip stress. This ratio is defined as the friction ra
tio Rf. To aid in classifying various soils, 12 soil types were defined that cou
ld e readily identified given the cone earing stress, qc , and the friction ra
tion, Rf. Figure 2.20 shows the classification chart used to identify soils from
CPT data. Further, correlations from CPT to SPT test data were developed to ele
vate the comfort of designers more familiar with SPT data. Therein, the qc /N ra
tio was defined for each of the 12 soil types (also shown in Figure 2.20). Furth
ermore, the undrained strength of clay, Su , can e otained using CPT data as f
ollows: (2.6) where p0 is the total overurden pressure and the Nk factor ranges
etween 15 and 20 (Bowles, 2002). It must e noted that Su is expressed in the
same units as qc .
2.5.1 Cone Penetration Testing with Pore Pressure Measurements (Piezocone)
Currently it is commonplace to have cone tips fitted with pore pressure transduc
ers that can produce a continuous record of the ground pore pressures at various
depths. It is typical to install the piezometer that consists of a porous ring
attached to a pore pressure transducer onto the sleeve of the CPT equipment imme
diately elow the cone tip. If such a piezocone is used
to otain foundation strength parameters, the following modification for evaluat

ing the corrected cone resistance, qT, has een suggested y Roertson and Campa
nella (1983):
Page 74
FIGURE 2.19 CPT driving mechanisms: (a) twin 10-ton rams used to thrust standard
cone rod; () continuous feed chain drive used to thrust mini-cone.
FIGURE 2.20 CPT data correlated to soil type and equivalent SPT-N. (After Roert
son, P.K. and Campanella, R.E., 1983, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, No
. 4. With permission.)
Page 75 qT=qc+u(1 a) (2.7) where is the measured pore pressure and a is taken as
the approximate area ratio (d1 /D)2 of the cone; d1 and D are internal and exter
nal diameters of the sleeve and the pore pressure sensor, respectively. The valu
e of parameter a is typically in the rane of 0.6 to 0.9 (Bowles, 2002).
2.6 The Field Vane Shear Test
The field vane shear test (ASTM D 2573) is the most common test for evaluatin t
he undrained shear strenth of soft to stiff clays because of its speed of perfo
rmance and repeatability. Durin the test, a standardsize vane (Fiure 2.21) is
placed in the borehole and pushed to the depth where the evaluation of the undr
ained shear strenth is required. Then it is twisted carefully and the torsional
force required to cause shearin in situ is measured. The blade is rotated at a
specified rate that should not exceed 0.1/sec (practically 1 every 10 sec). If it
is assumed that the undrained shear strenth (Su) of the tested clay is the sam
e in both the horizontal and vertical planes, then Su can be obtained from the f
ollowin equation: (2.8) where T is the maximum torque required for shearin the
clay with the vane, d is the diameter of the vane, and h is the heiht of the v
ane.
2.7 The Pressuremeter Test
The basic concept behind the pressuremeter test (PMT) (ASTM D 4719) is that the
uniform pressure required for monitored expansion of a cylindrical cavity in the
round would indicate not only the compressibility characteristics of the teste
d round but also the
FIGURE 2.21 Field vane apparatus. (Courtesy of Geonor Corp.)
Pae 76
FIGURE 2.22 Selfborin pressuremeter. (From www.cambrideinsitu.com. With perm
ission.)
ultimate pressure that it can sustain before complete shear failure due to later
al stressin. The main exercise involved in the test is the monitorin of the re
lationship between pressure and deformation of the tested soil. In practice, the
test is conducted by first drillin a hole down to the desired elevation. The P
MT probe (Fiure 2.22) is then inserted inside the cavity and inflated to expand
the cavity while recordin the resultin volume chane ( V) versus the applied p
ressure (p) in the probe. The test results are plotted on a V versus p plot. The
ultimate objetive of pressuremeter tests is to haraterize the stressstrain
relationship of the in situ soil up to the ultimate shear failure. As mentioned
above, the testing mehanism permits the inferene of both the deformation prope
rties and the oeffiient of lateral earth pressure that would model the perfet
ly plasti shear failure aording to the Coulomb shear (fritional) failure the
ory. The deformation properties are dedued using the pressuremeter modulus that
an be linked to the elasti modulus through Equation (2.9): (2.9) where E is t
he elasti modulus of the soil, is the Poisson ratio of the soil associated with
2D elastic deformation, V0 is the initial volume of the measurin cell (typical
ly 535 cm3), m is the expanded vol me of the meas rin cell at the midpoint of
the linear portion of the V vers s P c rve (Fi re 2.23), and dp/dv is the press
remeter mod l s, which is e
al to the slope of the linear portion of the V ver
s s P c rve (Fi re 2.23). On the other hand, the shear strenth of the soil can
be eval ated approximately thro h the lateral press re, ph, at which the press
remeter membrane comes into complete contact with the s rro ndin soil. Under t
hese conditions, the followin expression for lateral earth press re at rest can
be applied: (2.10)
Pae 77
FIGURE 2.23 Typical res lts from a press remeter test. (Co rtesy of the Universi
ty of So th Florida.)
Res lts obtained from a press remeter test performed at a depth of 30 ft (10 m)
at the University of So th Florida camp s is ill strated in Fi re 2.23. This pl
ot shows a partial expansion of the press remeter p to a press re of 120 psi wi
tho t reachin limitin conditions, initial nloadin, and reloadin ntil a lim
itin press re of 150 psi. It is also seen that the final nloadin c rve is par
allel to the initial nloadin and the reloadin c rves. From the initial nload
in and reloadin portions of the plot in Fi re 2.23, it can be inferred that t
he linear portion of the c rve as beinnin aro nd the point (20, 35) and termin
atin aro nd the point (100, 45). Alternatively, the press remeter res lts can a
lso be plotted on a p (corrected inflation press re) vers s r (radi s of the pre
ss remeter probe) plot. H hes et al. (1977) sed the elastoplastic theory of ca
vity expansion to model the press remeter inflation to obtain the followin sef
l relations that can be applied to a p vers s r plot, when a press remeter test
is cond cted in a sandy soil. The press remeter inflation press re at the elast
ic limit, pe, can be expressed as (2.11) In the rane of plastic deformation, th
e radient of the lo (radial deflection) vers s lo (inflation press re) c rve
is iven by (2.12) where v is the dilation anle that is the slope of the shear
stress vers s shear strain ( ) plot for the sand. Example 2.1 Based on the plot i
n Fi re 2.23, estimate the elastic deformation and shear strenth parameters of
the tested soil. From Fi re 2.23, the lateral press re for complete contact wi
th soil=20 psi=in sit lateral soil press re at rest. Ass min that there was no
ro ndwater p to a depth of 20 ft, the overb rden press re=120 pcf30 ft=3600 ps
f=172.5 kPa. By applyin E
ation (2.10),
K0=20(144)/3600=0.8 Ass min that the tested soil is a welldrained soil and the
followin common relationship holds for the coefficient of lateral earth press
re at rest:
Pae 78
(2.13)
Also, from Fi re 2.23, one can derive the val e of m as and the press remeter m
od l s, dp/dv, as (10020) psi/(4535) cm3=80 psi/ 10(0.394)3 in. 3=130.8 lb/in.5 =3
2,546,744 lb/ft5=80(6.9) kPa/10(106) m 3=55.2 (106 ) kN/m5. Ass min a Poisson ra
tio of 0.33 and V0 of 535 cm3 (0.0189 ft3 ) and s bstit tin for dp/dv in E
ati
on (2.9), E= 2(1.3)(0.0189 ft3+0.0007 ft3)(32,546,744) lb/ft5=1658 ksf 6 3 In SI
nits, E =2(1.3)(535+20)(10 m )(55.2(106)) kN/m5)=79.65 MPa Hence, the elastic s
oil mod l s for lateral deformation is abo t 1658 ksf or 80 MPa. Example 2.2 Tab
le 2.9 provides the data obtained from a press remeter test in sand estimate the
anle of internal friction and the dilation anle for the sand. From Fi re 2.2
4, ph=1.5 k/cm2 and pe =2.5 k/cm2. Applyin E
ation (2.11), The radient of t
he lo r vers s lo p plot within the plastic rane (p>2.5 k/m2) is fo nd to be
3.1. Then, by applyin E
ation (2.12),
the dilation anle (v) for sand is fo nd to be aro nd 11.5.
TABLE 2.9 Data for Example 2.2
Corrected Press re (k/cm2)
0 0.352 0.394 0.922 1.408 1.9 2.394 2.837 3.326 3.811 4.294 4.737 3.417 3.635 4.
192 4.705 4.744 4.768 4.789 4.814 4.85 4.901 4.961 5.051
Expanded Radi s (cm)
5.183 5.641 6.091 6.531 6.955 7.143

5.162 5.295 5.452 5.635 5.859 6.176
Pae 79
FIGURE 2.24 Ill stration for Example 2.2.
Usin E
ation (1.69), one can also estimate the resid al friction anle v =11.5:
sin
and
Hence,
2.8 The Dilatometer Test
The dilatometer test (DMT) (ASTM D 6635) presents an alternative to the press re
meter in terms of sin meas rin fo ndation desin parameters sin an inflatab
le membrane as opposed to the expansion of a cylindrical cavity. It meas res the
lateral defection of the tested soil by applyin as press re thro h a vertica
l plate inserted at the desired level. DMT is more versatile than the press reme
ter in that in addition to the deformation mod l s of the soil vario s other soi
l parameters, s ch as soil type, shear strenth, in sit pore water press re, OC
R, ko, and coefficent of consolidation, Cv, can also be ded ced thro h many dif
ferent correlations with the DMT meas rements. In addition, a reat deal of othe
r information can be obtained from the DMT s ch as in sit stratiraphy, compres
sibility, and stress history. The instr ment is a paddleshaped stainless steel
plate (Fi re 2.25) with a 60mm thin hih strenth, expandable, circ lar steel
membrane (0.2mm thick) mo nted at the center of one face. The membrane is expan
ded by press rizin with nitroen as thro h a t be connected to the blade. The
tip of the blade is sharpened to facilitate easy penetration in the soil (Fi r
e 2.26). An electropne matic t be (as t be and electrical cable) r ns thro h t
he hollow rod, which connects the blade to a press re control and a e reado t
nit. Before the act al test, the dilatometer m st be calibrated to monitor the
response of the electropne matic reado t nit. Gas press re is applied to the di
aphram of the dilatometer to hear the initial b zzer so nd, which will indicate
that the membrane is in the seatin position. This initial readin m st be ded
cted from the act al readins taken d rin testin. The DMT boasts of hih repro
d cibility and is relatively
ick to perform. Also, there are direct desin par
ameters that can be obtained from the DMT. In terms of the limitations, like the
CPT, no soil sample can be obtained from this test and there is sliht dist rba
nce of soil to be tested. Moreover, this test is not as straihtforward as the C
PT or
Pae 80
FIGURE 2.25 Calibration of the flat plate dilatometer. (Co rtesy of the Universi
ty of So th Florida.)
SPT and, therefore, may be more diffic lt for a nontechnical crew to perform. He
nce, the
ality of the data obtained from this test depends on calibration, whi
ch can be a so rce of error. This test meas res the soil press re in only one di
rection compared to the press remeter test. F rthermore, DMT cannot be performed
in soils that contain ravel or rock since the membrane is fairly delicate and
can be s sceptible to damae.
2.8.1 Meas rement Proced re
1. Obtain p1 press re readins correspondin to the instant when the membrane is
j st fl sh with the plate.
FIGURE 2.26 Field application of the flat plate dilatometer (From www.marchetti
dmt.it. With permission.)
Pae 81 2. Take the p2 press re readin when the membrane expands by 1.1 mm into
the s rro ndin soil. 3. Release the inflation press re ntil the membrane ret
rns to the oriinal position that is flat with the plate. 4. Estimate pore press
re ( ) and vertical effective stress prior to blade insertion. 5. Determine DMT
parameters as follows: ID (material index) (2.14) KD (horizontal stress index)
(2.15) E D (dilatometer mod l s) E D=34.7(p2 p1) (2.16)
2.8.2 Determination of Fo ndation Desin Parameters
The material index, ID, and the dilatometer mod l s, ED, can be sed in Fi re 2
.27 to identify the type of soil. E D and an ass med Poissons ratio, S can also be
sed to determine the elastic mod l s sin the followin relationship: (2.17)
F rthermore, KD, the horizontal stress index, can be sed in estimatin the in s
it coefficient of lateral stress sin the followin approximate relationship:
(2.18) Desin parameters specific for finerained soils (ID 1.2 from Fi re 2.27
) are iven in E
ation (2.19)E
ation (2.20) OCR= [KD]1.56 (2.19)
(2.20) Desin parameters specific for ran lar soils (ID 1.8 from Fi re 2.27) is
iven by E
ation (2.21) (2.21) Table 2.10 provides a comparison of approximate
costs involved with the SPT, CPT, and dilatometer testin and Table 2.11 ill st
rates the correlations between the elastic mod l s of soil and the SPT and CPT t
est parameters.
Pae 82
FIGURE 2.27 Use of the dilatometer in the identification of soil type. (From Mar
chetti, S., Monaco, P., Totani, G., and Calabrese, M., 2001, The Flat Dilatomete
r Test (DMT) in Soil Investiations, A Report by the ISSMGE Committee TC16, Proc
. INSITU 2001, International Conference on In sit Meas rement of Soil Propertie
s, Bali, Indonesia, May. With permission.)
2.9 California Bearin Ratio Test
California bearin ratio (CBR) test (Fi re 2.28) is a penetration test in which
a standard piston havin an area of 3 in.2 is sed to penetrate a potential roa
dbed or roadbase soil sample. The soil sample is first compacted sin a standa
rd Proctor compaction test at the optim m moist re content and soaked for a spec
ified period to sim late critical wet conditions. A s rchare load is applied on
the compacted soil sample to sim late the in sit stress d e to the pavement st
r ct re (Table 2.12). The standard penetration rate is 0.05 in./min and the pres
s re val e at each 0.1in. penetration is recorded p to 0.5 in. Res lts from a
typical test are ill strated in Fi re 2.29.
TABLE 2.10 Comparison of Approximate Costs Involved with SPT, CPT, and Dilatomet
er Testin
Test
SPT CPT DMT $915
Cost
$1020 $3085 Per linear ft Per linear ft Per linear ft
Unit
$150300 $300 $150300
Mobilization
Pae 83
FIGURE 2.28 CBR testin e
ipment: (a) schematic diaram of CBR test apparat s (
Co rtesy of WSDOT.); (b) CBR compression tester. (From www.
c
a.com. With permis
sion.)
In order to determine the empirical CBR parameter, the press re val e correspond
in to 0.1in. penetration of the tested soil sample is expressed as a percenta
e of the correspondin press re val e for standard hih
ality cr shed rock (Ta
ble 2.12). If the ratio obtained from the comparison of the correspondin press
re val es for a penetration of 0.2 in. is reater, the latter is sed as the CBR
val e. Therefore, as shown in Table 2.13, the CBR of the tested soil is comp te
d to be 9.
TABLE 2.11 Soil Elastic Mod li from In Sit Test Data
Soil
Sand (normally consolidated) Sand (sat rated)
SPT
CPT
Es=(15,00022,000) In N Es=250( N+15) Es=(6 30)
c Es=1,200( N+6) = 600(N+6) N <15 =
600(N+6)+2,000 N >15 Es=320( N+15) Es=300( N+6) If
c<2,500 kPa se 2,500<
c<5,
000 se where Es=(36)
c Es=(12)
c
Sands, all (norm, consol.) Sand (overconsolidated) Gravelly sand
Clayey sand Silts, sandy silt, or clayey silt
Soft clay or clayey silt
Es=(3 8)
c
Notes: E s in kPa for SPT and nits of
c for CPT; divide kPa by 50 to obtain ks
f. The N val es sho ld be estimated as N 55 and not N70 . So rce: From Bowles, J
.E., 2002, Fo ndation Analysis and Desin, McGrawHill, New York. With permissio
n.
Pae 84
FIGURE 2.29 Typical res lts from a CBR test. (Co rtesy of the University of So t
h Florida.)
2.10 Borehole Shear Test
Borehole shear test (BST) can be adopted to rapidly meas re the soil shear stren
th parameters of fine to medi mrained soils, in sit . The BST is analoo s
to a laboratory direct shear test or a simple shear test with free drainae. Hen
ce, the shear strenth parameters obtained are consolidated drained ones. The mo
st common BST techni
e sed is the Iowa borehole shear test apparat s (Fi re 2
.30) (Miller et al., 1998).
2.10.1 Test Proced re
The expandable shear head of the BST is first lowered into the borehole to the d
esired depth. Next, the shear head is expanded aainst the walls of the hole nd
er a known
TABLE 2.12 Penetration Res lts for Standard HihQ ality Cr shed Rock
Penetration (in.)
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Press re (psi)
1000 1500 1900 2300 2600
Pae 85
TABLE 2.13 Ill stration of Determination of CBR
Displacement (in.)
0.1 0.2
Stress (psi)
78 135
CBR
7.8 9
normal (lateral) press re allowin time for consolidation, then slowly p llin t
he plates ntil shearin occ rs. The shearin force is proressively increased
ntil the soil fails, the point of fail re identified by the peak readin on the
shearstress hydra lic a e. This maxim m shear stress is then plotted with the
correspondin normal stress to prod ce a point on the typical MohrCo lomb fail
re envelope. By repeatin the same proced re with different normal stresses, a
series of different fail re conditions can be obtained. Then, as in the case of
direct shear tests, the shear stress vers s normal stress plot can be compared w
ith the MohrCo lomb fail re envelope to obtain the cohesion and friction anle o
f the tested soil.
FIGURE 2.30 The Iowa borehole shear test (BST) showin the press re so rce and i
nstr mentation console, the p llin device, and the expanded shear head on the s
ides of a borehole. (From Miller, G.A., Azad, S., and Hassell, C.E., 1998, Iowa
borehole shear testin in nsat rated soil, Geotechnical Site Characterization,
Vol. 1/2, pp. 13211326. With permission.)
Pae 86 The advantaes of the BST are as follows: 1. The BST is sed to cond ct
in sit meas rements of soil strenth, precl din any samplin dist rbance to th
e soil. 2. The BST enables the cohesion and friction anle to be eval ated separ
ately. 3. The data obtained from BST can be plotted and assessed on site, allowi
n for repetition if the res lts are fo nd to be nreasonable or erroneo s based
on
ality checkin.
References
Andrew, S. and Natasha, P., 2004, Monitorin of steam bank erosion processes: hy
dra lic, hydra lic, hydroloic and eotechnical controls, National Monitorin Co
nference. ASTM, 1998, Soil and rock, Ann al Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 4.08, W
est Conshohocke Bloom
ist, D. and Townsend, F.C., 1991, Development of In Sit
E
ipment for Capacity Determinations of Deep Fo ndations in Florida Limestone,
Florida Department of Transportation F nded Research, Project #23385001, March. B
owles, J.E., 2002, Fo ndation Analysis and Desin, McGrawHill, New York. Dapp,
S. and M llins, G., 2002, Press rero tin drilled shaft tips: f llscale resea
rch investiation for silty and shelly sands, Deep Fo ndations 2002: An Internat
ional Perspective on Theory, Desin, Constr ction, and Performance, ASCE Geo Ins
tit te, GSP No.116, Vol. I, pp. 335350. Das, B.M., 1995, Principles of Fo ndation
Enineerin, PWS P blishin, Boston, MA. FDOT, 1999, Soils and Fo ndations Man
al, State Materials Office, Gainesville, FL. Federal Hihway Administration (FHW
A), 1993, Soils and Fo ndations, Workshop Man al, 2nd edn, FHWA HI88009, Nationa
l Hihway Instit te, NHI Co rse No. 13212, Revised, J ly. Federal Hihway Admini
stration (FHWA), 1998, Load and Resistance Factor Desin (LRFD) for Hihway Brid
e S bstr ct res, NCHRP Co rse No. 13068, HI 98032, J ly, Washinton, DC. H hes,
J.M.O., Wroth, C.P., and Windle, D., 1977, Press remeter tests in sands, Geotec
hni
e, XXVII(4): 455177. K lhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W., 1990, Man al on Estimati
n Soil Properties for Fo ndation Desin, EPRI EL6800 Research Project 14936, El
ectric Power Research Instit te, A st. Lai, P.W., 1999, Determination of desi
n skin friction for drilled shafts socketed in the Florida limestone, Soils and
Fo ndations Man al, State Materials Office, Gainesville, FL. Lewis, C.L., 1999,
Analysis of Axial Statnamic Testin by the Semental Unloadin Point Method, Mas
ters Thesis, University of So th Florida, Tampa, FL. Marchetti, S., Monaco, P., T
otani, G., and Calabrese, M., 2001, The Flat Dilatometer Test (DMT) in Soil Inve
stiations, A Report by the ISSMGE Committee TC16, Proc. INSITU 2001, Internatio
nal Conference on In sit Meas rement of Soil Properties, Bali, Indonesia, May.
Miller, G.A., Azad, S., and Hassell, C.E., 1998, Iowa Borehole Shear Testin in
Unsat rated Soil, Geotechnical Site Characterization, Vol. 1/2, pp. 13211326. Rob
ertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.E., 1983, Interpretation of cone penetration test
s, Part I; sand, Canadian Geotechnical Jo rnal, 20(4), pp. 718733. Wittke, W., 19
90, Rock Mechanics, Theory and Application with Case Histories, SprinerVerla,
Berlin.
Pae 87
3 Spread Footins: Analysis and Desin
Manjriker G naratne CONTENTS 3.1 Desin Criteria 3.1.1 Bearin Capacity Criterio
n 3.1.2 Settlement Criterion 3.2 Eval ation of Bearin Capacity 3.2.1 Bearin Ca
pacity Eval ation in Homoeneo s Soil 3.2.2 Net Ultimate Bearin Capacity 3.2.3
Fo ndations on Stiff Soil Overlyin a Soft Clay Strat m 3.2.4 Fo ndations on Sof
t Soil Overlyin a Hard Strat m 3.2.5 Bearin Capacity in Soils Mixed in Layers
3.2.6 Bearin Capacity of Eccentric Footins 3.2.7 Bearin Capacity Usin In Sit
Test Data 3.2.7.1 Cone Penetration Test Data 3.2.7.2 Standard Penetration Test
Data 3.2.7.3 Plate Load Test Data 3.2.8 Pres mptive LoadBearin Capacity 3.3 S
ettlement Analysis 3.3.1 Stress Distrib tion in S bs rface Soils D e to Fo ndati
on Loadin 3.3.1.1 Analytical Methods 3.3.1.2 Approximate Stress Distrib tion Me
thod 3.3.2 Settlement Comp tation Based on Plate Load Test Data 3.3.3 Comp tatio
n of Settlement in Oranic Soils 3.4 Load and Resistance Factor Desin Criteria
3.4.1 Load and Resistance Factor Desin Philosophy 3.4.2 Calibration by Fittin
to ASD 3.4.3 Calibration by Reliability Theory 3.4.3.1 Variability of Soil Data
88 88 89 89 89 94 95 96 97 98 100 100 101 101 102 102 102 102 103 113 113 115 11
6 116 117 117
3.4.3.2 Normal Distrib tion 3.4.3.3 Lonormal Distrib tion 3.4.3.4 Estimation of
Probabilities 3.4.3.5 Reliability of Desin 3.4.3.6 Reliability Index 3.4.3.7 R
esistance Statistics 3.4.3.8 Load Statistics 3.4.3.9 Determination of Resistance
Factors 3.4.3.10 Determination of the Simplified Resistance Factor 3.5 Desin o
f Footins to Withstand Vibrations 3.5.1 Vertical SteadyState Vibrations
119 120 120 121 123 123 124 124 126 130 130
Pae 88 3.5.2 Rockin Oscillations 3.5.3 Slidin Oscillations 3.5.4 Fo ndation V

ibrations d e to Rotatin Masses 3.6 Additional Examples References A shallow sp
read footin is desined for a b ildin col mn in order to safely transmit the s
tr ct ral load to the ro nd witho t exceedin the bearin capacity of the ro n
d and ca sin excessive settlements. The system that encompasses the footin and
the ro nd infl enced by the footin is enerally referred to as the fo ndation
. 135 136 138 138 143
3.1 Desin Criteria
3.1.1 Bearin Capacity Criterion
The maxim m contact stress that can be borne by the fo ndation is termed the lt
imate bearin capacity of the fo ndation. If the contact ro nd stress imposed b
y the str ct ral load exceeds the ltimate bearin capacity, the shear stresses
ind ced in the ro nd wo ld ca se plastic shear deformation within the fo ndatio
ns infl ence zone (Fi re 3.1). This overloadin condition can lead to either a
lobal or a p nchin shear fail re, which wo ld res lt in immediate sinkin of th
e footin witho t prior warnin. Therefore, for safety from bearin capacity fai
l re, (3.1a)
FIGURE 3.1
Infl ence zone of a shallow footin.
Pae 89 where
lt is the ltimate bearin capacity of the fo ndation (kN/m2, kP
a, or ksf), P is the total load at the footin level (str ct ral+refill soil loa
d) (kN or kips), A is the footin area (m2 or ft 2), F is the an appropriate saf
ety factor that acco nts for the ncertainties involved in the determination of
the str ct ral loads (P) and the ltimate bearin capacity (
lt).
3.1.2 Settlement Criterion
The desiner m st also ens re that the footin does not ndero either excessive
total settlement or differential settlement within the footin. Excessive settl
ement of the fo ndation enerally occ rs d e to irreversible compressive deforma
tion takin place immediately or in the lon term. Excessive timedependent sett
lement occ rs in sat rated compressible clays with prior warnin thro h crackin
, tiltin, and other sins of b ildin distress. On the other hand, sinificant
immediate settlement can occ r in loose sands or compressible clays and silts.
Therefore, the footin m st be proportioned to limit its estimated settlements (
est) within tolerable settlements ( tol): est tol (3.1b)
3.2 Evaluation of Bearing Capacity
Base on the iscussion in Section 3.1.1, a founation erives its bearing capac
ity from the shear strength of the subsoil within the influence area (Figure 3.1
) an the embement of the footing (D) . Over the years, many eminent geotechnic
al engineers have suggeste expressions for the ultimate bearing capacity of fou
nations that have also been verifie on various occasions by loa tests (e.g.,
plate loa test). Some common expressions for the ultimate bearing capacity are
provie next.
3.2.1 Bearing Capacity Evaluation in Homogeneous Soil
Terzaghis bearing capacity expression qult =cNcsc +qNq+0.5B N s (3.2) Meyerhoffs bear
in capacity expression For vertical loads
lt =cNc sc dc +
N
s
d
+0.5B N s d (3.3)
For inclined loads

lt =cNcdc ic +
N
d
i
+0.5B N d i (3.4) Hansens bearin capacity expression
lt =cN
csc dci cc bc+
N
s
d
i

b
+0.5B N s d i b (3.5) For ndrained conditions (3.6) Ves
cs bearin capacity expression
lt =cNcsc dci cc bc+
N
s
d
i

b
+0.5B N s d i b
7)
Pae 90
TABLE 3.1 Bearin Capacity Factors
Terzahis (1943) Expression Nc N
N
Hansen, Meyerhoff, and Vesics Expressions Nc N
Hansen Meyerhoff (1970) N (1951, 1
963) N
1.0 1.6 2.5 3.9 6.4 10.7 18.4 33.5 64.1 135 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.2 2.9 6.8 15.1 34.4 79
.4 201 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.1 2.9 6.8 15.7 37.6 93.6 262.3
Vesic (1973, 1975) N
0.0 0.4 1.2 2.6 5.4 12.5 22.4 48.1 109.3 271.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
5.7 7.3 9.6 12.9 17.7 25.1 37.2 57.8 95.7 172
1.0 1.6 2.7 4.4 7.4 12.7 22.5 41.4 81.3 173
0.0 0.5 1.2 2.5 5.0 9.7 19.7 42.4 100 298
5.14 6.49 8.34 11.0 14.8 20.1 30.1 46.4 75.3 134
where c is the cohesive strenth, is the friction anle, Ni are the bearin capa
city factors (Table 3.1),
is the effective vertical stress at the footin base
level, is the nit weiht of the s rchare soil, s is the shape factor (Table 3
.2; Fi re 3.2), d is the depth factor (Table 3.2), i is the inclination factor
(Table 3.2 and Table 3.3), is the ro nd slope factor (Table 3.3), and b is th
e base tilt factor (Table 3.3). Finally, appropriate safety factors recommended
for vario s constr ction sit ations are iven in Table 3.4. Example 3.1 For the
col mn shown in Fi re 3.3, desin a s itable footin to carry a col mn load of
400 kN, in a s bsoil that can be considered as a homoeno s silty clay with the
followin properties: nit weiht= =17 kN/m3; internal cohesion= c= 20 kPa. Case
1. Ass me that the ro nd water table is not in the vicinity. Case 2. Ass me tha
t the ro nd water table is 0.5m above the footin.
TABLE 3.2A Shape and Depth Factors for Hansens Expression (Hansen, 1970)
Shape Factors
Depth Factors
k=D/B fo r D/B 1 1 k(radians)=tan (D/B) for D/B>1
d =1.00
So rce: From Bowles, J.E., 2002, Fo ndation Analysis and Desin, McGrawHill, Ne
Pae 91
TABLE 3.2B Shape, Depth, and Inclination Factors for Meyerhoffs Expression (Meyer
hoff, 1951, 1963) (Fi re 3.2) Shape factors
Depth factors
Inclination factors
Note: Where is the load inclination to the vertical and So rce: From Bowles, J.E.
, 2002, Fo ndation Analysis and Desin, McGrawHill, New York. With permission.
Sol tion First one m st decide on a s itable footin shape and depth. In the cas
e of the footin shape, nless there are limitations in spacin s ch as the clos
e proximity to the property line, there is enerally no reason for one not to s
e a s
are or a circ lar footin. Hence, in this desin, one can ass me a circ l
ar footin. As for the fo ndation depth, typically one wo ld seek some sinifica
nt embedment that does not reach the ro nd water table or a weak layer known to
be nderlyin the fo ndation soil. In the c rrent case, obvio sly none of these
can be sed as a criterion to select the footin depth. Therefore, one co ld as
s me a depth approximately e
al to the minim m footin dimension (diameter) of
the footin. However, once the desin
TABLE 3.2C Shape and Depth Factors for Vesics Expression (Vesic, 1973, 1975
Shape Factors
Depth Factors
So rce: From Bowles, J.E., 2002, Fo ndation Analysis and Desin, McGrawHill, Ne
Pae 92
FIGURE 3.2 G ide for obtainin inclination factors.
parameters are obtained, one can reeval ate this criterion to verify that the de
pth is realistic from a constr ction point of view. Tables indicate the followin
bearin capacity parameters: Terzahis factors (Table 3.1) Nc =12.9, N
=4.4, N =
2.5 sc =1.3, s =0.6 Hansens factors (Table 3.1) Nc =10.97, N
=3.9, N =1.2 sc =1.359
, s
=1.26, s =0.6 dc =1.4, d
=1.294, d =1.0
TABLE 3.3A Inclination, Gro nd Slope, and Base Tilt Factors for Hansens Expressio
n (Hansen, 1970) (Fi re 3.2). Primed Factors are
Load Inclination Factors
Factors for Base on Slope ( )
gq =g =(1 0.5 tan )5 ( measured clockwise from horizontal)
Factors for tilted ase ( )
Source: From Bowles, J.E., 2002, Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill, Ne
w York. Wit permission.
Page 93
TABLE 3.3B Inclination, Ground Slope, and Base Tilt Factors for Vesics Epression
(Vesic 1973, 1975) (Figure 3.2). Primed Factors are for
Load Inclination Factors Slope
Factors for Base on Slope ( )
gq =g =(1.0 tan )2 ( measured clockwise from horizontal)
When H is parallel to B When H is parallel to L
Factors for tilted ase ( )
Wen H as components parallel to bot B and L ( is measured counter-clockwise fr
om orizontal)
Notes: c, coesion, tat is, attraction between te same material; ca, adesion,
tat is, attraction between two different materials (e.g., concrete and soil).
Hence, ca< c. Bowles (2002) suggests c a=0.6 1.0 c. The act al val e depends on
the concrete finish. If concrete fo ndation base is smooth, then ca wo ld be hi
her than that of a ro h base. So rce: From Bowles, J.E., 2002, Fo ndation Analy
sis and Desin, McGrawHill, New York. With permission.
Case (1) The vertical effective stress at the footin base level=
=(17)(depth)=
17B. Then, the followin expressions can be written for the ltimate bearin cap
acity: Terzahi method (E
ation (3.2))
lt =20(12.9)(1.3)+(17B )(4.4)+0.5(17)(
B) (2.5)(0.6) = 335.4+87.55B Hansen method (E
ation (3.5))
lt =20(10.97)(1.35
9)(1.4)+(17B)(3.9)(1.26)(1.294)+0.5(17)(B) (1.2)(0.6)(1.0) =417.4+114.22 B Conta
ct stress at the fo ndation level=4400/ (AB2 )+17B =stresses imposed by the col m
n and the recompacted soil (Fi re 3.3). The followin criterion can be applied
to compare the contact stress and the ltimate bearin capacity with a safety f
actor of 2.5: 4400/ (AB2)+17B=
lt/(2.5)
Pae 94
From Terzahis expression 509.3/ B2+17B=(335.4+87.55 B)/2.5 B =1.75 m From Hansens
expression 509.3/ B2+17B=(417.4+114.22 B)/2.5 B =1.55 m Altho h the two sol ti
ons are different, one realizes that the disparity is insinificant from a const
r ction point of view. F rthermore, in both cases, the footin depth obtained is
within practical limits. Case 2. Ass me that the water table is 0.5 m above the
footin. Usin Hansens expression (E
ation 3.5)
lt=20(10.97)(1.359)(1.4)+[17
B (9.8)(0.5)](3.9)(1.26)(1.294)+0.5(17 9.8)(B)(1.2)(0.6)(1.0) =386.27+110.69B 509.
3/B2 +17B =(386.27+110.69B)/2.5 B=1.62 m It is noted that a slihtly larer area
is needed to co nteract the loss of fo ndation strenth d e to the ro ndwater
table.
3.2.2 Net Ultimate Bearin Capacity
If the str ct ral (col mn) load is to be sed in the bearin capacity criterion
(E
ation (3.1)) to desin the footin, then one has to strictly se the corresp
ondin bearin capacity that excl des the effects of the soil overb rden. This i
s known as the net ltimate bearin capacity of the ro nd and it is expressed a
s
Pae 95
n, lt =
lt
(3.8) where
is the total overb rden stress. On the other
hand, the net load increase on the ro nd wo ld be the str ct ral load only, if
it is ass med that concrete co nteracts the soil removed to lay the footin. Th
en, E
ation (3.1) can be modified as (3.9)
3.2.3 Fo ndations on Stiff Soil Overlyin a Soft Clay Strat m
One can expect a p nchin type of bearin capacity fail re if the s rface layer
is relatively thin and stiffer than the nderlyin softer layer. In this case, i
f one ass mes that the stiff strat m (i.e., stiff clay, medi m dense, or dense s
and), where the footin is fo nded to satisfy the bearin capacity criterion wit
h respect to the s rface layers, then the next most critical criterion is that t
he stress ind ced by the footin (Fi re 3.4) at the interface of the stiff soil
soft clay m st meet the relatively low bearin capacity of the soft layer. The d
istrib ted stress can be comp ted by the followin e
ations: For rectan lar sp
read footins (3.10) For s
are or circ lar spread footins (3.11) For strip foo
tins (3.12)
Pae 96 Example 3.2 Ass me that the s

are footin shown in Fi re 3.2 has been
well desined to carry a 500 kN load and to be fo nded in the sand layer overlyi
n the soft clay layer. Check the bearin capacity criterion in the clay layer (
ndrained cohesion=20 kPa). If Hansens bearin capacity e
ation (E
ation (3.5))
is sed to estimate the net ltimate bearin capacity of the clay layer,
n, lt
=cNcsc dci cc bc+
(N
1)s
d
i

b
+0.5B N s d i b (3.5) Under ndrained conditio
since Nc =5.14, N
=1.0, N =0 (Table 3.1)
n, lt =cNcsc dci cc bc (E
ation (3.5
)) sc =1.195 (s
are footin)
n, lt =(20)(5.14)(1.195)(2.0) =245.69 kPa Alternatively, from E

ation (3.6)
From Table 3.2(a) (since d/b =3.0/1.2 when one considers that the bearin capaci
ty of the clay layer with respect to the distrib ted load from the footin) Also
, Hence and
The net stress applied on the soft clay can be estimated as (3.11)
3.2.4 Fo ndations on Soft Soil Overlyin a Hard Strat m
When fo ndations are constr cted on thin clayey s rface layers overlyin relativ
ely hard strata (Fi re 3.5), the mechanism of bearin capacity fail re transfor
ms into one in which
Pae 97
FIGURE 3.5 Soft s rface layer overlyin a harder layer.
the footin tends to s
eeze the soft layer away while sinkin in. In s ch cases
, the net ltimate bearin capacity of the s rface layer can be obtained from th
e followin expressions (Tomlinson et al., 1995): Circ lar/s
are footins (3.13
) Strip footins (3.14) where B is the footin dimension, d is the thickness of
the s rface layer, and S is the ndrained strenth of the s rface layer. It m s
t be noted that if the criteria B/d 2 and B/d 6 are not satisfied for circ lar and
strip footins, respectively, the fo ndation can be treated as one placed in a
homoeneo s clay layer. For homoeneo s cases, the bearin capacity estimation c
an be performed based on the methods disc ssed in the Section 3.2.1.
3.2.5 Bearin Capacity in Soils Mixed in Layers
When the s bs rface constit tes an alternatin (sandwiched) mixt re of two disti
nct soil types as shown in Fi re 3.6, one can se enineerin j dment to estim
ate the bearin capacity. As an example, Fi re 3.6 has the followin layers as
identified by the cone penetration test (CPT) res lts: 1. SM (silty sand), which
is sand contaminated with a sinificant portion of silt. As expected the cone r
esistance
c profile peaks o t for sand. 2. CL or ML (clay and silt). As one wo
ld expect, the
c profile drops for clay or silt (if the shaft friction, fs, pro
file was provided, it wo ld be relatively hih for these layers).
In order to estimate the bearin capacity, the

c val es have to be averaed wit
hin the infl ence zone (Section 3.2.7.1). Since the soil types are not physicall
y separated into two
Pae 98
FIGURE 3.6 Bearin capacity of soils mixed in layers.
distinct layers, and beca se SM and CL (or ML) have very different enineerin p
roperties, it is concept ally incorrect to averae the
c val es across the enti
re infl ence zone. Hence, the only way to address this is to ass me one soil typ
e at a time and obtain two bearin capacity estimates, an pper bo nd and a lowe
r bo nd for the act al bearin capacity:
Step Ass me SM type only with a contin o s linear
c profile (with depth) defin
ed by the peaks in 1. Fi re 3.6, th s inorin the presence of clay and silt (C
L or ML). Then, one deals with a silty sand only and the correspondin bearin c
apacity estimate wo ld be Q lt)1 (the pper bo nd). Step Ass me CL or ML type on
ly with a contin o s linear
c profile (with depth) defined by the 2. tro hs (i
ndentations), th s inorin the presence of sand (SM) and ass min ndrained con
ditions. Then, one deals with clay or silt only and the correspondin bearin ca
pacity estimate wo ld be Q lt)2 (the lower bo nd).
Then, the effective bearin capacity co ld be estimated from the followin ine

ality: Q lt)2<Q lt<Q lt)1 (3.15)
3.2.6 Bearin Capacity of Eccentric Footins
The press re distrib tion on the bottom of an eccentric footin can be determine
d from combined axial and bendin stresses, as seen in Fi re 3.7. One also real
izes that, in order to prevent tensile forces at the bottom that tend to plift
the footin, the followin conditions m st be satisfied:
Pae 99
FIGURE 3.7 Bottom press re distrib tion on riid eccentric footins.
(3.16a) The above conditions are modified for rock as follows: (3.16b) For the l
oad and resistance factor desin (LRFD) method (Section 3.4), the followin modi
fications are made in the maxim m eccentricity criteria (for no tension at the f
ootinsoil interface) in view of load factorin: (3.17a) and (3.17b) The above
conditions are modified for rock as follows: (3.17c)
(3.17d) Since the contact press re is non niform at the bottom of the footin (F
i re 3.7), Meyerhoff (1963) and Hansen (1970) s ested the followin effectiv
e footin dimensions to be sed in order to comp te the bearin capacity of an e
ccentrically loaded rectan lar footin. For eccentricities in both X and direct
ions (Fi re 3.8):
(3.18a)
(3.18b) At times, a horizontal load that has two components, i.e., HB parallel t
o B and HL parallel to L, can act on the col mn prod cin two eccentricities ex
and ey on the footin. In s ch cases, shape factors (Table 3.2) are comp ted twi
ce by interchanin B and L . Also, i factors (Table 3.3) are also comp ted tw
ice by replacin Hi once with HL and then with HB. Finally, the B term in the
lt expression also ets replaced by L . Th s, in s ch cases, one wo ld obtain t

wo distinct
lt val es. The lesser of these val es is compared to P/A for the f
ootin desin.
Pae 100
FIGURE 3.8 (a) Rectan lar footins with eccentricity, (b) Circ lar footins wit
h eccentricity.
In the case of circ lar footins havin load eccentricity e and radi s R, one m
st first locate the diameter correspondin to the eccentricity (point E in Fi r
e 3.8b) and then constr ct a circ lar arc centered at F (EF=CE) with a radi s e
al to that of the footin. Then, the shaded area represents the effective footi
n area. Since the effective footin area is not of a eometrically re lar shap
e, typically this is transformed into an e
ivalent rectan lar footin of dimen
sions B and L . The effective dimensions can be fo nd from the followin expres
sion: (3.19) However, it m st be noted that the nmodified B and L m st be sed
when determinin the depth factors (d) in the bearin capacity e
ations. When f
ootins are to be desined for a col mn that carries an nbalanced moment, M, an
d an axial force, P, which are fixed in manit de, the res ltin eccentricity (e
=M/P) ind ced on the footins can be avoided by offsettin the col mn by a dista
nce of x= e, as shown in Fi re 3.9. It is seen how the axial force in the col mn
creates an e
al and opposite moment to co nteract the moment in the col mn. Ho
wever, this techni
e cannot be employed to prevent footin eccentricities when
eccentricities are introd ced by variable moments d e to wind and wave loadin.
3.2.7 Bearin Capacity Usin In Sit Test Data 3.2.7.1 Cone Penetration Test Dat
a
Cone penetration data can be sed to obtain the ndrained strenth of sat rated
finerained soils sin the followin expression:
FIGURE 3.9 Desinin footins to avoid eccentricity.
Pae 101
(3.20) where N k is the cone factor that ranes between 15 and 19 for normally c
onsolidated clay and between 27 and 30 for overconsolidated clays. Bowles (1995
) s ests the followin expression for Nk: (3.21) where PI is the plasticity in
dex. To determine an averae
c for a footin desin, one wo ld consider a footi
n infl ence zone that extends 2 B below the footin and above the footin. 3.2.
7.2 Standard Penetration Test Data Parry (1977) provided the followin expressio
n for the allowable bearin capacity (in kPa) of spread footins on cohesionless
soils. For Df<B: (3.22) where N 55 is the corrected SPT blow co nt correspondin
to a 55% hammer efficiency and s is the settlement in millimeters. A modified
and more versatile form of this expression is provided in Section 4.3.1. Typical
ly, when SPT data are provided, one can se the followin correlation to estimat
e an e
ivalent anle of friction for the soil and determine the bearin capacit
y sin the methods presented in Section 3.2: (3.23) where The footin infl ence
zone s ested in Section 3.2.7.1 can be employed for comp tations involvin E
ations (3.22) and (3.23) as well. 3.2.7.3 Plate Load Test Data Fi re 3.10 show
s a typical plot of plateload test res lts on a sand deposit. When one scr tini
zes Fi re 3.10, it is seen that the ltimate bearin capacity of the plate can
be estimated from the event al flattenin of the loaddeflection c rve. Knowin
the ltimate bearin capacity of the plate, one can predict the expected bearin
capacity of a footin to be placed on the same location sin the followin exp
ressions: Clayey soils

(f)=
(p) (3.24) Sandy soils (3.25) where B p is the plate diameter and Bf is
the e
ivalent fo ndation diameter, which can be determined as the diameter of a
circle havin an area e
al to that of the footin.
Pae 102
FIGURE 3.10 Ill stration of infl ence zones.
It m st be noted that the above expressions can be applied if it is known that t
he infl ence zone (Fi re 3.10) of both the plate and when the footin is confin
ed to the same type of soil and the effects of the ro ndwater table wo ld be si
milar in both cases.
3.2.8 Pres mptive LoadBearin Capacity
The b ildin codes of some cities s est bearin capacities for certain b ildin
sites based on the classification of the predominant soil type at that site. T
able 3.5Table 3.7 present a comprehensive list of pres mptive bearin capacities
for vario s soil types. However, it m st be noted that these val es do not refle
ct the fo ndation shape, depth, load inclination, location of the water table, a
nd the settlements that are associated with the sites. Hence, the se of these b
earin capacity factors are advocated primarily in sit ations where a preliminar
y idea of the potential fo ndation size is needed for the s bse
ent site invest
iation followed by detailed desin.
3.3 Settlement Analysis
Methodoloies sed for comp tation of ro nd settlement nder b ildin fo ndatio
ns have been disc ssed in detail in Section 1.5. Therefore, in this section, a n
mber of techni
es that are commonly employed to eval ate the ro nd stress inc
rease d e to footins will be reviewed. Then a n mber of examples will be provid
ed to ill strate the application of the above techni
es.
3.3.1 Stress Distrib tion in S bs rface Soils d e to Fo ndation Loadin
3.3.1.1 Analytical Methods The vertical stress ind ced in the s bs rface by a co
ncentrated vertical load, s ch as the load on a relatively small footin fo nded
on an extensive soil mass, can be approximately estimated by Bo ssines
s elastic
theory as follows:
Pae 103
(3.26) where r and z are indicated in Fi re 3.11. E
ation (3.26) can be sed t
o derive the manit de of vertical stress imposed at any depth z vertically belo
w the center of a circ lar fo ndation (of radi s R) carryin a niformly distrib
ted load of
as (Fi re 3.12) (3.27a) Stress increments in the horizontal (x a
nd y) and vertical (z) directions d e to other shapes of niformly loaded footin
s (e.., rectan lar, strip, etc.) can be estimated based on analytical express
ions presented in Harr (1966). E
ation (3.26) can also be sed to derive the ve
rtical stress imposed at any depth z vertically below the corner of a rectan la
r fo ndation carryin a distrib ted load of
as (Fi re 3.12b) expressed below:
z =qK(m, n) (3.27b) where m=length/width of the foundation and n=z/foundation w
idth. Value of K(m, n) are tabulated in Table 3.8. Equation (3.27b) can alo be
applied to determine the tre increae at any point under the loaded area ui
ng partition of the loaded area in which the corner coincide in plan with the
point of interet. Thi technique i illutrated in a ettlement etimation prob
lem in Example 4.3. 3.3.1.2 Approximate Stre Ditribution Method At time it i
more convenient to etimate the uburface tre increment due to footing u
ing approximate ditribution. A commonly ued ditribution i the 2:1 ditribu
tion hown in Figure 3.13. Baed on Figure 3.13, it can be een that the tre
increment caued by a uniformly loaded rectangular footing (BL) at a depth of z i
(3.28) Example 3.3 Aume that it i neceary to compute the ultimate conoli
dation ettlement and the 10year ettlement of the 1.5 m1.5 m footing carrying a
200kN load a hown in Figure 3.14. Soil propertie are provided in Table 3.8.
Alo aume the laboratory conolidation characteritic of a repreentative am
ple (from the midplane area of the clay layer) are repreented by Figure 3.15 a
nd the coefficient of conolidation (Cv) of the clay wa 8 2 determined to be 1.
010 m /ec baed on the methodology preented in Section 1.5.
From Figure 3.15, preconolidation preure=pc =60 kPa Contact preure=q=200/(1

.5)2 =88.89 kPa Overburden preure at the footing depth=16.51.0=16.5 kPa The ave
rage tre increae in the clay layer can be obtained uing Newmarks influence c
hart (reproduced in Figure 3.16) y considering the mid-plane depth of clay. Thi
s can e determined from Figure 3.16 y mapping the footing to the scale indicat
ed at the ottom of the figure, i.e., dc (the depth from the footing to the loca
tion where the stress increase is needed)=the distance indicated as OQ. In this
example, one can see that dc=3.75 m.
Page 104
TABLE 3.4A Factors of Safety on Ultimate Geotechnical Capacity of Spread Footing
s for Bearing Capacity and Sliding Failure (AASHTO, 1996)
Failure Condition
Bearing capacity of footing on soil or rock Sliding resistance of footing on soi
l or rock
Required Minimum Factor of Safety (FS)
3.0 1.5
Source: From AASHTO, 1996, Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, American
Association for State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. Wit
h permission.
TABLE 3.4B Factors of Safety on Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Spread Footings on
Soils
Basis for Soil Strength Estimate
Standard penetration tests Laoratory/field strength tests
Suggested Minimum Factor of Safety (FS)
3.0 2.5
Source: From Federal Highway Administration, 1998, Load and Resistance Factor De
sign (LRFD) for Highway Bridge Superstructures, Washington, DC. With permission.
TABLE 3.4C Variale Factors of Safety on Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Spread Foo
tings
Required Minimum Factor of Safety (FS) Permanent Structures Category Temporary S
tructures Typical Category Complete Limited Complete Limited Structures Characte
ristics Soil Soil Soil Soil Exploration Exploration Exploration Exploration
Railway ridges Warehouses Blast furnaces Hydraulic Retaining walls Silos Highwa
y ridges Light industrial and pulic uildings Maximum design 3.0 load likely t
o occur often; consequences of failure disastrous Maximum design load may occur
occasionally; consequences of failure serious 2.5 4.0 2.3 3.0
A
B
3.5
2.0
2.6
C
Apartment and office uildings
Maximum design 2.0 load unlikely to occur
3.0
2.0
2.3
sign (LRFD) fo r Highw ay Bri Superstructures, Washington, DC. With permission.
Page 105
TABLE 3.5 Presumptive Bearing Capacities from Indicated Building Codes, kPa
Soil Description
Chicago, 1995
25 75 125 175 210 300 240 100 125
Natl. Board of Fire Underwriters, 1976
BOCA,a Uniform 1993 Building Code, 1991
100 100 100 140
Clay, very soft Clay, soft Clay, ordinary Clay, medium stiff Clay, stiff Clay, h
ard Sand, compact and clean Sand, compact and silty Inorganic silt, compact Sand
, loose and fine Sand, loose and coarse, or sand-gravel mixture, or compact and
fine Gravel, loose and compact coarse sand Sand-gravel, compact Hardpan, cemente
d sand, cemented gravel Soft rock Sedimentary layered rock (hard shale, sandston
e, siltstone) Bedrock
100 100
} } } 140 400
140
200
140 240
210 300
300
} }
240
300
240 340
300
600
950
6000
1400
9600
9600
6000
9600
Note: Val es converted from po nds per s

are foot to kilopascals and ro nded. S
oil descriptions vary widely between codes. The followin represents a thors inte
rpretations. a B ildin Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. b
Bowles (1995) interpretation. So rce: From Bowles, J.E., 2002, Fo ndation Analys
is and Desin, McGrawHill, New York. With permission.
The stress increase at a depth dc can be fo nd sin E
ation (1.19): p=NqI (1.1
9) where N and I are the number of elements of Newmarks hart overed by the sal
ed footing and the influene fator of the diagram respetively. For the hart s
hown in Figure 3.16,
I=0.001. If the footing were to behave as a flexible footing, the enter settlem
ent would be the maximum while the orner settlement would be the minimum within
the footing. Thus, penter =(419)88.890.001=6.75 kPa porner=(58)88.890.001=5.2 kPa
On the other hand, if the footing were to behave as a rigid footing, then the av
erage stress inrease at the midplane level of the lay layer within the footin
g an be determined by using appropriate stress attenuation (Figure 3.13). Using
the ommonplae 2:1 stress attenuation (Equation (3.28)), one an estimate the
stress inrease as
where B and L are footing dimensions. Thus, paverage=88.89[1.5/(1.5+3.75)]2 =7.2
56 kPa
Page 106
TABLE 3.6A Presumptive Bearing Capaities for Foundations in Granular Soils Base
d on SPT Data (at a Minimum Depth of 0.75 m Below Ground Level)
Presumed Bearing Value (kN/m2) for Foundation of Width Desription of Soil
Very dense sands and gravels Dense sands and gravels Mediumdense sands and grav
els Loose sands and gravels
NValue in SPT
>50 3050 1030 510 800
1m
600
2m
500
4m
500800 150500 50150
400600 100 400 50100
300500 100300 30100
Note: The water table is assumed not to be above the base of foundation. Presume
d bearing values for pad foundations up to 3 m wide are approximately twie the
above values. Soure: From Tomlinson, M.J. and Boorman, R., 1995, Foundation Des
ign and Constrution, Longman Sientifi and Tehnial, Brunthill, Harlow, Engla
nd. With permission.
TABLE 3.6B Presumptive Bearing Capaities for Foundations in Clayey Soils Based
on Undrained Shear Strength (at a Minimum Depth of 1 m Below Ground Level)
Presumed Bearing Value (kN/m2) for Foundation of Width Desription Undrained 1m
Shear Strength Hard boulder lays, (kN/m2 ) hardfissured lays
(e.g., deeper London and Gault Clays) Very stiff boulder lay, very stiff 150300 b
lue London Clay Stifffissured lays (e.g., stiff 75150 blue and brown London Clay),
stiff weathered boulder lay Firm normally onsolidated 4075 lays (at depth), fl
uvioglaial and lake lays, upper weathered brown London Clay Soft normally onso
lidated 20 4 alluvial lays (e.g., marine, river and estuarine lays) 400800 200400
300 150250 500 150 75125 250 75 100 5075
2m
4m
600 400
>300 800
100200
50100
25 50
Negligible
Soure: From Tomlinson, M.J. and Boorman, R., 1995, Foundation Design and Constr
ution,
Longman Sientifi and Tehnial, Brunthill, Harlow, England. With permission.

It must be noted that if one were to have averaged the above stress estimates fo
r the enter and orner of the footing, one would have obtained paverage=(1/2)(6
.75+5.2)=5.975 kPa Sine the estimates are signifiantly different, the author s
uggests using the averages of the estimates from Figure 3.15 as opposed to the a
pproximate estimate obtained from Figure 3.13. The average effetive overburden
pressure at the midplane of the lay layer is found from Equation (1.4b) as
Sine
one an assume that the overall lay layer is in an overonsolidated state.
Page 107
TABLE 3.7 Presumptive Bearing Capaities for Foundations on Rok Surfae (Settle
ment Not Exeeding 50 mm)
Rok Group
Strength Grade
Disontinuity Spaing (mm)
Presumed Allowable Bearing Value (kN/m2)
>12,500 a >10,000 b 7,500 10,000 3,000 7,500 >5,000a 3,000 5,000 1,0003,000 >l,000 a
7501,000 250750 See note b
Pure limestones and dolomites, arbonate sandstones of low porosity
Strong
60 to >1,000
Moderately >600 200600 strong 60200 Moderately 600 to >1,000 weak 200600 60200 Weak
Very weak Igneous, ooliti, and marly limestones; wellStrong emented sandstones
; indurated arbonate mudstones; metamorphi roks (inluding slates Moderately
and shists with flat leavage/foliation) strong >600 200600 60200
200 to >1,000 60 10,000 to >12,500a 200 5,00010,000 600 to >1,000 200600 60200 8,000
to >100,000a 4,0008000 1,5004,000 3,000 to >5,000a 1,5003,000 500 1,500 750 to >l,0
00 See noteb See note b 10,000 to >12,500b 5,00010,000 2,5005,000 4,000 to >6,000b
2,000 to >4,000 7502,000 2,000 to >3,000b 7502,000 250 750 500750 250500 See note b
See note b 2505,000 1,250 2,500 1,0002,000 1,3001,000 4001,000 125
a
Moderately 600 to >1,000 weak 200600 60200 Weak Very weak Very marly limestones: p
oorly emented sandstones; emented mudstones and shales; slates and shists wit
h steep leavage/foliation Strong 600 to >1,000 >200 All 600 to >1,000 200600 6020
0
Moderately 600 to >1,000 strong 200600 60200 Moderately 600 to >1,000 weak 200600 6
0200 Weak Very weak Unemented mudstones and shales Strong 600 to >1,000 200600 <2
00 All 200600 60200
Moderately 200600 60200 strong Moderately 200600 60200
weak Weak Very weak 200600 60200 All

400 150250 See note b See note b
Notes: Presumed bearing values for square foundations up to 3 m wide are approxi
mately twie the above values, or equal to the above values if settlements are t
o be limited to 25 mm. a Bearing pressures must not exeed the unonfined ompre
ssion strength of the rok if the joints are tight. Where the joints open the be
aring pressure must not exeed half the unonfined ompression strength of the r
ok. b Bearing pressures for these weak or losely jointed roks should be asses
sed after visual inspetion, supplemented as neessary by field or laboratory te
sts to determine their strength and ompressibility. Soure: From Tomlinson, M.J
. and Boorman, R., 1995, Foundation Design and Constrution, Longman Sientifi
and Tehnial, Brunthill, Harlow, England. With permission.
Page 108
FIGURE 3.11 Stress inrease due to a onentrated load.
FIGURE 3.12 (a) Stress inrease due to a distributed irular footing, (b) Stres
s inrease to a distributed retangular footing.
FIGURE 3.13 Approximate estimation of subsurfae vertial stress inrement.
Page 109
FIGURE 3.14 Illustration for Example 3.3. TABLE 3.8 KValues for Equation (3.27b)
n
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
M
1
0.175 0.084 0.046 0.027 0.018 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.005
1.4
0.187 0.105 0.058 0.035 0.025 0.017 0.013 0.011 0.008 0.007
2
0.195 0.12 0.072 0.048 0.032 0.025 0.018 0.014 0.012 0.01
3
0.2 0.128 0.088 0.06 0.045 0.032 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.012
4
0.201 0.132 0.093 0.068 0.05 0.039 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.018
6
0.202 0.136 0.097 0.075 0.057 0.047 0.036 0.032 0.025 0.022
10
0.203 0.138 0.099 0.077 0.062 0.052 0.043 0.036 0.032 0.028
FIGURE 3.15 Laboratory onsolidation urve.
Page 110
FIGURE 3.16 Use of Newmarks hart in Example 3.3.
Ultimate settlement beneath the enter of the (flexible) footing The following e
xpression an be used to estimate the ultimate onsolidation settlement sine (F
igure 1.20 and Figure 3.15): (1.18a)
Ultimate settlement beneath the orner of the (flexible) footing The following e
xpression an be used to estimate the ultimate onsolidation settlement sine (F
igure 1.20b and Figure 3.15): (1.18b)
Page 111
Average ultimate settlement of the footing (rigid) The following expression an
be used to estimate the average ultimate onsolidation settlement sine (Figure
1.20 and Figure 3.15): (1.18)
Estimation of the 10year settlement The settlement of the footing at any interm
ediate time (t) an be estimated by using the average degree of onsolidation, U
ave, of the lay layer orresponding to the partiular time t in ombination wit
h any one of the above ultimate settlement estimates St=UavgS ult (3.29) Using T
erzaghis theory of 1D onsolidation (Terzaghi, 1943), the average degree of onso
lidation at time t, Uave, an be determined from Table 1.8 knowing the time fat
or (T) orresponding to the time t . T an be determined using the following exp
ression: (1.16) where Hdr is the longest path aessible to draining pore water
in the lay layer. From Figure 3.14, one an see that, for this example, Hdr=2.5
m. Then,
From Table 1.8, Uave=0.77. Example 3.4 Assume that it is neessary to ompute th
e ultimate total differential settlement of the foundation shown in Figure 3.14,
for whih the straininfluene fator plot is shown in Figure 3.17. The average
CPT values for the three layers are given in Table 3.9. Solution For the above
data, Contat pressure =200/(1.5)2 kPa=88.89 kPa Overburden preure at footing
depth (q)=16.51.0 kPa=16.5 kPa
Page 112
FIGURE 3.17 Immediate ettlement computation.
Immediate ettlement. Area of the traininfluence diagram covered by different
elatic moduli are A 1=0.5(0.750.6)+0.5(0.25)(0.533+0.6)=0.367 m A 2=0.5(1.5)(0.
533+0.133)=0.5 m A 3=0.5(0.5)(0.133)=0.033 m Then, by applying Equation (1.13),
one obtain the immediate ettlement a Scenter={10.5[16.5/(88.8916.5)]}[1.0][88.8
916.5][0.367(1.0)/(11.5103) + 0.5/(10.7103)+0.033/(2.57103)]=5.87 mm From Equation (
1.12), Scorner can be deduced a 0.5(5.87)=2.94 mm. Therefore, the total ettlem
ent at the center of the footing will be 14.06 (= 8.19+5.87) mm or 0.55 in., whi
le that at the corner will be 6.0 (3.06+2.94) mm or 0.24 in. Scenter ={10.5[16.5/
(88.8916.5)]}[1.0][88.8916.5][0.367(1.0)/(11.5103) + 0.5/(10.7103)+0.033/(2.57103)]=5
.87mm Total ettlement check. Mot building code tipulate the maximum allowabl
e total ettlement to be 1.0 in. Hence, the above value i acceptable.
TABLE 3.9 Soil Propertie Ued in Example 3.4
Soil Type
Dry and Wet and
qc
2.875 MPa 2.675 MPa 10.7 MPa
E
11.5 MPa (E=4q c from Table 1.7)
Clay
5 MPa
10 MPa (E=2q c from Table 1.7)
Page 113 Differential ettlement check. The differential ettlement i equal to

(S center corner)/ditance from center to corner or (14.006.00)/(1.06)/1000=0.00
7 According to mot building code, the maximum allowable differential ettlemen
t to prevent tructural crack in concrete i 0.013 (1 in 75). Hence, the differ
ential ettlement criterion i alo atified.
3.3.2 Settlement Computation Baed on Plate Load Tet Data
The immediate ettlement of a hallow footing can be determined from a plate loa
d tet that i performed at the ame location and the depth at which the footing
would be contructed. For the ame magnitude in the contact tre level, ettl
ement of the foundation can be etimated baed on the ettlement of the plate an
d the following expreion: Clayey oil (3.30) Sandy oil (3.31) where B p i
the plate diameter and Bf i the equivalent foundation diameter, which can be d
etermined a the diameter of a circle having an area equal to that of the footin
g.
3.3.3 Computation of Settlement in Organic Soil
Foundation contructed in organic oil exhibit prolonged ettlement due to ec
ondary compreion, which i relatively larger in magnitude than the primary con
olidation. Thi i particularly the cae when the organic content of the oil d
epoit i ignificant. Therefore, foundation deigner, who do not recommend th
e removal of organic oil from potential building ite, mut alternatively emp
loy pecific analytical technique to etimate the expected econdary comprei
on component that predominate the total ettlement of the foundation. The foll
owing analytical treatie i preented to addre thi need. The organic content
of a oil (OC) i defined a (3.32) where W o i the weight of organic matter i
n the oil ample (uually determined baed on the lo of weight of the ample
on combution) and W i the total weight of the olid in the oil ample. Many
reearcher (Anderland et al., 1980; Gunaratne et al., 1997) have dicovered l
inear relationhip between the organic content of organic oil and their initi
al void ratio and
water content. Gunaratne et al. (1997) determined the following pecific relati
onhip for Florida organic oil, baed on an extenive laboratory teting prog
ram:
Page 114 e =0.46+1.55(OC) (3.33) OC=w * 0.136+2.031 (3.34) where e and w are the u
ltimate void ratio and the water content, repectively. The ultimate 1D compre
ibility of organic oil (vertical train per unit load increment) contitute a
primary compreibility component, a, and a econdary compreibility component
, b, a expreed below [a+b] ult = (3.35) Parameters a and b, speifi to any or
gani soil, an be expressed in terms of the primary and seondary void ratio o
mponents (e p and es, respetively) of the initial void ratio, e 0, as illustrat
ed in Equations (3.36) (3.36a)
(3.36b) Based on observed linear relationships suh as that in Equation (3.33),
Gunaratne et al. (1997) also determined that (3.37a)
(3.37b) where and are stressdependent funtions assoiated with primary and se
ondary ompressibilities, respetively. Finally, by employing Equations (3.37),
Gunaratne et al. (1997) derived the following speifi relationships for Florida
organi soils: (3.38a)
(3.38b) where
Parameters a and b, speifi for a field organi soil deposit, would be dependen
t on the depth of loation, z, due to their strong stress dependeny. The verti
al strain in a layer of thikness, z, an be expressed in terms of its total (pr
imary and seondary) 1D settlement, sp+s, as in following equation:
Page 115
(3.39) Hene, the total 1 D settlement an be determined as (3.40) where a(z) an
d b(z) are a and b parameters in Equations (3.38) expressed in terms of the aver
age urrent stress (initial overburden stress, stress inrement, ( z , produced
due to the footing at the depth z).) can be determined uing Bouineqs distriut
ion (Equation z (3.27)) or any other appropriate stress attenuation such as the
2:1 distriution (Equation (3.28)) commonly employed in foundation design. Due t
o the complex nature of functions a and (Equations (3.38)), one can numericall
y integrate Equation (3.40) to estimate the total settlement of an organic soil
layer due to a finite stress increment imposed y a foundation. Example 3.5 Assu
me that, ased on laoratory consolidation tests, one wishes to predict the ulti
mate 1D settlement expected in a 1-m thick organic soil layer (OC=50%) and the c
urrent overurden pressure of 50 kPa due to an extensively placed surcharge of 5
0 kPa. Solution Since there is no significant stress attenuation within 1 m due
to an extensive surcharge, the final pressure would e v+ z=50+50=100 kPa through
out the organi layer. Then, by applying Equation (3.35)
where a( ) and b( ) are obtained from Equation (3.38) uing OC and a value of 0.
5 and 50 kPa, repectively. Finally, on performing the integration numerically,
one obtain primary and econdary compreion of 0.107 and 0.041 m. which produ
ce a total ettlement of 0.148m. Fox et al. (1992) ued the C /Cc concept to pre
dict the secondry settlement of orgnic soils.
3.4 Lod nd Resistnce Fctor Design Criteri
Two design philosophies re commonly used in design of foundtions: 1. Allowble
stress design (ASD) 2. Lod nd resistnce fctor design (LRFD)
Pge 116 Of the two, the more populr nd historiclly successful design philoso
phy is the ASD, which hs lso been dopted in this chpter so fr. ASD cn be s
ummrized by the following generlized expressions: (3.41) where R n is the nomi
nl resistnce, Qi is the lod effect, nd F is the fctor of sfety. The min d
isdvntges of the ASD methods re: (1) F is pplied only to the resistnce pr
t of the eqution without heeding the fct tht vrying types of lods hve diff
erent levels of uncertinty, (2) F is only bsed on judgment nd experience, nd
(3) no quntittive mesure of risk is incorported in F. The design of spred
footings using LRFD requires evlution of the footing performnce t vrious li
mit sttes. The primry limit sttes for spred footing design include strength
limits such s bering cpcity filure or sliding filure nd service limits su
ch s excessive settlements or vibrtion. The gol of LRFD is to design, without
being conservtive s to be wsteful of resources, foundtion tht serves its
function without reching the limit sttes.
3.4.1 Lod nd Resistnce Fctor Design Philosophy
LRFDbsed evlution of strength limit stte cn be summrized s (3.42) where
is the resistnce fctor, is the load modifier. i are the load factors, and Load
factors account for te uncertainties in magnitude and direction of loads, loca
tion of application of loads, and combinations of loads. On te oter and, resi
stance factors can be made to incorporate variability of soil properties, reliab
ility of predictive equations, quality control of construction, etent of soil e
ploration, and even te consequences of failure. Te main advantages of LRFD ar
e tat it accounts for variability in bot resistance and loads and provides a q
ualitative measure of risk related to te probability of failure. However, LRFD
also as te limitation of not facilitating te selection of appropriate resista
nce factors to suit te design of different foundation types. Te LRFD-based eva
luation of service limit state can be described by Equation (3.1b). Tree differ
ent metods are adopted to select te resistance and load factors (FHWA, 1998):
1. Calibration by judgment (requires etensive eperience) 2. Calibration by fit
ting to ASD 3. Calibration by te teory of reliability Te procedure used for t
e selection is known as te calibration of LRFD. Te two latter procedures will
be discussed in tis capter.
3.4.2 Calibration by Fitting to ASD
Using Equations (3.41) and (3.44) and assuming =1.0 (3.43) were QD is te dead
load and QL is te live load.
Page 117 If one assumes a dead load-live load ratio (QD/QL) of 3.0, F=2.5, and l
oad D=1.25 and L=1.75, then
Hence, the resistance factor, correspondin to an ASD safety factor of 2.5 and a
deadlive load ratio of 3 is 0.55. Similarly, one can estimate the val es corre
spondin to other FS and QD/QL val es as well.
3.4.3 Calibration by Reliability Theory
In the LRFD calibration sin the theory of reliability, the fo ndation resistan
ce and the loads are considered as random variables. Therefore, the resistance a
nd the loads are incorporated in the desin sin their statistical distrib tion
s. Today, these concepts have been incl ded in the bride desin idelines of t
he United States Federal Hihway Administration (FHWA, 1998). Based on these i
delines, the statistical concepts relevant to the calibration proced re are disc
ssed in the next section. 3.4.3.1 Variability of Soil Data A
antitative meas
re of the variability of site soil can be provided by the coefficient of variati
on (COV) of a iven soil property, X, defined as follows: (3.44) where is the me
an of the entire population of X at the site and i the tandard deviation of th
e entire population of X at the ite. However, both and can be etimated by thei
r repective ample counterpart and obtained from an unbiaed finite ample o
f data (on X ) of ize n, obtained at the ame ite uing the following exprei
on: (3.45)
(3.46) Uing data from Teng et al, (1992) (Figure 3.18), it can be illutrated h
ow the ample tandard deviation i related to the population tandard deviation
. Figure 3.18 how the etimation of the undrained hear trength (Su) of clay
at a particular ite uing three different method: (1) cone penetration tet (
CPT) (2) vane hear tet (VST), and (3) laboratory conolidation tet baed on
the preconolidation preure It i een from Figure 3.18 that in each cae the
etimation can be improved by increaing the ample ize up to an optimum ize o
f about 7. The correponding tandard deviation etimate can poibly be interpr
eted a the population tandard deviation. However, the bet etimate of the ta
ndard deviation that one can make varie with the pecific technique ued in the
etimation. Moreover, Figure 3.18 alo how
that, baed on the laboratory prediction method, VST provide a much more accura
te etimate of the true tandard deviation of
Page 118
FIGURE 3.18 Reliability variation of undrained trength prediction with ample
ize. (From Teng, W.H., Meri, G., and Halim, I., 1992, Soil and Foundation, 32
(4):107116. With permiion).
the undrained hear trength (Su) of a clayey ite oil. Alternatively, the info
rmation contained in reearch finding uch a in Figure 3.18 can be utilized in
planning uburface invetigation. Intuitively, one alo realize that the ta
ndard deviation etimate obtained from a given evaluation method correlate well
with reliability of the evaluation method, i.e., a relatively higher tandard d
eviation indicate a le reliable evaluation method. The typical variability a
ociated with oil index tet and trength tet a reported by Phoon et al. (1
995) are hown in Table 3.10 and Table 3.11, repectively. For analytical purpo
e, one can completely decribe a random variable uing an appropriate probabili
ty denity function (in the cae of a continuou random variable) or probability
ma function (in the cae of a dicrete random variable) that atifie the t
atitic of that particular random variable. The ditribution that atifie all
the tatitical propertie of the random variable would obviouly be it own hi
togram. However, what i aumed in many intance i a mathematical function t
hat would cloely model the tatitical propertie of the conidered random variab
le. When electing an appropriate mathematical ditribution for a given variable
, it i mot common to match only the mean and the tandard deviation of that va
riable with the correponding quantitie that are computed uing the mathematica
l equation of the conidered ditribution a follow: (3.47)
(3.48)
Page 119
TABLE 3.10 Soil Variability in Index Tet (Phoon et al., 1995)
Property
Soil Type
Inherent Soil Variability (COV)
0.18 0.18 0.16 0.29 0.09 0.07 0.19 0.61
Meaurement Variability (COV)
0.08 0.07 0.1 0.24 0.01
Natural water content Fine grained Liquid limit Platic limit Platicity index B
ulk denity Dry denity Relative denity direct Relative denity indirect Fine gra
ined Fine grained Fine grained Fine grained Fine grained Sand Sand
Source: From Phoon, K., Kulhawy, F.H., and Grigoriu, M.D., 1995, ReliabilityBa
ed Deign of Foundation for Tranmiion Line Structure, TR 105000 Final repor
t, report prepared by Cornell Univerity for the Electric Power Reearch Intitu
te, Palo Alto, CA. With permiion.
Two very commonly employed ditribution that merely atify the abovementioned
mean and the tandard deviation criteria (Equation (3.47) and (3.48)) only are
the normal and the lognormal ditribution. However, in the cae of a given var
iable, if the analyt i forced to elect a probability ditribution that would
repreent the random variation of that variable more accurately, then in additio
n to the mean and the tandard deviation etimate, one could alo compute the c
oefficient of kewne and kurtoi (flatne) computed from the ample data (H
arr, 1977). It mut be noted that the coefficient of kewne and kurtoi for
the population can be related to the third and the fourth moment of area of the
probability ditribution about the mean, repectively. 3.4.3.2 Normal Ditribut
ion If a continuou random variable X i normally ditributed, it probability d
enity function i given by (3.49)
TABLE 3.11 Soil Variability in Strength Tet (Phoon et al., 1995)
Property
Undrained trength (unconfined
Soil Type
Fine
Inherent Soil Variability (COV)
0.33
Meaurement Variability (COV)
compreion teting) Undrained trength (unconolidated undrained triaxial teti

ng) Undrained trength (preconolidation preure from conolidated undrained tr
iaxial teting) Tan (triaxial compression) Tan (direct shear)
grained Clay, silt 0.22 Clay 0.32 0.19
Clay, silt 0.20 Sand, silt Clay, silt 0.23 Clay
0.08 0.14
Source: rom Phoon, K., Kulhawy, .H., and Grigoriu, M.D., 1995, Reliability-Bas
ed Design of oundations for Transmission Line Structures, TR 105000 inal repor
t, report prepared by Cornell University for the Electric Power Research Institu
te, Palo Alto, CA. With permission.
Page 120 It can be shown that Equation (3.49) automatically satisfies the condit
ions imposed by Equations (3.47) and (3.48). 3.4.3.3 Lognormal Distribution If a
continuous random variable X is log-normally distributed, then the natural loga
rithm of x, ln (x), is normally distributed and its probability density function
is given by Equation (3.50a) (3.50a) where and are te mean and te standard de
viation of ln(), respectively. Te statistics of ln( ) can be epressed by to
se of X as (3.50b)
and (3.50c) Furtermore, it can be sown tat wen te random variable X eibit
s a variation witin a relatively minor range, i.e., wen te COV (X) is relativ
ely small (<0.2), te above epressions simplify to =n ( ) (3.50d) and =COV (X)
(3.50e)
3.4.3.4 Estimation of Probabilities A primary use of matematically epressed pr
obability distributions like te normal or te lognormal distribution is te con
venience tat suc a distribution provides in te computation of probability est
imates. Similar computations also greatly enance te assessment of reliability
estimates in te design procedures tat incorporate random caracteristics of lo
ads applied on earten structures and te relevant geotecnical parameters of t
e foundation soil. Accordingly, if X is a random variable tat assumes values in
te range of [a, b], ten te probability of finding values of X less tan c ca
n be epressed in terms of its probability distribution as
(3.51)
Page 121 3.4.3.5 Reliability of Design If te effect of a load applied on a subs
tructure suc as a foundation and te resistance provided by te sear strengt
of te foundation soil are epressed in terms of random variables Q and R, respe
ctively, ten te reliability of te design can be epressed as Re=P(R Q) (3.52)
In order to compute te reliability of a design tat involves randomly distribu
ted load effects, Q, and soil resistance, R, it is convenient to epress te int
eraction between R and Q in terms of te combined random variable g(R, Q)=(R Q).
The central axis theorem of statistics (Harr, 1977) states that, if both R and
Q are normally distrib ted, i.e., normal variates, then (R, Q) wo ld be normall
y distrib ted as well. Therefore, it follows that, if both R and Q are lonorma
lly distrib ted, i.e., lonormal variates, then (R, Q)=ln R ln Q wo ld be norm
ally distrib ted as well. The followin statistical relations can be derived bet
ween two different random variables a and b: E(a+b)=E(a)+E(b) (3.53a) where E in
dicates the expected val e or the mean
2 2 2 (a+b)= (a)+ (b)
(3.53b) Baed on Equation (3.53), g'(R, Q) would have the following characterit
ic: Mean [g'(R, Q)] =Mean(ln R) Mean(ln Q) (3.54a)
(3.54b) Uing Equation (3.50b), (3.55a)
Similarly, uing Equation (3.50c)
(3.55b)
Page 122 Then, the reciprocal of the coefficient of variation of g'(R, Q) can be
expreed a (3.55c)
If one expree the mathematical expreion for the normal ditribution (Equati
on (3.49)) in term of the tandard normal variate z, where R Q=X (3.56a)
(3.56b) then Equation (3.49) implifie to (3.57) Then, from the differential fo
rm of Equation (3.56), (dz)=dx (3.58) Therefore, the etimation of probability i
n Equation (3.51) would be implified a follow: (3.59)
Subtituting from Equation (3.57) and (3.38), (3.60)
Page 123 3.4.3.6 Reliability Index The reliability of the deign can be computed
uing Equation (3.56a) and (3.52) a
Then, etting c=0 in Equation (3.60),
If one define the abovementioned integral in term of the error function (erf
), which i conveniently tabulated in tandard normal ditribution table, a fo
llow: (3.61) Then, the reliability of the deign i F( ), where the reliaility
index is defined in terms of the load and resistance statistics in Equation (3.
55a) and Equation (3.55) as (3.55c)
3.4.3.7 Resistance Statistics The measured resistance R m can e expressed in te
rms of the predicted resistance, Rn, as R m= RRn (3.62) where R represents the bi
as factor for resistance. The bias factor incudes the net effect of various sou
rces of error such as the tendency of a particuar method (e.g., Hansens bearing
capacity) to under-predict foundation resistance, energy osses in the equipment
in obtaining SPT bow counts, soi borings in strata not being representative o
f the site, etc. For n number of sources of error with individua factors affect
ing the strength of resistance prediction procedure, the mean bias factor can be
expressed as foows:
R= 1 2 n (3.63a)
Page 124
TABLE 3.12 Resistance Statistics
Statistics for Correction Factors Correction
Mode error Equipment/procedure used in SPT Inherent spatia variabiity
R
1.3 1.0 1.0 0.5
COVR
0.150.45 (use 0.3) (0.44/L)0.5
L =ength of pie. Source: From Federa Highway Administration, 1998, Load and R
esistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Highway Bridge Superstructures, Washington, D
C. With permission.
Then, based on the principes of statistics, the coefficient of variation of R i
s given by (3.63b) Tabe 3.12 indicates the vaues recommended by FHWA (1998) fo
r R and COV R. 3.4.3.8 Load Statistics Simiary for the measured oad, one can
write Qm= QDQ D+ QLQ L (3.64) where the oad bias factor incudes various uncertai
nties associated with dead and ive oads. QD vaues for commonpace materias a
re found in Tabe 3.13. On the other hand, the AASHTO LRFD ive oad mode speci
fies QL=1.15 and COVQD=0.18. As an exampe, if there are m significant sources o
f bias for dead oads in a given design situation, then from Equations (3.63) QD
= 1 2 m (3.65a)
(3.65b)
3.4.3.9 Determination of Resistance Factors By rearranging Equation (3.55c), one
obtains
(3.66a)
TABLE 3.13 Bias Factors and Coefficients of Variation for Bridge Foundation Dead
Loads
Component
Factory made Cast-in-pace Asphatic wearing surface Live oad 1.03 1.05 1.00
QD
0.08 0.10 0.25
COVQD
(1.38 QL)
(0.7=COVQL)
Source: From Federa Highway Administration, 1998, Load and Resistance Factor De
sign (LRFD) for Highway Bridge Superstructures, Washington, DC. With permission.
Page 125
TABLE 3.14 Reationship between Probabiity of Faiure and Reiabiity Index for
Lognorma Distribution
Reiabiity Index
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Probabiity of Faiure
1 0.8510 2 0.9910 3 1.1510 4 1.3410 5 1.5610 6 1.8210 7 2.1210 8 2.4610
So rce: From Federal Hihway Administration, 1998, Load and Resistance Factor De
sin (LRFD) for Hihway Bride S perstr ct res, Washinton, DC. With permission.
From E
ation (3.42) (3.66b) By eliminatin Rn from E
ations (3.66a) and (3.66b
), and sin the relation (3.66c) the resistance factor can be derived as (3.67)
where T is the target reliaility index evaluated from Tale 3.14 corresponding
to an anticipated proaility of failure. Finally, the ias factors suggested y
FHWA (1998) for SPT and CPT results ased on selected reliaility indices are p
rovided in Tale 3.15. Finally, Tale 3.16 outlines the suggested resistance fac
tors for a variety of foundation strength prediction methods in common use.
TABLE 3.15 Bias Factors and Coefficients of Variation for Soil Strength Measurem
ents
Test
SPT
R
1.3
COVR
0.6 0.8
CPT Anle of friction ( N) Cohesion Wall friction ( ) Earth press re coefficient

( K)
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0.4 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.15
Pae 126
TABLE 3.16 Resistance Factors for Geotechnical Strenth Limit State for Shallow
Fo ndations
Method/Soil/Condition
Sand Semiempirical proced re sin SPT data Semiempirical proced re sin CPT da
ta Rational method sin shear strenth (N) from SPT data CPT data Clay Semiempi
rical proced re sin CPT data Rational method sin shear strenth (S ) from CP
T data Lab. test (UU triaxial) Field vane shear tests Rock Semiempirical proced
re Plate load test
Resistance Factor
0.45 0.55 0.35 0.45 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.55
3.4.3.10 Determination of the Simplified Resistance Factor The denominator of E
ation (3.55c) can be simplified as follows: (3.68) Usin the Taylor series expa
nsion for relatively small val es of COV (e.., <0.3), E
ation (3.68) can be wr
itten as
Similarly, the n merator of E
ation (3.55c) can be simplified as
For relatively small val es of COV (e.., <0.3), the above expression can be sim
plified to
Hence, the expression for can e simplified to (3.69)
Page 127 By defining the fctor s follows:
nd rerrnging terms in Eqution (3.69), one obtins (3.70) Seprtely combini
ng R nd Q terms, one obtins (3.70b) Using the definition of the nominl resist
nce in Eqution (3.62), (3.70c) Reclling Eqution (3.42), (3.42) From Eqution
(3.70c), it is seen tht the lod nd resistnce fctors, and respectively, dep
end on the statistics of each other (COV R and COVQ) as well. However, for conve
nience if one ass mes that the resistance and load factors are independent of ea
ch others statistics, then comparison of E
ation (3.70c) with E
ation (3.42) yi
elds a convenient and approximate method to express the resistance factors, inde
pendent of the load factors, as follows: (3.70d) where T is the target reliaili
ty. Tale 3.17 illustrates the selection of appropriate resistance factors for s
pread footing design ased on SPT and CPT. Example 3.6 Estimate a suitale resis
tance factor for a ridge footing that is to e designed ased on SPT tests. Sol
ution From Tale 3.13 and Equation (3.65), QD =1.03(1.05)(1.00)=1.08
From Tabe 3.15, for SPT, R=1.3, COVR=0.7. Aso, since it is recommended that QL
=1.15, COVQL=0.18 (FHWA, 1998), and assuming that L=1.75 and D=1.25 (Table 3.18)
and applyin E
ation (3.67),
Pae 128
TABLE 3.17 Resistance Factors for Semiempirical Eval ation of Bearin Capacity f
or Spread Footins on Sand Usin ReliabilityBased Calibration
Resistance Factor Estimation Method Factor of Safety, FS
4.0 2.5
Averae Reliability Index,
4.2 3.2
Target Reliaility Index, r
3.5 3.5
Span Fitting Reliaility Selected (m) with Based ASD
10 50 10 50 0.37 0.37 0.60 0.60 0.49 0.53 0.52 0.57 0.45 0.45 0.55 0.55
SPT CPT
Source: rom ederal Highway Administration, 1998, Load and Resistance actor De
sign (LRD) fo r Highw ay Bri Superstructures, Washington, DC. With permission.
TABLE 3.18 Load actors for Permanent Loads
Load actor Type of Load
Components and attachments Downdrag Wearing surfaces and utilities Horizontal ea
rth pressure Active At rest Vertical earth pressure Overall stability Retaining
structure Rigid buried structure Rigid frames 1.35 1.35 1.30 1.35 N/A 1.00 0.90
0.90 1.5 1.35 0.9 0.9
Maximum
1.25 1.8 1.5
Minimum
0.90 0.45 0.65
lexible buried structure lexible metal box Culverts Earth structures

1.95 1.50 1.50
0.90 0.90 0.75
Source: rom ederal Highway Administration, 1998, Load and Resistance actor De
sign (LRD) for Highway Bridge Superstructures, Washington, DC. With permission.
Page 129 Using Equation (3.67) and Table 3.14, the resistance factor can be expr
essed in terms of the probability of failure and the dead load-live load ratio (
Table 3.19). Example 3.7 or the column shown in igure 3.19, use LRD concepts
to design a suitable footing to carry a column load of 400 kN. The subsoil can b
e considered as homogenous silty clay with the following properties: assume that
the ground water table is not in the vicinity
Assume resistance factors
of 0.6 and 0.6 (Table 3.16) for
and c, respectively,
Table 3.1 indicates the following bearing capacity parameters: Using Hansens bear
ing capacity expression (Equation (3.5)), Nc =8, Nq=2, N =0.4 sc =1.359, s
=1.26,
s =0.6 dc =1.4, d
=1.294, d =1.0 The vertical effective stress at the footin bas
e level=
=(17)(depth)=17B Then, the followin expressions can be written for th
e ltimate bearin capacity:
lt =(12)(8)(1.359)(1.4)+(17B )(2)(1.26)(1.294)+0.
5(17)(B )(0.4)(0.6)(1.0) =182.65+57.47 B Factored contact stress at the fo ndati
on level=1.254400/( AB2)+(1.0)17B . The load factor for the dead load is obtained
from Table 3.18. It m st be noted that the recommended load factor for recompact
ed soil is 1.0. By applyin with no load modifier ( =1.0) qult =1.254400/(AB2)+17B
TABLE 3.19 Variation of Resistance Factor wit QD/QL and te Required Reliabilit
y
Probability of Failure QD/QL
1 2 3
0.085
0.363602 0.347033 0.338616
0.0099
0.254558 0.242958 0.237066
0.00115
0.178216 0.170095 0.16597
0.000134
0.12477 0.119084 0.116196
Page 130
FIGURE 3.19 Illustration for Eample 3.7.
From Hansens epression 637/ B2+17B=182.65+57.47 B 637/ B2=182.65+ 40.47 B B =1.6
m. Wen one compares te above footing widt wit B=1.55m obtained from te ASD
metod, te limit state design is seen to be sligtly more conservative.
3.5 Design of Footings to Witstand Vibrations
Foundations subjected to dynamic loads suc as tat due to operating macines, w
ave loadings, etc. ave to satisfy special criteria in addition to te regular b
earing capacity and settlement criteria. Table 3.20 lists a number of criteria t
at may be considered during te design of a foundation tat would be subjected
to vibrations. However, te main design criteria are related to te limiting amp
litude of vibration and te limiting acceleration for a given operating frequenc
y. Figure 3.20 indicates te order of magnitudes of vibration corresponding to p
ractically significant levels of severity based on Ricart (1972) and te autors
judgment. For steady-state armonic oscillations, te limiting accelerations ca
n be deduced from te limiting amplitudes in terms of te frequency of oscillati
on ( ) as
2 accelerationlimit =displacementlimit
(3.71) On the other hand, the maximum amplitudes (or accelerations) undergone by
a given vibrating foundation can be determined by the principles of soil dynami
cs. Analytical formulations available from such analyses are provided in the ens
uing sections for a number of different modes of vibration.
3.5.1 Vertical Steady-State Vibrations

The equation of motion for a rigid foundation of mass m subjected to a vertical
steady-state constant amplitude simple harmonic force can be ritten as (Lysmer,
1966)
Page 131
TABLE 3.20 List of Criteria for Design of Vibrating Footings I. Functional consi
derations of installation A. B. C. D. E. F. II. A. B. C. D. E. Modes of failure
and the design objectives Causes of failure Total operational environment Initia
l cost and its relation to item A Cost of maintenance Cost of replacement Static
bearing capacity Static settlement Bearing capacity: static+dynamic loads Settl
ement: static+repeated dynamic loads Limiting dynamic conditions 1. 2. 3. F. G.
Vibration amplitude at operating frequency Velocity Acceleration
Design considerations for installations in hich the equipment produces exciting
forces
Possible modes of vibrationcoupling effects Fatigue failures 1. 2. 3. Machine com
ponents Connections Supporting structure Physiological effect on persons Psychol
ogical effect on persons Sensitive equipment nearby Resonance of structural comp
onents
H.
Environmental demands 1. 2. 3. 4.
III.
Design considerations for installation of sensitive equipment A. B. C. Limiting
displacement, velocity, or acceleration amplitudes Ambient vibrations Possible c
hanges in ambient vibrations 1. 2. D. E. By construction By ne equipment
Isolation of foundations Local isolation of individual machines
Source: From Richart, F.E., Hall, J.R., and Woods, R.D., 1970, Vibrations of Soi
ls and Foundations, Prentice
Hall, Engleood Cliffs, NJ. With permission.

(3.72) If the foundation is circular, the spring and the damping constants are g
iven by (3.73a) and (3.73b) respectively, here B is the equivalent footing diam
eter, Gs, s, and s ae the shea mod l s, mass density, and Poissons atio of the
fo ndation soil, espectively (Fig e 3.21).
Page 132
FIGURE 3.20 Limits of displacement amplit de.
FIGURE 3.21 Footing s bjected to vetical vibation.
Then, the following impotant paametes that elate to the vibatoy motion can
be deived sing the elementay theoy of vibations: 1. Nat al feq ency of v
ibation
(3.74a) 2. Resonant feq ency Fo foce-type excitation
(3.74b) whee the modified dimensionless mass atio B z is given by
(3.74c)
3. Damping atio Damping atio=D=(damping constant)/(citical damping constant)

Citical damping constant=2(km)1/2
Page 133
FIGURE 3.22 Plot of Magnification factos. (Note: fo sliding oscillation). fo
vetical fo ocking
(3.74d) 4. Amplit de of vibation The amplit de of vibation can be expessed as
follows:
(3.74e) whee M is the magnification facto, Az/(Q0/ kz), which is plotted in Fi
g e 3.22 against the nondimensional feq ency, / n, and the damping ratio, D, h
ere
(3.74a) Example 3.8 A rigid circular concrete foundation supporting a machine is
4m in diameter (Figure 3.23). The total eight of the machine and foundation is
700 kN. The machine imparts a vertical vibration of 25 sin 20 t kN on the footi
ng. If the foundation soil is dense sand having the folloing properties: unit
eight=17kN/m 3 and elastic modulus=55 MPa. Determine (1) the resonant frequency,
(2) the amplitude of the vibration at the resonant frequency, and (3) the ampli
tude of the vibration at the operating frequency.
Page 134
FIGURE 3.23 Illustration for Example 3.8.
Solution For sandy soil, Poissons ratio can be assumed to be 0.33. Hence, the she
ar modulus and the mass ratio can be computed as
(1) Resonant frequency
(2) Natural frequency
(3) Operating frequency fo=20/(2 )=3.18 cs Hence, fm/ fo=6.63/3.18 2.08>2 Thus, t
he oerating frequency range is considered safe. (4) Amlitude of vibration Tm/T
n=6.63/9.36=0.71 D=0.425/Bz =0.425/0.86=0.491 From Figure 3.21, the magnificatio
n factor, M=1.2, is
Page 135 Based on an oerating frequency of 3.18 cs or 191 cm, the above amli
tude of 0.27mm or 0.011 in. would fall in the troublesome range in Figure 3.20.
3.5.2 Rocking Oscillations
The motion of a rigid foundation subjected to a steadystate constant amlitude
harmonic rocking moment about the yaxis can be written as (Hall, 1967) (Figure
3.24) (3.75a) where (3.75b) If the foundation is circular, the sring and the da
ming constants are given by (3.76a) and (3.76b) resectively, where B , the iner
tia ratio, is iven by (3.76c) Then, the followin parameters relevant to the vi
bratory motion can be derived sin the elementary theory of vibrations: 1. Nat
ral fre
ency of vibration
(3.77a)
FIGURE 3.24 Footin s bjected to rockin.
Pae 136 2. Resonant fre

ency Momenttype excitation
(3.77b) 3. Dampin ratio
(3.77c) 4. Amplit de of vibration The amplit de of vibration can be expressed as
follows:
(3.77d) where M is the manification factor, /( My/k ), which is plotted in Fi r
e 3.22 aainst the nondimensional fre
ency / n and thus
(3.77e) The above relations can be applied to a rectangular footing (of the same
height, h) using an equivalent B e that is determined by equating the moment of
area of the surface of the footing about the y-axis (Iy) to that of the equival
ent circular footing. Thus,
3.5.3 Sliding Oscillations
A mass-spring-dashpot analog as developed by Hall (1967) to simulate the horizo
ntal sliding oscillations of a rigid circular footing of mass m (Figure 3.25). T
his can be expressed by (3.78)
FIGURE 3.25 Footing subjected to sliding oscillation.
Page 137 If the foundation is circular, the spring and the damping constants are
given by (3.79a) and (3.79b) respectively. Then, the folloing important parame
ters ith respect to the above motion can be derived: 1. Natural frequency of vi
bration
(3.80a) 2. Resonant frequency Moment-type excitation
(3.80b) here the modified dimensionless mass ratio B x is given by
(3.80c) 3. Damping ratio
(3.80d) 4. Amplitude of vibration The amplitude of vibration can be expressed as
follos:
(3.80e) here M is the magnification factor, Ax/(Q 0/kx), hich is also plotted
in Figure 3.22 against the nondimensional frequency / n and thus
(3.80a)
Page 138
3.5.4 Foundation Vibrations due to Rotating Masses
If the foundation vibrations described in Sections 3.5.1 to 3.5.3 are created by
unbalanced masses (m1 ith an eccentricity of e) rotating at an angular frequen
cy of , then the folloing modifications must be made to Equations (3.72), (3.75
a), and (3.78): 1. Translational oscillations 2 Q0=m1e must be substituted in Equ
ations (3.72) and (3.78) for Q0. 2. Rotational oscillations 2 My =m1ez must be su
bstituted in Equation (3.75a) for My, here z is the moment arm of the unbalance
d force. In all of the above cases, the ne equations of motion corresponding to
Equations (3.72), (3.75a), and (3.78) have to be solved to determine the resona
nce frequencies and the amplitudes of vibrations.
3.6 Additional Examples
Example 3.9 Predict the folloing settlement components for a circular footing o
f 2 m in diameter that carries a load of 200 kN as shon in Figure 3.26. (a) Ave
rage consolidation settlement of the footing in 5 years (use the 2:1 distributio
n method) (b) Maximum ultimate differential settlement (c) Elastic settlement fr
om Schertmanns method (d) Total ultimate settlement of the center of the footing
Consolidation properties of the clay layer can be obtained from Figure 3.15. Ass
ume its 8 coefficient of consolidation to be 110 m 2/sec. Suitable elastic arame
ters of the sandy soil can be obtained from Chater 1 (Table 1.5 and Table 1.6).
(a) Increase stress at the center of the soft clay 2 m diameter footing
At midlane
From Figure 3.15, reconsolidation ressure Pc=60kPa.
Page 139
FIGURE 3.26 Illustration for Examle 3.9.
The average effective overburden ressure at the midlane of the soft clay, (1.
18b)
8 2 T=5 years, Hdr=2 m, Cu =110 m /sec
For T=0.394, Uavg =0.69. Therefore, S5 years=(5.5)(0.69)=3.795mm
Page 140 (b) Using Newmarks chart, dc=2.8 m=OQ (Figure 3.16) Placing at the cente
r of chart Ncenter =484=192:
(1.18c)
(1.18b)
(c) (1.13)
(d) Total ultimate settlement =Center consolidation+elastic settlement =35.3+4.7
=40.0mm Examle 3.10 Assuming that the deth of the embedment is 1.2 m, design a
suitable stri footing for the wall that carries a load of 15 kN/m as shown in
Figure 3.27. Suitable soil arameters for the site can be obtained from Chater
2.
Page 141
Using Meyerhoffs bearing caacity: Equation (3.3), qult =cNcSc dc +qNqSqdq+0.5 B N
S d (3.4) From Table 3.3 Nc =5.14, N
=1.0, N =0.0 From Table 3.2(b)
Pae 142 Therefore,

Therefore, B >1.3m. Example 3.11 A 5kN horizontal load acts on the col mn shown
in Fi re 3.28 at a location of 1.5m above the ro nd level. If the site soil i
s ran lar with an anle of friction 20 and a nit weiht of 16.5 kN/m3, determin
e a s itable footin size. If the ro nd water table s bsides to a depth o tside
the fo ndation infl ence zone, what wo ld be the factor of safety of the footin
yo desined?
Meyerhoff s bearin capacity expression:
lt =cNcSc dc ic +
N
S
d
i
+0.5B N S d i
(c=0) From Table 3.1, for From Table 3.2(b), (3.4)
Pae 143
Therefore, B =1.43 With no water within infl ence zone and B =1.43m Q=(16.5)(2.2
)=36.3 kPa
So, FS increases.
References
Andersland, O.B. and AlKhafaji, A.A.W.N, 1980, Oranic material and soil compre
ssibility, Jo rnal of the Geotechnical Enineerin Division, ASCE, GT7:749. AASH
TO, 1996, Standard Specifications for Hihway Brides, American Association for
State Hihway and Transportation Officials, Washinton, DC. Bowles, J.E., 2002,
fo ndation Analysis and Desin, McGrawHill, New York. Bowles, J.E., 1995, Fo nd
ation Analysis and Desin, McGrawHill, New York.
Pae 144
Das, B.M., 1993, Principles of Soil Dynamics, PWSKent P blishers, Boston. Feder
al Hihway Administration, 1998, Load and Resistance Factor Desin (LRFD) for Hi
hway Bride S bstr ct res, NCHRP Co rse No. 13068, HI 98032, J ly, Washinton, D
C. Fox, P.J. and Edil, T.B., 1992, C /Cc concept pplied to compression of pet,
Journl of the Geotechnicl Engineering Division, ASCE, 118(GT8): 12561263. Gunr
tne, M., Stinnette, P., Mullins, G., Kuo, C., nd Echelberger, W., 1998, Compre
ssibility reltions for Florid orgnic mteril, ASTM Journl of Testing nd Ev
lution, 26(1): 19. Hll, J.R., Jr., 1967, Coupled rocking nd sliding oscillti
ons of rigid circulr footings, Proceedings of the Interntionl Symposium on W
ve Propgtion nd Dynmic Properties of Erth Mterils, Albuquerque, NM, Augus
t. Hnsen, J.B., 1970, A Revised nd Extended Formul for Bering Cpcity, Dni
sh Geotechnicl Institute, Copenhgen, Bulletin No. 28. Hrr, M.E., 1966, Found
tions of Theoreticl Soil Mechnics, McGrwHill, New York. Hrr, M.E., 1977, M
echnics of Prticulte Medi, McGrwHill, New York. Lysmer, J. nd Richrt, F.
E., Jr., 1966, Dynmic response of footings to verticl loding, Journl of the
Soil Mechnics nd Foundtions Division, ASCE, 92(SM 1): 6591. Meyerhoff, G.G., 1
951, The ultimte bering cpcity of foundtions, Geotechnique, 2(4): 30331. Mey
erhoff, G.G., 1963, Some recent reserch on the bering cpcity of foundtions,
Cndin Geotechnicl Journl, 1(1): 1626. Meyerhoff, G.G., 1956, Penetrtion te
sts nd bering cpcity of cohesionless soils, Journl of the Soil Mechnics n
d Foundtions Division, ASCE, 82(SM 1): 119. Prry, R.H., 1977, Estimting berin
g cpcity of snd from SPT vlues, Journl of the Geotechnicl Engineering Divi
sion, ASCE, 103(GT9): 10141019. Phoon, K., Kulhwy, F.H., nd Grigoriu, M.D., 199
5, RelibilityBsed Design of Foundtions for Trnsmission Line Structures, TR1
05000 Finl report, report prepred by Cornell University for the Electric Power
Reserch Institute, Plo Alto, CA, 340 pp. Richrt, F.E., 1962, Forced Vibrtio
ns, Trnsctions, ASCE, Vol. 127, Prt I, pp. 863898. Richrt, F.E., Hll, J.R.,
nd Woods, R.D., 1970, Vibrtions of Soils nd Foundtions, Prentice Hll, Engle
wood Cliffs, NJ. Teng, W.H., Mesri, G., nd Hlim, I., 1992, Uncertinty of mobi
lized undrined sher strength, Soils nd Foundtions, 32(4): 107116. Terzghi, K
., 1943, Theoreticl Soil Mechnics, John Wiley, New York. Tomlinson, M.J. nd B
oormn, R, 1995, Foundtion Design nd Construction, Longmn Scientific nd Tech
nicl, Brunthill, Hrlow, Englnd. Vesic, A.S., 1973, Anlysis of ultimte lods
of shllow foundtions, Journl of the Soil Mechnics nd Foundtion Engineerin
g Division, ASCE, 99(SM 1): 45763. Vesic, A.S., 1975, Foundtion Engineering Hnd
book, 1st ed., Chpter 3, Winterkorn H.F. nd Fng H. (eds.), Vn Nostrnd Reinh
old, New York.
Pge 145
4 Geotechnicl Design of Combined Spred Footings
Mnjriker Gunrtne CONTENTS 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Design Criteri 4.2.1 Conventi
onl Design Method 4.2.1.1 Eccentricity Criterion 4.2.1.2 Bering Cpcity Crite
rion 4.2.1.3 Settlement Criterion 4.3 Conventionl Design of Rectngulr Combine
d Footings 4.4 Conventionl Design of Mt Footings 4.4.1 Bering Cpcity of M
t Footing 4.5 Settlement of Mt Footings 4.5.1 Immedite Settlement 4.6 Design
of Flexible Combined Footings 4.6.1 Coefficient of Verticl Subgrde Rection 4.
6.2 Anlysis nd Design of Rectngulr Combined Footings 4.6.3 Design of Rectng
ulr Combined Footings Bsed on Bems on Elstic Foundtions 4.6.4 Anlysis of M
t Footings Bsed on Slbs on Elstic Foundtions 4.8 Finite Difference Method o
f Flexible Mt Footing Design 4.9 Additionl Design Exmples References 145 146
147 147 147 148 148 152 152 154 155 158 158 160 161 166 172 175 178
4.7 Structurl Mtrix Anlysis Method for Design of Flexible Combined Footings 1
69
4.1 Introduction
Combined spred footings cn be employed s vible lterntives to isolted spre
d footings under mny circumstnces. Some of them re listed below: 1. When the
ground bering cpcity is reltively low, the designers hve to seek methods o
f lowering the bering stress. A lrger footing re tht provides common foun
dtion to
mny columns would distribute the lod nd reduce the bering stress. In dditio
n, this modifiction will lso reduce the footing settlement. 2. When the exteri
or columns or wlls of hevy structure re in close proximity to the property
line or other structures, the designer would not hve the
Pge 146
freedom to utilize the re required to design n isolted spred footing. In su
ch cses, ny djoining interior columns cn be incorported to design combine
d footing. 3. Isolted spred footings cn become unstble in the presence of un
expected lterl forces. The stbility of such footings cn be incresed by tyin
g them to other footings in the vicinity. 4. When djoining columns re founded
on soils with significntly different compressibility properties, one would nti
cipte undesirble differentil settlements. These settlements cn be minimized
by common combined footing. 5. If the superstructure consists of multitude o
f column lods, designing single monolithic mt or rft footing tht supports
the entire system of structurl columns would be more economicl. This is especi
lly the cse when the totl re required by isolted spred footings for the i
ndividul columns is greter thn 50% of the entire re of the column pln (blu
eprint).
4.2 Design Criteri
Two distinct design philosophies re found in the current prctice with respect
to design of combined footings. They re: (1) conventionl or the rigid method
nd (2) bems or slbs on elstic foundtion or the flexible method. Of these, in
the conventionl design method, one ssumes tht the footing is infinitely rigi
d compred to the foundtion soils nd tht the contct pressure distribution t
the foundtionsoil interfce is uniform (in the bsence of ny eccentricity) o
r plnr (with eccentricity). In other words, the deflection undergone by the fo
oting is considered to be unrelted to the contct pressure distribution. This
ssumption cn be justified in the cse of spred footing with limited dimensio
ns or stiff footing founded on compressible soil. Therefore, the convention
l method ppers to be indequte for footings with lrger dimensions reltive t
o their thickness nd in the cse of footings tht re flexible when compred to
the foundtion medium. Although these drwbcks re ddressed in such cses by
the flexible footing
TABLE 4.1
From English
Ft In Tons Tsf (pcf) lbs/ft kips/ft
3 3
To SI Multiply by
m m kN kP N/m
3 3
Quntity
From SI To English Multiply by
m m kN kP
3 3
0.3048 Lengths 0.0254 8.9 Lods 95.76 Stress/strength 157.1 112.98 1.356 1.356 1
.356
ft in tons tsf lbs/ft
3 3
3.28 39.37 0.114 0.0104 0.0064 0.0064 0.0089 0.0089 0.7375 0.7375 0.7375
157.1 Force/Unitvolume N/m
kN/m
kN/m
Kips/ft
Lbinch kipinch lbft kipft ftlb
Nmm kNmm Nm kNm Joule
112.98 Moment or energy Nmm kNmm Nm kNm Joule
lbinch kipinch lbft Kipft ftlb
ftkip s/ft Blows/ft

kJoule s/m Blows/m
1.356 3.2808 Dmping 3.2808 Blow count
kJoule s/m
ftkip s/ft
0.7375 0.3048 0.3048
blows/m blows/ft
Pge 147 design method to some extent, one hs to still ssume tht the soil beh
ves s n elstic foundtion under the flexible footing. According to ACI (1966
), for reltively uniform column lods which do not vry more thn 20% between
djcent columns nd reltively uniform column spcing, mt footings my be consi
dered s rigid footings if the column spcing is less thn 1.75/ or when the mat
is supporting a rigid superstructure. The characteristic coefficient of the elas
tic foundation, , is defined y Equation (4.14).
4.2.1 Conventional Design Method
Three distinct design criteria are used in this approach. 4.2.1.1 Eccentricity C
riterion An effort must e made to prevent the comined footing from having an e
ccentricity, which could cause tilting and the need for a relatively high struct
ural footing rigidity. In order to assure this condition, the footing must e di
mensioned so that its centroid coincides with the resultant of the structural lo
ads. Thus, if the coordinates of the centroid of the footing are and the locatio
ns of the column loads P i are (xi, yi ) (with respect to a local Cartesian coor
dinate system) (Figure 4.1), then the following conditions must e ensured: (4.1
)
(4.2)
4.2.1.2 Bearing Capacity Criterion The allowale stress design (ASD) can e stat
ed as follows: (4.3) where qult is the ultimate earing capacity of the foundati
on (kN/m 2, kPa, or ksf), P is the structural load (kN or kips), A is the footin
g area (m2 or ft2), and F is an appropriate safety
FIGURE 4.1 Comined footing.
Page 148 factor that accounts for the uncertainties involved in the determinatio
n of structural loads (P) and the ultimate earing capacity (qult ). One can typ
ically use any one of the earing capacity equations found in Section 3.2 to eva
luate the earing capacity of the foundation. For conversion of units see Tale
4.1. 4.2.1.3 Settlement Criterion The designer has to also ensure that the comi
ned footing does not undergo either excessive total settlement or differential s
ettlement within the footing. Excessive settlement of the foundation generally o
ccurs due to irreversile compressive deformation taking place immediately or wi
th time. Excessive time-dependent settlement occurs in saturated compressile cl
ays where one will receive advanced warning through cracking, tilting, and other
signs of uilding distress. Significant immediate settlement can also occur in
loose sands or compressile clays and silts. Settlements can e determined ased
on the methods descried in Section 3.3.
4.3 Conventional Design of Rectangular Comined Footings
When it is practical or economical to design a single footing to carry two colum
n loads, a rectangular comined footing (Figure 4.2) can e considered. Example
4.1 Use the conventional or the rigid method to design a comined footing for the
two columns shown in Figure 4.2, if the average SPT value of the cohesionless fo
undation soil assumed to e reasonaly homogeneous is aout 22. Step 1: Compute
ultimate loads A Column A Pult =1.4(250)+1.7(300) kN=860 kN Mult=1.4(100)+1.7(20
) kN m=174 kN m (This moment could e the result of external wind loads or some
other nonvertical load due to racing force.) Column B Pult =1.4(500)+1.7(400) k
N=1380 kN Mult=0
FIGURE 4.2
Footing configuration for Example 4.1.
Page 149 (one could follow the same computational procedure even with a nonzero
moment on the second column) Step 2: Determine the footing length The resultant
force on the footing=860+1380 kN=2240 kN (at C) The resultant moment=174 kN m (a
t A) Option 1 Let us design a rectangular footing that is adequate to compensate
the eccentricity in the first column (eccentricity criterion, Equation 4.1): M
A=0
Thus, a single upward reaction of 2240 kN acting at a distance of 2.54m will sta
tically alance the entire footing. One way to produce such a reaction force is
to have a rigid footing that would have its centroid at C, inducing a uniform so
il pressure distriution. Hence the required length of the rigid footing would
e 2(2.54+0.5) m or 6.08 m. This requires an additional end-section next to colum
n B of 1.58m (Figure 4.3a). Option 2 The other option is to curtail the end-sect
ion next to column B to aout 0.5 m and design an eccentric footing (Figure 4.3
). This footing would have a ase eccentricity of or 0.9 m. Step 3: Determine th
e footing width One can employ the earing capacity criterion (Equation 4.3) and
SPT data to determine the allowale earing capacity and then footing width as
follows. It must e noticed that qa is considered as qult/ F: qa =30N55(kPa) (4.
4) where N55 is the average SPT value of the foundation at a depth of 0.75B elo
w the ase of the footing and B is the minimum width of the footing. Equation (4
.4) is especially suitale for cohesionless soils. Alternatively, if the foundat
ion soil is not necessarily cohesionless, one could use the SPT value and Equati
on (4.5) to determine the allowale earing capacity for an allowale settlement
of s inches. On the other hand, if soil investigation data is availale in term
s of CPT (cone penetration data), one could use the correlations presented in Ch
apter 2. Using Equation (4.4), qa=30 (0.45)(22)=300 kPa Then, one can determine
the width of the footing (B) using Equation (4.3) as 2240/(BL)<300 or B>2240/(30
0L) therefore B>1.22 Thus, a rectangular footing of 6.08 m1.22 m is adequate to c
arry oth column loads without any eccentricity. Step 4: Plot shear and moment d
iagrams Sign convention:
Shear: clockwise positive. Moment: sagging moments positive
Page 150
FIGURE 4.3 Design configurations for Example 4.1: (a) design option 1, () loadi
ng configuration for design option 1, and (c) design option 2.
The distriuted reaction per unit length (1 m) on the footing can e computed as
w=2240/6.08=368.42 kN/m When x is measured from the left edge of the footing, t
he shear and the moments of each segment of the footing can e found as follows:
In the segment to the left of column A (0<x<0.35 m) S1=368.42x kN M1=368.42(x2/
2) kN m Within column A (0.35<x<0.65 m)
Page 151 In this segment, the column load of 860 kN is distriuted at an intensi
ty of 2866.67 kN/m. Then, S2=368.42x (2866.67)(x 0.35) kN Similarly if one assumes
that within column A, the column moment of 174 kN m is also distributed with an
intensity of 580 kN m/m (174/0.3), M2=368.42(x2/2) (2866.67)(x 0.35)2/2+580(x 0.3
5) kN m (with an inflexion oint at x =0.63m). In between the two columns (0.65<
x<4.35 m) S3=368.42x 860 kN M3=368.42(x2/2) 860(x 0.5)+174 kN m (with an inflexion
oint at x =2.33m).
FIGURE 4.4 (a) Shear force and (b) bending moment diagrams for Examle 4.1.
Page 152 Within column B (4.35<x<4.65m) The distributed column load would be of
intensity 1380/0.3 kN/m. Then, S4=368.42(x) 860 (4600)(x 4.35) 2 M4=368.42(x /2) 860
(x 0.5)+174 (4600)(x 4.35)2/2kN m (with an inflexion oint at x =4.53m). Within the
endsection right of column B (4.605< x<6.08 m) S5=368.42(x) 860 1380 2 M4=368.42
(x /2) 860(x 0.5)+174 1380(x 4.5) kN m The corresonding shear force and bending mom
ent diagrams are lotted in Figure 4.4.
4.4 Conventional Design of Mat Footings
4.4.1 Bearing Caacity of a Mat Footing
One can use Equations (3.1)(3.6) to roortion a mat footing if the strength ara
meters of the ground are known. However, since the most easily obtained emirica
l strength arameter is the standard enetration blow count, N, an exression is
available that uses N to obtain the bearing caacity of a mat footing on a gran
ular subgrade (Bowles, 2002). This is exressed as follows: For 0 Df B and B>1.2 m
(4.5) For B<1.2m (4.6) where qn,all is the net allowable bearing caacity in ki
loascals, B is the width of the footing, s is the settlement in millimeters, an
d Df is the deth of the footing in meters. Then a modified form of Equation (4.
3) has to be used to avoid bearing failure: P/ A qn,all (4.7) It is again seen in
Equation (4.6) that the use of a safety factor is recluded by emloying an all
owable bearing caacity. Examle 4.2 Figure 4.5 shows the lan of a column setu
where each column is 0.5 m0.5 m in section. Design an adequate footing if the co
rrected average SPT blow count of the subsurface is 10 and the allowable settlem
ent is 25.4 mm (1 in.). Assume a foundation deth of 0.5 m. Then the bearing ca
acity can be comuted from Equation (4.5) as
Page 153
By alying Equation (4.6), 4000/(5+2e)2 136.87 therefore e>0.2029m Hence the mat
can be designed with 0.25 m edge sace as shown in Figure 4.5. For the reinforc
ement design, one can follow the simle rocedure of searating the slab into a
number of stris as shown in Figure 4.5. Then each stri (BCGF in Figure 4.5) ca
n be considered as an individual beam. The uniform soil reaction er unit length
( ) can be computed as 4000(2.5)/[(5.5)(5.5)]=330.5 kN/m. Figure 4.6 indicates t
he free-body diagram of the strip BCGF in Figure 4.5. It can be seen from the fr
ee-body diagram that the vertical equilibrium of each strip is not satisfied bec
ause the resultant donard load is 2000 kN, as opposed to the resultant upard
load of 1815 kN. This discrepancy results from the arbitrary separation of strip
s at the midplane beteen the loads here nonzero shear forces and moments exist
. In fact,
FIGURE 4.6
Free-body diagram for the strip BCGF in Figure 4.5.
Page 154
FIGURE 4.7 (a) Shear force and (b) bending moment diagrams for Example 4.2.
one realizes that the resultant upard shear at the boundaries BF and CG (Figure
4.5) accounts for the difference, that is, 185 kN. Hoever, to obtain shear and
moment diagrams of the strip BCGF, one can simly modify them as indicated in th
e figure. This has been achieved by reducing the loads by a factor of 0.954 and
increasing the reaction by a factor of 1.051. The to factors ere determined as
follos: For the loads, [(2000+1815)/2]/2000=0.954 For the reaction, 1815/[(200
0+1815)/2]=1.051 The resulting shear and moment diagrams are indicated in Figure
4.7. Then, using Figure 4.7, one can determine the steel reinforcements as ell
as the mat thickness. This effort is not repeated here since it is discussed in
detail in Chapter 5.
4.5 Settlement of Mat Footings
The settlement of mat footings can also be estimated using the methods that ere
outlined in Section 3.3 and, assuming that they impart stresses on the ground i
n a manner similar
Page 155
FIGURE 4.8 Immediate settlement computation for mat footings.
to that of spread footings. An example of the estimation of the immediate settle
ment under a mat footing is provided belo (Figure 4.8).
4.5.1 Immediate Settlement
The folloing expression (Timoshenko and Goodier, 1951) based on the theory of e
lasticity can be used to estimate the corner settlement of a rectangular footing
ith dimensions of L and B , (4.8) here q is the contact stress, B is the le
ast dimension of the footing, vs is the Poisson ratio of the soil, and E s is th
e elastic modulus of the soil. Factors I1, I2, and IF are obtained from Table 4.
2 and Figure 4.10, respectively, in terms of the ratios N=H/ B (H=layer thickne
ss), M=L /B (L =other dimension of the footing), and D/B. The same expression
(Equation 4.8) can be used to estimate the settlement of the footing at any poin
t other than the corner by approximate partitioning of the footing as illustrate
d in this example. It must be noted that even if the footing is considered as a
combination of several partitions (B and L ), for determining the settlement o
f an intermediate (noncorner) location, the depth factor, IF , is applied for th
e entire footing based on the ratio D/ B.
FIGURE 4.9
Illustration for Example 4.3.
Page 156
TABLE 4.2 I1 and I2 for Equation (4.8).
M
N 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1 3 5 7 9 10 50 100 500
1
I1=0.002 I2=0.023 0.009 0.041 0.019 0.055 0.049 0.074 0.085 0.082 0.123 0.084 0.
142 0.083 0.363 0.048 0.437 0.031 0.471 0.022 0.491 0.017 0.498 0.016 0.548 0.00
3 0.555 0.002 0.560 0.000
1.1
0.002 0.023 0.008 0.042 0.018 0.056 0.047 0.076 0.083 0.085 0.121 0.088 0.140 0.
088 0.372 0.052 0.452 0.034 0.490 0.024 0.511 0.019 0.519 0.017 0.574 0.003 0.58
1 0.002 0.587 0.000
1.2
0.002 0.023 0.008 0.042 0.018 0.057 0.046 0.077 0.081 0.088 0.119 0.091 0.138 0.
091 0.379 0.056 0.465 0.036 0.506 0.027 0.529 0.021 0.537 0.019 0.598 0.004 0.60
5 0.002 0.612 0.000
1.3
0.002 0.023 0.008 0.042 0.017 0.057 0.045 0.079 0.079 0.090 0.117 0.094 0.136 0.
095 0.384 0.060 0.477 0.039 0.520 0.029 0.545 0.023 0.554 0.020 0.620 0.004 0.62
8 0.002 0.635 0.000
1.4
0.002 0.023 0.008 0.042 0.017 0.058 0.044 0.080 0.078 0.092 0.115 0.097 0.134 0.
098 0.389 0.064 0.487 0.042 0.533 0.031 0.560 0.024 0.570 0.022 0.640 0.004 0.64
9 0.002 0.656 0.000
1.5
0.002 0.023 0.008 0.042 0.016 0.058 0.043 0.081 0.076 0.093 0.113 0.099 0.132 0.
100 0.393 0.068 0.496 0.045 0.545 0.033 0.574 0.026 0.584 0.023 0.660 0.005 0.66
9 0.002 0.677 0.000
1.6
0.002 0.023 0.007 0.043 0.016 0.059 0.042 0.081 0.075 0.095 0.112 0.101 0.130 0.
102 0.396 0.071 0.503 0.048 0.556 0.035 0.587 0.028 0.597 0.025 0.678 0.005 0.68
8 0.003 0.696 0.001
1.7
0.002 0.023 0.007 0.043 0.016 0.059 0.041 0.082 0.074 0.096 0.110 0.103 0.129 0.
104 0.398 0.075 0.510 0.050 0.566 0.037 0.598 0.029 0.610 0.027 0.695 0.005 0.70
6 0.003 0.714 0.001
1.8
0.002 0.023 0.007 0.043 0.016 0.059 0.041 0.083 0.073 0.097 0.109 0.104 0.127 0.
106 0.400 0.078 0.516 0.053 0.575 0.039 0.609 0.031 0.621 0.028 0.711 0.006 0.72
2 0.003 0.731 0.001
1.9
0.002 0.023 0.007 0.043 0.016 0.059 0.040 0.083 0.072 0.098 0.108 0.106 0.126 0.
108 0.401 0.081 0.522 0.055 0.583 0.041 0.618 0.033 0.631 0.030 0.726 0.006 0.73
8 0.003 0.748 0.001
2
0.002 0.023 0.007 0.043 0.015 0.059 0.040 0.084 0.072 0.098 0.107 0.107 0.125 0.
109 0.402 0.084 0.526 0.058 0.590 0.043 0.627 0.034 0.641 0.031 0.740 0.006 0.75
3 0.003 0.763 0.001
Example 4.3 If the medium dense sandy soil layer underlying the footing in Examp
le 4.2 is underlain by sound bedrock at a depth of 4.0 m belo the surface (Figu
re 4.9), estimate the average immediate settlement and the maximum differential
settlement of the mat footing.
Solution Let us assume that in this case the sand is normally consolidated. Then
, for an average SPT value of 10, Es is approximately given by 500(N+15) kPa or
12.5 MPa (Table 1.6). A Poissons ratio of 0.33 can also be assumed in normally co
nsolidated sand (Table 1.4). Then the uniformly distributed contact stress=4000/
(5.5)2=132.23 kPa D/B for the entire footing=0.5/5.5=0.09 From Figure 4.10, for
L/B =1, IF =0.85.
Page 157 M
N 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1 3 5 7 9 10 50 100 500 I1=0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.0
02 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 I2=0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.
023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.00
6 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.043 0.043 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044
0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.
014 0.014 0.014 0.060 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.06
1 0.061 0.038 0.037 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036
0.085 0.087 0.087 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.069 0.
066 0.065 0.065 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.063 0.063 0.101 0.104 0.10
5 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.103 0.099 0.097 0.096
0.096 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.094 0.094 0.111 0.115 0.118 0.118 0.119 0.
119 0.119 0.119 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.121 0.116 0.113 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.11
1 0.111 0.111 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.114 0.119 0.122 0.123 0.123 0.124 0.124 0.124
0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.402 0.396 0.386 0.382 0.378 0.376 0.374 0.373 0.370 0.
368 0.367 0.367 0.097 0.116 0.131 0.137 0.141 0.144 0.145 0.147 0.151 0.152 0.15
3 0.154 0.543 0.554 0.552 0.548 0.543 0.540 0.536 0.534 0.526 0.522 0.519 0.519
0.070 0.090 0.111 0.120 0.128 0.133 0.137 0.140 0.149 0.154 0.156 0.157 0.618 0.
646 0.658 0.658 0.656 0.653 0.650 0.647 0.636 0.628 0.624 0.623 0.053 0.071 0.09
2 0.103 0.112 0.119 0.125 0.129 0.143 0.152 0.157 0.158 0.663 0.705 0.730 0.736
0.737 0.736 0.735 0.732 0.721 0.710 0.704 0.702 0.042 0.057 0.077 0.088 0.097 0.
105 0.112 0.118 0.136 0.149 0.156 0.158 0.679 0.726 0.758 0.766 0.770 0.770 0.59
7 0.768 0.753 0.745 0.738 0.735 0.038 0.052 0.071 0.082 0.091 0.099 0.106 0.112
0.132 0.147 0.156 0.158 0.803 0.895 0.989 1.034 1.070 1.100 1.125 1.146 1.216 1.
268 1.279 1.261 0.008 0.011 0.016 0.019 0.022 0.025 0.028 0.031 0.046 0.071 0.11
3 0.142 0.819 0.918 1.020 1.072 1.114 1.150 1.182 1.209 1.306 1.408 1.489 1.499
0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.013 0.014 0.016 0.024 0.039 0.071 0.113 0.832 0.
935 1.046 1.102 1.150 1.191 1.227 1.259 1.382 1.532 1.721 1.879 0.001 0.001 0.00
2 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.008 0.016 0.031
Values of I1 and I2 to compute the Steinbrenner influence factor I s for use in
Equation (5.16a) for several N= H/B and M= L/B ratios. Source: From Boles, J.E
. (2002). Foundation Analysis and Design. McGra-Hill, Ne York. With permission
.
2.5
3.5
5
6
7
8
9
10
15
25
50
100
FIGURE 4.10 Plot of the depth influence factor IF for Equation (4.8).
Page 158 Therefore, the immediate settlement expression (Equation 4.8) can be si
mplified to:
For the corner settlement M=L/B=1.0, N=H/ B=3.5/5.5=0.636 From Table 4.2, I1=0.0
66, I2=0.079 si=9.43[0.066+0.5(0.079)](5.5)=5.471 mm For the center settlement M
=L/B=2.85/2.85, N=H/B=3.5/2.85=1.23 From Table 4.2, I1=0.18, I2=0 si=9.43[0.18+0
.5(0.079)](2.85)(4)=23.596 m 4 indicates the four equal partitions required to mod
el the center by superposition of four corners of the partitions. Maximum angula
r distortion ithin the footing=(23.5965.671)/(2)1/2(2.85)(1000) <1/200 It ould
be safe from any architectural damage.
4.6 Design of Flexible Combined Footings
Flexible rectangular combined footings or mat footings are designed based on the
principles of beams and slabs on elastic foundations, respectively. In this app
roach, the foundation medium is modeled by a series of elastic springs characteriz
ed by the modulus of vertical subgrade reaction, ks, and spread in to dimension
s. First, it is essential to identify this important empirical soil parameter th
at is used in a ide variety of designs involving earthen material. 4.6.1 Coeffi
cient of Vertical Subgrade Reaction The coefficient of subgrade reaction is an e
mpirical ratio beteen the distributed pressure induced at a point of an elastic
medium by a beam or slab and the deflection (0 ) undergone by that point due t
o the applied pressure, q ks=q/0 (4.9) Egorov (1958) shoed that the elastic de
formation under a circular area of diameter B carrying a uniformly distributed l
oad of q is given by (4.10) here Es is the elastic modulus of the medium and s
is the Poisson ratio of the medium.
By combinin Equations (4.9) and (4.10), one obtains (4.11)
Pae 159 Equation (4.11) clearly demonstrates that the subrade modulus is not a
soil parameter and it depends on the size of the loaded area. Thus, if desiner
s use elastic properties of a foundation to determine k s, then a suitable B would
have to be used in Equation (4.11) alon with Es, the elastic modulus of founda
tion soil and s, the Poisson ratio of the foundation soil. Typically, the follow
in B values are used in different cases: (i) Desin of a combined footinthe foo
tin width (ii) Desin of a pilethe pile diameter (iii) Desin of a sheet pile or
laterally loaded pilethe pile width or pile diameter. Similarly, if one uses pla
te load test results for evaluatin ks, then from a theoretical point of view, i
t is appropriate to adjust the k s obtained from plate load tests as: Clayey soi
ls (4.12a) Sandy soils (4.12b) where Bp is the plate diameter and Bf is the equi
valent foundation diameter, which can be determined as the diameter of a circle
havin an area equal to that of the footin. Equation (4.12a) is typically used
for clayey soil. A slihtly modified version of Equation (4.12a) is used for ra
nular soils (Equation 4.12b).
FIGURE 4.11 Plate load test data for Example 4.4.
Pae 160 Example 4.4 Estimate the coefficient of vertical subrade reaction, ks,
for a 1 m1 m footin carryin a 300 kN load, usin the data from a plate load te
st (Fiure 4.11) conducted on a sandy soil usin 0.45 m0.45 m plate. The contact
stress on footin=300kN/(11)=300 kPa. The modulus of subrade reaction for the pl
ate=300 kPa/4.3 mm=69,767 kN/m3 or 69.77 MN/m3. Applyin Equation (4.12b)
Alternatively, Equation (3.31) can be used to estimate the settlement of the foo
tin at the same stress level of 300 kPa. (3.31)
Then, the modulus of subrade reaction for the footin=300kPa/8.18mm=36.67 MN/m3
. 4.6.2 Analysis and Desin of Rectanular Combined Footins Based on the defin
ition of ks and the common relationship between the distributed load, shear and
moment, the followin differential equation that overns the equilibrium of a be
am on an elastic foundation can be derived: (4.13) In solvin the above equation
, the most sinificant parameter associated with the desin of beams or slabs on
elastic foundations turns out to be the characteristic coefficient of the elast
ic foundation or the relative stiffness, , given y the following expression: Fo
r a rectangular eam (4.14) where E is the elastic modulus of concrete, ks is th
e coefficient of sugrade reaction of the foundation soil usually determined fro
m a plate load test (Section 4.6.1) or Equation (4.10) (Egorov, 1958), and h is
the eam thickness. One can use the following criteria to determine whether a re
ctangular comined footing must e designed ased on the rigid method or the fle
xile eam method:
Page 161 For rigid ehavior (4.15a) For flexile ehavior L> (4.15b) Owing to the
ir finite size and relatively large thickness, one can exect building foundatio
n mats to generally exhibit rigid footing behavior. Therefore, alications of t
he flexible footing method are generally limited to concrete slabs used for high
way or runway construction. Once has een evaluated for a particular rectangular
comined footing or a mat, the shear, moment, and reinforcing requirements can
e determined from nondimensional charts that are ased on the solution for a co
ncentrated load (P) applied on a eam on an elastic foundation.
4.6.3 Design of Rectangular Comined Footings Based on Beams on Elastic Foundati
ons
The following expressions can e used, along with Figure 4.12, for the evaluatio
n of moments and shear due to concentrated loads in infinite eams (Tale 4.3 an
d Tale 4.4). If the loads/moments are applied at the end, the footing has to e
semi-infinite and if the loads/moments are applied at the center, it has to e
infinite in order to apply the following equations. The following criteria can
e used to verify the semi-infinite or infinite state of a given footing: For sem
i-infinite eams, L>4 For infinite eams, L>8 Case (1): Concentrated load at the
center (inner column) (4.16a)
(4.16)
FIGURE 4.12 Moment and shear effects of external forces.
Page 162
TABLE 4.3 Flexile Footing Shear Computation (Example 4.5)
B Coefficient C C Equation for Equation Coefficient Coefficient (4.17) Moment (
4.19) for Load Equation Distance for Load at from A (Figure A(m) 4.13a)
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 3.25 3.5 3.75 4.0 1 0.56
191 0.24149 0.02364 0.110794 0.181547 0.206788 0.201966 0.179379 0.148217 0.1148
87 0.083487 0.056315 0.034351 0.017686 0.005856 0.00189
for P=860 kN
860 483.244 207.685 20.3321 95.28264 156.1307 177.8373 173.6904 154.2663 127.466
9 98.80321 71.7992 48.43071 29.54221 15.20979 5.03605 1.6249
at A (Figure 4.14b)
0 0.19268 0.29079 0.32198 0.30956 0.27189 0.22257 0.17099 0.12306 0.08201
3 0.0244 0.00703 0.004195 0.010593 0.013442 0.013861
for M +174 kN m
0 63.0058 95.0871 105.289 101.226 88.9076 72.7808 55.9141 4.2406 26.8167
7.9784 2.29749 1.371824 3.463825 4.39548 4.532652
at B (Figure 4.13a)
0.00189 0.00586 0.01769 0.03435 0.05632 0.08349 0.11489 0.14822 0.17938 0.2
20679 0.18155 0.11079 0.02364 0.24149 0.56191 1
(4.17b) for P= 1380 kN
Shear (kN)
2.6082 857.392 8.08128 554.331 24.4067 327.179 47.4044 173.025 77.7147 83.6
15.212 47.989 158.544 53.4875 204.539 86.7631 247.543 133.517 278.754 178.1
5.367 202.628 250.535 186.714 152.896 106.762 32.6232 63.53724 333.2562 351.9298
775.4358 784.8673 1380 1382.908
TABLE 4.4 Flexible Footing Moment Comutation (Examle 4.5)
B Coefficient Distance for Load at from A (Figure
A Coefficient Equation for Equation (4.17a) for P= Moment at A (Figure
B
(4.19a) Coefficient Equation for M= for Load at (4.17a) 174 kN B (Figure for P=
Moment
A(m)
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 3.25 3.5 3.75 4.0
4.14b)
0 0.19268 0.29079 0.32198 0.30956 0.27189 0.22257 0.17099 0.12306 0.08201
3 0.0244 0.00703 0.004195 0.010593 0.013442 0.013861
860 kN
0 176.281 266.04 294.583 283.216 248.751 203.63 156.44 112.588 75.0294 44
.3224 6.42804 3.838171 9.691294 12.29793 12.68172
4.14a)
1 0.94727 0.82307 0.66761 0.50833 0.36223 0.23835 0.14002 0.06674 0.0158
6 0.03469 0.042263 0.042742 0.038871 0.03274 0.025833
m
174 164.8247 143.2137 116.1639 88.44872 63.02802 41.47374 24.36289 11.61288 2.74
9078 2.89471 6.03604 7.35374 7.43707 6.7636 5.69668 4.49498
4.14b)
0.013861 0.013442 0.010593 0.004195 0.00703 0.0244 0.04913 0.08201 0.12306 0.170
99 0.22257 0.27189 0.30956 0.32198 0.29079 0.19268 0
1380 kN
(kN m)
20.34933 194.3493 19.7342 8.277393 15.55158 107.275 6.15868 172.26 10.3207 205.0
88 35.8216 221.545 72.1278 234.284 120.399 252.476 180.664 281.639 251.03
1 326.755 374.595 399.162 427.52 454.465 468.247 472.699 476.298 426.909
282.874 276.272 0 8.186742
Page 163
FIGURE 4.13 Plots of coefficients C and D for infinite beams, (a) Coefficient C,
(b) coefficient D.
where the coefficients C and D are defined as
x C= (cos x sin x)e
(4.16c)
x D= (cos x)e
(4.16d) and are lotted in Figure 4.13. Case (2): Concentrated load at the end (
outer column) (Figure 4.14) (4.17a) V=P0C (4.17b) where
x B= (sin x)e
(4.17c)
Page 164
FIGURE 4.14 Plots of coefficients A and B for an infinite beam, (a) Coefficient
A, (b) coefficient B.
Case (3): External moment at the center (inner column) In order to determine the
moments and shear due to externally alied moments in elastic beams, the Equat
ions(4.16) can be modified in the following manner (Figure 4.15):
FIGURE 4.15 Transformation of external moment external force.
Page 165
(4.18a) V=M0A (4.18b) where the coefficient A is defined as
x A= (cos x+sin x)e
(4.18c) Case (4): External moment at the end (outer column) Similarly, Equations
(4.17) can be modified to obtain M=M0A (4.19a) V=2 M0B (4.19) Example 4.5 Plot
the shear and moment diagram in the comined footing in Example 4.1, if the thic
kness of the concrete sla is 0.1 m. Assume that the soil type is clayey sand an
d average corrected SPT low count is 9. Solution Since N=9, one can otain E s=
80 tsf=7.6 MPa (Tale 1.7) h<[3(7.0)/(27,600)/(B/6.08)4]1/3 m or h<226mm, and de
finitive rigid ehavior only for h>[3(7.0)/(27,600)/(B/46.08)4]1/3 m or h>1.437m.
For cohesionless soils, assume a Poissons ratio of 0.33. From, Equation (4.11),
Then, y assuming a concrete elastic modulus of 27,600 MPa, can e determined fr
om Equation (4.14) as
1 =[3(7.0)/(27,600)(0.1)3]1/40.94 m
But, L=6.08m Hence, from Equation (4.15b), L=5.7, which confirms flexile ehavi
or. Inspection of Equations (4.15) indicates that under the given soil condition
s, the footing in Example 4.2 would exhiit definitive flexile ehavior for h<[
3(7.0)/(27,600)/ ( /6.08)4]1/3 m or h<226 mm, and definitive rigid ehavior only
for h>[3(7.0)/(27,600)/ ( /46.08)4]1/3 m or h>1.437 m. Figure 4.16(a) and () show
the shear and moment diagrams. Analytical expressions for estimating the shear
and moments in finite eams on elastic foundations are provided in Scott (1981)
and Bowles (2002). When Example 4.1 is solved
Page 166
FIGURE 4.16 (a) Shear distriution (in kN) in the flexile footing, () Moment d
istriution (in kN m) in the flexile footing.
using the corresponding expressions for finite eams, more accurate shear and mo
ment diagrams can e otained (Figure 4.17).
4.6.4 Analysis of Mat Footings Based on Slas on Elastic Foundations
The governing differential equation for a free (unloaded) an axisymmetrical stru
ctural plate or sla on an elastic foundation is given in polar coordinates (Fig
ure 4.18) y (4.20a) where (4.20) It is noted that the axisymmetric conditions
preclude the need for any terms in E
ations (4.20). Then, as in the case of bea
ms, the followin characteristic coefficient expressin the relative stiffness o
f the footin can be defined to obtain the sol tion to E
ations (4.20):
(4.21)
Pae 167
FIGURE 4.17 (a) Comparison of shear distrib tion (riid vs. flexible methods), (
b) Comparison of moment distrib tion (riid vs. flexible methods).
Then, the radial and tanential moments and shear force at any radial distance r
can be obtained from the followin expressions: (4.22a)
(4.22b)
(4.22c)
Pae 168
FIGURE 4.18 Ill stration of the coordinate system for slabs.
The f nctions C, D, and E iven by E
ations (4.23) are plotted in Fi re 4.19(a
)(c), respectively. (4.23a)
(4.23b)
FIGURE 4.19
Radial and tanential moments and shear coefficients in a slab nder point load.
(From Scott, R.F. (1981). Fo ndation Analysis. Prentice Hall, Enlewood Cliffs,
NJ. With permission.)
Pae 169
(4.23c) where Z3 ( r) is the real part of Bessel functions of the third kind and
zeroth order. Example 4.6 (This example is solved in British/US units. Hence the
reader is referred to Tale 4.1 for conversion of the following units to SI.) P
lot the shear and moment distriution along the columns A, B, and C of the infin
ite sla of 8 in. thickness shown in Figure 4.20, considering it to e a flexil
e footing. Assume a coefficient of sugrade reaction of 2600 l/ft3. Since Ec =5
.76108 psf and c =0.15, one can 1 apply Equation (4.21) to obtain =0.1156 ft . Usi
ng the above results, Figure 4.19(a), and Equation (4.22a), Table 4.5 can be dev
eloed for the radial moment (the moment on a crosssection erendicular to the
line ABC in Figure 4.10). These moment values are lotted in Figure 4.21 and th
e moment coefficients are given in Table 4.5.
4.7 Structural Matrix Analysis Method for Design of Flexible Combined Footings
The stiffness matrix analysis method is also known as the finite element method
of foundation analysis due to the similarity in the basic formulation of the con
ventional finite element method and this method. First, the footing has to be di
scretized into a number of onedimensional (beam) elements. Figure 4.22 shows the
tyical discretization
TABLE 4.5 Moment Coefficients (C) for Flexible Mat
Distance from A (ft)
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
C Coefficient for Load at A
1.6 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.25
C Coefficient for Load at B
0.18 0.25 0.4 0.5 0.8
C Coefficient for Load at C
0.0 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.1
Radial Moment (ki ft)
122.5 32.25 84.38 92.5 121.8
5.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 9.0 10.0

0.18 0.1 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.0
1.6 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.25 0.18
0.18 0.25 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.6
222.5 12.88 92.5 84.38 32.25 122.5
Page 170
FIGURE 4.21 Moment distribution in the flexible mat.
of a footing in rearation for loaddeflection analysis. Based on sloedeflect
ion relations in structural analysis, the following stiffness relation can be wr
itten for a free ile element (i.e., 1, 2). In Figure 4.22 the nodes are indicat
ed in bold numbers while the degrees of freedom are indicated in regular numbers
with arrows. (4.24)
where Pi (i even) are the internal loads on beam elements concentrated (lumed)
at the nodes; Pi (i odd) are the internal moments on beam elements concentrated
(lumed) at the nodes; wi (i even) is the nodal deflection of each beam element;
wi (i odd) is the nodal rotations of each beam element; and EI is the stiffness
of the footing [=(1/12)Bh3]; L is the length of each ile element and h is the
thickness of the footing. Since the beam is considered to be on an elastic found
ation, the modulus of vertical subgrade reaction ks at any oint () can be rela
ted to the beam deflection (w) at that oint by the following exression: =ksw
(4.25) Hence, the sring stiffness Kj (force/deflection) can be exressed conven
iently in terms of the modulus of vertical subgrade reaction k s as follows: Kj=
LBks (4.26)
FIGURE 4.22 Discretization of footing for stiffness analysis method.
Page 171 The element stiffness matrices exressed by equations such as Equation
(4.24) can be assembled to roduce the global stiffness matrix [K] using basic
rinciles of structural matrix analysis. During the assembling rocess, the sri
ng stiffness Kj of each node can be added to the corresonding diagonal element
of [K] . Hence, [P] =[K][w] (4.27) where [P] and [w] are the load and deflection
vectors, resectively. Next, knowing the global force vector one can solve Equa
tion (4.24) for the global deflection vector. Finally, the moments and the shear
forces within the ile can be determined by substituting the nodal deflections
in the individual element equations such as Equation (4.24). Examle 4.7 Determi
ne the external load vector for the footing shown in Figure 4.23(a). Solution By
observing the column layout and the total length of the footing, it is convenie
nt to consider the footing as consisting of three beam elements, each of length
1.2 m. The resulting nodes are shaded in Figure 4.23(a) and the nodal numbers ar
e indicated in bold. In Figure 4.23(b), the eight degrees of freedom are also in
dicated with arrows next to them. Then the external force vector can be exresse
d as
FIGURE 4.23 (a) Illustration for Examle 4.7. (b) Illustration of the degrees of
freedom.
Page 172 [P] =[15 20 0 0 0 30 0 40] T

4.8 Finite Difference Method of Flexible Mat Footing Design
The governing equation for loaded slabs on elastic foundations (Equation 4.20) c
an be exressed in Cartesian coordinates as (4.28) where P and w are the externa
l concentrated load and the deflection at (x, y), resectively, and D is given b
y Equation (4.20b). By exressing the artial derivatives using their numerical
counterarts (Chara and Canale, 1988), the above equation can be exressed in t
he finite difference form as follows: (4.29)
where h is the grid sacing chosen on the mat in both X and Y directions (Figure
4.24). Solution rocedure For simlicity, let us assume that the column layout
is symmetric. Ste 1. Establish the x and y directional grid oints (nn) on the m
at. If n is odd, from basic algebra, the reader will realize that there would be
(1/8)(n+1)(n+3) unique
FIGURE 4.24 Finite difference formulation for deflection (w) of a given node (x,
y).
Page 173 columns and therefore, (1/8)(n+1)(n+3) unknown nodal deflections on the
mat. As an examle, in the nine column layout (i.e., n2=9, n=3), shown in Figur
e 4.5, there are only (1/8)(3+1)(3+3)=3 unique columns/nodes in the mat. All of
the other columns would be similar to one of the unique columns. On the other ha
nd, if n is even, there would be only (1/8)(n)(n +2) unknown nodal deflections.
As an examle, if the mat had a 16column layout (i.e., n2=16, n=4), there would
be only (1/8)(4)(4+2)=3 unique columns/nodes (1, 2, and 3 in Figure 4.25) on th
at mat. Ste 2. Reeatedly aly Equation (4.29) to all of the unique nodal oin
ts, i.e., (1/8)(n+ 1)(n +3) when n is odd or (1/8)(n)(n+2) when n is even, to r
oduce as many equations in each case. However, one realizes that when Equation (
4.29) is alied to edge nodes and then immediately inside the edge, a number of
other unknown deflections from imaginary (or dummy) nodes outside the mat are a
lso introduced. The unique ones out of them are illustrated as 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8
in Figure 4.25 for a 16column layout. This introduces a further (n+2) unknowns
when n is odd and (n+1) unknowns when n is even. As an examle, in Figure 4.25,
n=4, since the additional number of unknowns is 5 (i.e., the deflections at 4,
5, 6, 7, and 8). Ste 3. Obtain additional equations by knowing that Mx (x, y) (
Equation 4.30a) along the two edges arallel to the X axis and My (x, y) (Equati
on 4.30b and Figure 4.26) along the two edges arallel to the Y axis are zero. I
t is noted that this includes the condition of both above moments being zero at
the four corners of the mat. The numerical form of the moments is given below: (
4.30a)
FIGURE 4.25 Illustration of internal and external nodes for an even number of co
lumns.
Page 174
FIGURE 4.26 Layout of nodal oints and boundary conditions.
(4.30b)
In the case of a symmetric footing one can only aly condition along one edge t
o obtain additional equations when n is odd and additional equations when n is e
ven. As an examle, in Figure 4.25, when n=4, My (x, y) is zero for nodes 2 and
3 roducing two additional equations. Furthermore, both of the above moments are
zero at the four corners of the mat. Therefore, in the symmetric situation, one
can obtain an additional equation for one corner. In Figure 4.25, this would be
obtained by setting the moment in the diagonal direction to zero at node 3. Thu
s, ste 3 roduces additional equations when n is odd and additional equations w
hen n is even. Ste 4. Obtain another set of equations by knowing that the shear
force (Equation 4.31) along the two edges arallel to the Y axis and (Equation
4.31) along the two edges arallel to the X axis are zero. In a symmetric footin
g one can only aly this condition along one edge to obtain additional equation
s when n is odd and aquations when n is even. As an examle, in Figure 4.25 when
is zero for nodes 2 and 3 roducing two additional equations. It must be noted
that since both the above shear forces are comlimentary and therefore equal at
the four corners of the mat under any condition, only one of the above can be a
lied for the corner node.
Page 175
(4.31)
It is seen that ste 4 also roduces additional equations when n is odd and addi
tional equations when n is even. Ste 5. From ste 2, the total number of unknow
n deflections would be as follows: n odd (1/8)(n+1)(n+3)+( n+2) n even (1/8)(n)(
n+2)+n+1 From stes 3 and 4, the total number of equations available would be as
follows:
It can be seen that the number of unknown deflections and the number of equation
s available would be the same. Hence the deflections can be determined using a m
atrix based method or solution of simultaneous equations.
4.9 Additional Design Examles
Examle 4.8 Design a combined footing to carry the loads shown in Figure 4.27 (a
) Plot the shear and moment diagrams assuming that the columns are 0.3 m in diam
eter. (b) Estimate the immediate settlement of the center and the corners of the
footing using the elastic equation. Suitable elastic arameters of the sandy so
il can be obtained from Chater 2. Also use the SPTCPT correlations in Chater
2
Footing length without eccentricity: Total length=2.9+2.9=5.8 m=L
From Figure 2.20, for qc =45 bar, Rf=0.1%
Page 176
(sand to sandy silt, 4) (4.4)
a) Plot the shear and moment diagrams The distributed reaction er unit length (
1 m) on the footing can be comuted as b) Immediate settlement (4.8)
Es=500(N+15)=500(11+15)=13000 kPa
Page 177
For corner settlement:
FIGURE 4.28 (a) Loads, (b) shear force, and bending moments for Examle 4.8.
Page 178 For center settlement:

References
ACI Committee 436 Reort (1966). Suggested design rocedures for combined footin
gs and mats, ACI Journal, October. Bowles, J.E. (2002). Foundation Analysis and
Design. McGrawHill, New York. Chara S.C. and Canale R.P. (1988). Numerical Met
hods for Engineers. McGrawHill, New York. Das, B.M. (2002). Princiles of Found
ation Engineering. PWS Publishing, Boston, MA. Egorov, E. (1958). Concerning the
question of calculations for base under foundations with footings in the form o
f rings. Mekhanica Gruntov, Sb. Tr. No. 34, Gosstroiizdat, Moscow. Scott, R.F. (
1981). Foundation Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Timoshenko, S.
and Goodier, J.M. (1951) Theory of Elasticity, McGrawHill, New York, 2nd edn.
Page 179
5 Structural Design of Foundations
Panchy Arumugasaamy CONTENTS 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Tyes of Foundations 5.3 Soil
Pressure Distribution under Footings 5.4 Determination of the Size of Footing 5.
4.1 Shear Strength of Footings 5.5 Stri or Wall Footings 5.6 Combined Footings
5.7 Pile Foundations 5.7.1 Analysis of Pile Grous 5.8 Design of Grade Beams 5.9
Structural Design of Drilled Shafts 5.9.1 Behavior of Drilled Shafts under Late
ral Loads 5.9.2 Methodology for Design of Drilled Shafts 5.9.2.1 Broms Method of
Design References 179 180 183 185 185 190 196 205 205 212 214 215 215 216 233
5.1 Introduction
Foundation substructures are structural members used to suort walls and column
s to transmit and distribute their loads to the ground. If these loads are to be
roerly transmitted, the substructure must be designed to revent excessive se
ttlement or rotation and to minimize differential settlement. In addition, it sh
ould be designed in such a way that the load bearing caacity of the soil is not
exceeded and adequate safety against sliding and overturning is assured. Cumula
tive floor loads of a building, a bridge, or a retaining wall are suorted by t
he foundation substructure in direct contact with soil. The soil underneath the
substructure becomes comressed and deformed during its interaction with the sub
structure. This deformation is the settlement that may be ermanent due to dead
loads or may be elastic due to transition live loads. The amount of settlement d
eends on many factors, such as the tye of soil, the load intensity, the ground
water conditions, and the deth of substructure below the ground level.
If the soil bearing caacity is different under different isolated substructures

or footings of the same building a differential settlement will occur. Due to u
neven settlement of suorts the structural system becomes over stressed, artic
ularly at column beam joints.
Page 180 Excessive settlement may also cause additional bending and torsional mo
ments in excess of the resisting caacity of the members, which could lead to ex
cessive cracking and failures. If the total building undergoes even settlement,
little or no overstressing occurs. Therefore, it is referred to have the struct
ural foundation system designed to rovide even or little settlement that causes
little or no additional stresses on the suerstructure. The layout of the struc
tural suorts varies widely deending uon the site conditions. The selection o
f the tye of foundation is governed by the sitesecific conditions and the ot
imal construction cost. In designing a foundation, it is advisable to consider d
ifferent tyes of alternative substructures and arrive at an economically feasib
le solution. In the following sections, the design of a number of commonly used
reinforced concrete foundation system tyes is resented. The reader is advised
that, in keeing with the structural design ractices in the United States, the
English standard measurement units are adoted in the design rocedures outlined
in this chater. However, the conversion facility in Table 5.1 is resented for
the convenience of readers who are accustomed to the SI units.
5.2 Tyes of Foundations
Most of the structural foundations may be classified into one of the following t
yes: 1. Isolated sread footings: These footings are used to carry individual c
olumns. These may be square, rectangular, or occasionally circular in lan. The
footings may be of uniform thickness, steed, or even have sloed to (Figure 5
.1) and reinforced in both directions. They are one of most economical tyes of
foundation, when columns are saced at a relatively long distance. 2. Wall footi
ngs: They are used to suort artitions and structural masonry walls that carry
loads from floors and beams. As shown in Figure 5.2, they have a limited width
and continuous slab stri along the length of the wall. The critical section for
bending is located at the face of the wall. The main reinforcement is laced e
rendicular to the wall direction. Wall footings may have uniform thickness, be
steed, or have a sloed to.
TABLE 5.1 Unit Conversion Table
From English
lbs/ft 3 kis/ft lbin. kiin. lbft kift ftlb ftki sec/ft Blows/ft
3
To SI
N/m 3 kN/m
3
Multily by
157.1 112.98 1.356 1.356 1.356 1.356
Quantity
From SI To English Multily by
lbs/ft 3
3
157.1 Force/unit volume N/m 3 kN/m 112.98 Moment; or energy N mm kN mm Nm kN Jo
ule kJ sec/m
0.0064
3
kis/ft lbin.
0.0064 0.0089 0.0089 0.7375 0.7375 0.7375 0.7375 0.3048 0.3048
N mm kN mm Nm kN Joule kJ sec/m Blows/m
kiin. lbft kift ftlb ftki sec/ft

3.2808 Daming 3.2808 Blow count
Blows/m Blows/ft
Source: Courtesy of the New York Deartment of Transortation.
Page 181
FIGURE 5.1 Isolated sread footing: (a) lan; (b) elevation.
FIGURE 5.2 Wall footing: (a) lan; (b) elevation.
Page 182
FIGURE 5.3 Combined rectangular footings: (a) equal column loads PA= PB ; (b) un
equal column loads PB>PA.
3. Combined footings: This tye is used to suort two or more column loads. The
y may be continuous with a rectangular or traezoidal lan. The combined footing
becomes necessary in situations where a wall column has to be laced on a roe
rty line that may be common in urban areas. Under such conditions, an isolated f
ooting may not be suitable since it would have to be eccentrically loaded. It is
more economical to combine the exterior column footings with an interior column
footing as shown in Figure 5.3. The combined footings are more economical to co
nstruct in the case of closely saced columns. 4. Cantilever footings: They are
basically the same as combined footings excet that they are isolated footings j
oined by a stra beam that transfers the effect of the bending moment roduced b
y the eccentric column load at the exterior column (ossibly located along the
roerty line) to the adjacent interior column footing that lies at a considerabl
e distance from it. Figure 5.4 shows an examle of such a cantilever footing. 5.
Mat, raft, or continuous footing: This is a large continuous footing suorting
all of the columns and walls of a structure as shown in Figure 5.5. A mat or a
raft footing is used when the soil conditions are oor and a ile foundation is
not economical. In this case, the suerstructure is considered to be theoretical
ly floating on a mat or raft. This tye of structure is basically an inverted fl
oor system.
FIGURE 5.4 Stra or cantilever footing: (a) lan; (b) elevation.
Page 183
FIGURE 5.5 Raft or mat foundation: (a) lan; (b) elevation.
FIGURE 5.6 Pile foundation: (a) lan; (b) elevation.
6. Pile foundations: This tye of foundation becomes essential when the suorti
ng soil consists of oor layers of material to an extended deth such that an in
dividual or mat foundation is not feasible. Figure 5.6 shows an examle of such
a footing.
5.3 Soil Pressure Distribution under Footings
The soil ressure distribution under a footing is a function of relative rigidit
y of the foundation, tye, and stiffness of the soil. A concrete footing on cohe
sionless (sandy) soil will exhibit a ressure distribution similar to the one sh
own in Figure 5.7(a). The sand near the edges of the rigid footing tends to dis
lace outward laterally when the footing is loaded whereas the rigid footing tend
s to sread ressure uniformly. On the other hand, the ressure distribution und
er a rigid footing in cohesive (clay) soil is similar to that shown in Figure 5.
7(b). When the footing is loaded, the clay under the footing deflects in a bowl
shaed deression, relieving the ressure under the middle of the footing. Howev
er, for design uroses it is customary to assume that the soil ressures are li
nearly distributed, such that the resultant vertical soil force is collinear wit
h the resultant alied force as shown in Figure 5.7(c). To simlify the foundat
ion design, footings are assumed to be rigid and the suorting soil layers elas
tic. Hence, the soil ressure under a footing is determined assuming linearly el
astic action in comression. It is also assumed that there is no tensile strengt
h
Page 184
FIGURE 5.7 Pressure distribution under regular footings in different soil tyes:
(a) ressure distribution in sandy soil; (b) ressure distribution in clayey so
il; (c) simlified ressure distribution.
across the contact area between the footing and the soil. If a column footing is
loaded with axial load P at or near the center of the footing, as shown in Figu
re 5.8, the contact ressure q under the footing is simly P/A . On the other ha
nd, if the column is loaded with an axial load P and a moment of M, the stress u
nder the footing is q=P/A MY/I (5.1) where q is the soil ressure under the footi
ng at any oint, P is the alied load, A is the area of footing= BD (B is the w
idth of footing and D is the length of footing), M is the moment, Y is the dista
nce from centroidal axis to oint where the stress is comuted, and I is the sec
ond moment of area of the footing ( I=BD3/12). If e is the eccentricity of the l
oad relative to the centroidal axis of the area A, the moment M can be exressed
as Pe. The maximum eccentricity e for which Equation (5.1) alies is the one t
hat roduces q=0 at some oint. However, the larger eccentricities will cause a
art of the footing to lift of the soil. Generally, it is not referred to have
the footing lifted since it may roduce an uneconomical solution. In cases where
a larger moment is involved, it is advisable to limit the eccentricity to cause
the stress q=0 condition at
Page 185
FIGURE 5.8 Pressure distribution under eccentric footings.
the edge of the footing. This will occur when the eccentricity e falls within th
e middle third of the footing or at a limit B /6 or D/6 from the centroidal oin
t of footing. This is referred to as the kern distance. Therefore, the load al
ied within the kern distance will roduce comression under the entire footing.
5.4 Determination of the Size of Footing
The footings are normally roortioned to sustain the alied factored loads and
induced reactions that include axial loads, moments, and shear forces that must
be resisted at the base of the footing or ile ca, in accordance with arori
ate design requirements of the alicable codes. The base area of the footing or
the number and the arrangement of iles are established after the ermissible s
oil ressure or the ermissible ile caacity has been determined by the rinci
les of soil mechanics as discussed in Chaters 3, 4, and 6, on basis of unfactor
ed (service) loads such as dead, live, wind, and earthquake, whatever the combin
ation that governs the secific design. In the case of footings on iles, the co
mutation of moments and shear could be based on the assumtion that the reactio
n from any ile is concentrated at the ile center.
5.4.1 Shear Strength of Footings
The strength of footing in the vicinity of the columns, concentrated loads, or r
eactions is governed by the more severe of two conditions: (a) wide beam action
with each critical section that extends in a lane across the entire width neede
d to be investigated; and (b) footing subjected to twoway action where failure
may occur by unching along a truncated cone around concentrated loads or reaction
s. The critical section for unching shear has a erimeter b0 around the suort
ed member with the shear strength comuted in accordance with alicable rovisi
on of codes such as ACI 11.12.2. Tributary areas and corresonding critical sect
ions for both widebeam and twoway actions for isolated footing are shown in Fi
gure 5.9.
Page 186
FIGURE 5.9 Tributary area and critical section for shear.
For footing design with no shear reinforcement, the shear strength of concrete V
c (i.e., Vn=Vc ) is considered as the smallest of the following for two way act
ion. (5.2)
(5.3)
(5.4) where b0 is the erimeter of critical section taken at d/2 from the loaded
area b0=2(c1+c 2)+4d (5.5) d is the effective deth of the footing, c is the ra
tio of the long side to the short side of the loaded area, and =40 for interior
columns, 30 for edge columns, nd 20 for corner columns. s In the ppliction of
bove ACI Eqution 1137, n interior column is pplicble when the perimeter is fo
ursided, n edge column is pplicble when the perimeter is threesided, nd fin
lly corner column is pplicble when the perimeter is twosided. Design Exmple
5.1 Design for bse re of footing (Figure 5.10).
FIGURE 5.10 Illustrtion for Exmple 5.1.
Pge 187 Problem Sttement Determine the bse re Af required for squre foot
ing of threestorey building interior column with the following loding condit
ions: Service ded lod=400 kips Service live lod=280 kips Service surchrge (f
ill)=200 psf Permissible soil pressure=4.5 ksf Column dimensions=2415 in. Solutio
n The bse re of the footing is determined using service (unfctored) lods wi
th the net permissible soil pressure. 1. Determintion of bse re: Let us ssu
me tht the bottom of the footing is 4 ft below the ground level: Averge weight
of soil=125.00 pcf Totl weight of surchrge=(0.1254)+0.2=0.70 ksf Permissible s
oil pressure=4.50 ksf Net permissible soil pressure=4.5 0.7=3.80 ksf Given Servic
e DL=400.00 kips Service LL=280.00 kips Required bse re of footing:
Use 13 6 13 6 squre footing, Af=182.25 ft2. 2. Fctored lods nd soil rectio
n: To proportion the footing for strength (depth nd re of steel rebr) fctor
ed lods re used: Sfety fctor for DL=1.40 Sfety fctor for LL=1.70 P u=1.4(4
00)+1.7(280)=1036 kips qs=5.68 ksf Exmple 5.2 For the design conditions of Exm
ple 5.1, determine the overll thickness of footing nd the required steel reinf
orcement given tht psi nd fy=60,000 psi (Figure 5.11).
Pge 188
Sfety fctor for DL=1.40 Sfety fctor for LL=1.70 P u=1.4(400)+1.7(280) 1036 ki
ps qs=5.68 ksf Solution Determine depth of sher bsed on the sher strength wit
hout ny sher reinforcement. Depth required for sher usully controls the foot
ing thickness. Both widebem ction nd twowy ction for strength computtion
need to be investigted to determine the controlling sher criteri for depth.
Assume overll thickness, h=36.00 in. Cler cover to the rebr=4.00 in. Assumed
rebr dimeter=1.00 in. Effective dimeter, d=31.50 in. () Widebem ction Vu=
qstributry re bw=162.00 in. Tributry re=13.5(13.5/2 15/24 31/12) =47.81 ft2
Pge 189 (b) Twowy ction Vu=qstributry re Tributry re=(13.513.5) (24+31)(1
5+31)/144] 164.68 ft 2 Vu=5.68164.68=936.13 kips First determine the minimum of l
l three conditions s given below: (i) 2+4/ c=2+4/1.6, c =24/15=1.60 =4.50 (ii)
2+ sd/ b0=2+4031/202, b0=2(24+31)+2(15+31)=202 in. =8.14 (iii) 4 (control)
Hence, the ssumed totl depth of 36 inch is OK. (c) Determintion of reinforcem
ent qs =5.68 kips b=13.5 ft d=31 in. (i) Criticl section for moment is t the f
ce of column: Mu=5.6813.5(13.5/215/24) 2/2 =1439.488 ftkips (ii) Compute the requ
ired re of reinforcement A s s follows: Compute
where
Check for min =0.0018<0.002115 (povided), OK Use 14 #8 bas each way, As=11.06
in.2 Note that less steel is eq ied in the pependic la diection, b t fo ea
se of ba placement se the same n mbe of bas in the othe diection.
(iii) Check fo development of einfocement: The citical section fo developme
nt of einfocement is the same as fo the moment (at the face of the col mn). H
oweve, the einfocing ba sho ld esist
Page 190
FIGURE 5.12 Detemination of einfocement fo Example 5.2.
the moment at a foot distance fom the edge of the footing. Hence, it is good p
actice to have ebas bent p at the end so that it povides a mechanical means
of locking the ba in place. The basic development length
Clea spacing of bas=(13.512 23 1.0)/(14 1)=11.92 in. >3Db, OK Hence multilier, ACI
12.2.3.1 3=1 Since cover is not less than 2.5Db a reduction factor of 0.8 may be
used. Hence, l d=27.69 in. In any case ld should not be less than 75% of the ba
sic develoment length= 25.96 in. Hence, rovide a develoment length=28 in. But
in reality the bar has a hook at the end. Hence it is satisfactory. (iv) Temer
ature reinforcement (Figure 5.12): It is good ractice to rovide a to layer of
minimum distribution reinforcement to avoid cracking due to any rise in temera
ture caused by heat of hydration of cement or remature shrinkage of concrete. I
t is advised to rovide at least the minimum area of steel required in both dire
ctions. As min=0.11 Ag/2f y=0.111236/(260) (AASHTO LRFD rovision) =0.40 in.2/ft Ar
ea of #5=0.31 in. 2 Provide #5 at 9 in. centers, A s=0.41 in.2/ft Use #5 bars at
9 in. centers in both directions.
5.5 Stri or Wall Footings
A wall footing generally has cantilevers out on both sides of the wall as shown
in Figure 5.13. The soil ressure causes the cantilever to bend uward and, as a
result, reinforcement is required at the bottom of the footing, as shown in Fig
ure 5.13.
Page 191
FIGURE 5.13 Structural action in a wall footing.
The critical sections for design for flexure and anchorage are at the face of th
e wall (section AA in Figure 5.13). Oneway shear is critical at the section at a
distance d from the face of the wall (section BB in Figure 5.13). Examle 5.3
A 8in. thick wall is a art of a vertical load carrying member of an eightstor
ey condominium and hence carries seven floors and the roof. The wall carries a s
ervice (unfactored) dead load of 1.5 kis er foot er floor including the roof
and a service live load of 1.25 kis er foot er floor. The allowable soil net
bearing ressure is 5.0 ksf at the level of the base of the footing, which is 5
ft below the ground surface. The floortofloor height is 10 ft including the ro
of. Design the wall footing assuming si and f y=60,000 si. Solution (1) Estima
te the total service load. Consider 1ft width of the wall Dead load from self w
eight of the wall Wd1=(810+5: height)(8/12: thickness wall)(0.15 kis/ft) Wd1=8.50
kis/ft Dead load from floors Wd2=81.5=12.00 kis/ft Total DL=Wd1+Wd2 =8.5+12.0 =
20.50 kis/ft Liveload=81.25 =10.00 kis/ft Note that the net bearing ressure at
the footing level is given, and hence the selfweight of the footing does not ne
ed to be considered. (2) Comute the width of the wall
Try a footing 6 ft 4 in. wide; w=6.33
Page 192 Factored net ressure In the design of the concrete and reinforcement,
we will use qu=7.22 ksf. (3) Check for shear Shear usually governs the thickness
of footing. Only oneway shear is significant for a wall footing. We need to ch
eck it at a distance d away from the face of the wall (section BB in Figure 5.13)
. Now let us assume a thickness of footing=16 in. d=16 3 (cover) 0.5 (bar diameter
) =12.5 in. Clear cover (since it is in contact with soil)=3 in.
Since the footing deth is satisfactory. (4) Design of reinforcement The critica
l section for moment is at the face of the wall section AA in Figure 5.13. The tr
ibutary area for moment is shown shaded in Figure 5.14.
FIGURE 5.14 Plan view of footing (Examle 5.3).
Page 193
Let us assume j=0.9, jd=11.25
From ACI sections 10.5.3 and 7.12.2 Minimum A s=0.0018bh=0.00181216 0.35 in. 2/ft
Sacing of #5 bars at 6in. centers, As=0.62 in.2/ft; rovide #5 bars at 6in. c
enters. Maximum sacing allowed in the ACI section 7.6.5=3h or 18 in. Now comut
e
The design is satisfactory (Figure 5.15). (5) Check the develoment length Basic
develoment length for #5 bars in 3,000 si concrete=l db ACI code rovision: f
urnish the following criterion:
ACI 12.2.3. (a) No transverse steel (stirrus): does not aly (b) and (c) Do no
t aly if flexural steel is in the bottom layer (d) Cover=3 in. and clear saci
ng=5.325 in. >3 db and therefore 12.3.3.1 (d) alies 1.0 ACI 12.2.3.4. Alies w
ith a factor of 0.8
FIGURE 5.15 Configuration of reinforcement layout (Examle 5.3).
Page 194 ACI 12.2.4. Bottom bar, 1.0; normal weight concrete, 1.0; and standard de
formed bar, 1.0 ldb=141.00.8=10.87 in. ACI 12.2.3.6. The length of the bar from the
maximum stress oint at the face of the wall is 34 3=31 in., which is >21 in. a
nd hence is satisfactory. (6) Temerature and shrinkage ACI 7.12.2 As=0.0018bh=0
.00181216 =0.35 in.2 At least two thirds of this should be laced as to reinforce
ment in the transverse direction as the concrete exosed to the dry weather (low
humidity and high temerature) until covered. Provide #5 at 12in. centers; As=
0.31 in.2/ft and is thus satisfactory As=0.0018bh=0.00187612 =1.64 in.2/ft This re
inforcement should be divided between to and bottom layers in the longitudinal
direction (Figure 5.16). Provide 6 #4 at 14in. centers both to and bottom As=620
.2=2.40 in.2/ft >1.64 in.2/ft and hence is satisfactory Examle 5.4 You have bee
n engaged as an engineer to design a foundation for a threestorey office buildi
ng. It is required that the footings are designed for equal settlement under liv
e loading. The footings are subjected to dead and live loads given below. Howeve
r, statistics show that the usual load is about 50% for all footings. Determine
the area of footing required for a balanced footing design. It is given that the
allowable net soil bearing ressure is 5 ksf (Table 5.2Table 5.4).
FIGURE 5.16 Details of reinforcement (Examle 5.3).
Page 195 Solution

TABLE 5.2 Details of Loads (Examle 5.4) Footing number Dead load (kis) Live lo
ad (kis) 1 130 160 2 170 210 3 150 200 4 190 180 5 140 210 6 200 250
TABLE 5.3 Comutation of Load Ratios (Examle 5.4) Footing number Ratio 1 1.231
2 1.235 3 1.333 4 0.947 5 1.500 6 1.250
TABLE 5.4 Comutation of Factored Loads (Examle 5.4) Footing number Usual load
(DL+0.5LL) (kis) 1 210 2 275 3 250 4 280 5 245 6 325
(a) Determine the footing that has the largest ratio of live load to dead load.
Note that this ratio is 1.5 for footing #5. (b) Calculate the usual load for all
footings. (c) Determine the area of footing that has the highest ratio of LL to
DL (footing #5) Area of footing #5=(DL+ LL)/(allow soil ressure)
Usual soil ressure under footing #5=(usual load)/(area of footing)
(e) Comute the area required for each footing by dividing its usual load by the
usual soil ressure footing #5. For examle, for footing #1, Required area=210/
3.5=60 ft2 For other footings, the comutations are shown below:
TABLE 5.5
Comutation of Areas (Examle 5.4) Footing number Usual load (DL 0.5LL) (kis) R
equired area (ft )
2
1 210 60
2 275 78.57
3 250 71.43
4 280 80.00
5 245 70.00
6 325 92.86
TABLE 5.6 Comutation of Soil Pressure (Examle 5.4) Footing number Soil ressur
e (ksf) 1 4.83 2 4.84 3 4.90 4 4.63 5 5.00 6 4.85
Page 196 (f) For verification, comute the soil ressure under each footing for
the given loads. Note that the soil ressure under footing #5 is 5 ksf, whereas
under other footings it is less than 5 ksf.
5.6 Combined Footings
Combined footings are necessary to suort two or more columns on one footing as
shown in Figure 5.17. When an exterior column is relatively close to a roerty
line (in an urban area) and a secial sread footing cannot be used, a combined
footing can be used to suort the erimeter column and an interior column toge
ther. The size and the shae of the footing are chosen such that the centroid of
the footing coincides with the resultant of the column loads. By changing the l
ength of the footing, the centroid can be adjusted to coincide with the resultan
t loads. The deflected shae and the reinforcement details are shown for a tyic
al combined footing in Figure 5.17(b) and an examle is given below to further i
llustrate the design rocedure of such combined footings.
FIGURE 5.17 Tyical combined footing: (a) under unloaded conditions; (b) under l
oaded conditions.
Page 197 Examle 5.5 In a threestorey building, an exterior column having a sec
tion of 24 in.18 in. carries a service dead load of 70 kis and service live load
of 50 kis at each floor. At the same time the nearby 24 square interior column
carries a service dead load of 100 kis and a live load of 80 kis at each floo
r. The architects have hired you as an engineer to design the footing for these
columns. The secific site condition dictates that a combined footing be chosen
as an economical solution. Both columns carry three floors above them and are lo
cated 18 ft aart. The geotechnical engineer has advised that the soil bearing
ressure at about 4 ft below the ground is 5 ksf. The ground floor, which is goin
g to be slab on grade with 6 in. concrete, suorts a service live load of 120
sf. The soil below this floor is well comacted. The available concrete strength
si and steel strength fy=60,000 si. Design an economical footing. Solution St
e 1. Determine the size and the factored soil ressure (Figure 5.18)
Distance from the external face of the exterior column=129.6+9 in.=139 in.=11.55
ft Width of the footing=208.09/(211.55)=9ft Factored external column load=3(1.470+1
.650) kis=534.00 kis Factored internal column load=3(1.4100+1.680) kis=804.00 ki
s Total=1338.00 kis Now we can comute the net factored soil ressure which is
required to design the footing.
FIGURE 5.18 Factored load and factored net soil ressure (Examle 5.5).
Page 198
FIGURE 5.19 Shear force diagram (Examle 5.5) (forces in kis).
Ste 2. Draw the shear force and bending moment diagram (Figure 5.19) If shear i
s zero at X1
Ste 3. Determine the thickness of footing (Figure 5.20) In this case, the footi
ng acts as a wide (9 ft) heavy duty beam. It is better to determine the thicknes
s based on the moment and check it for shear. We can start with minimum reinforc
ement of 200/ fy as er ACI Section 10.5.1.
and
Therefore,
Page 199
FIGURE 5.20 Bending moment diagram (Examle 5.5).
Now we will choose the total deth h=40 in. and the area of steel will be more t
han minimum steel required. h=40.00 in. d=40 4 (cover to reinforcement of 3 in. a
nd 1 in. for reinforcement) =36.00 in. Ste 4. Check twoway shear at the interi
or column The critical erimeter is a square with sides 24 in.+36 in.=60.00 in.
Therefore, b0=460=240.00 in. The shear, V u, is the column load corrected for (mi
nus) the force due to the soil ressure on the area enclosed by the above erime
ter, see Figure 5.21.
is the smallest of the following: (a) (b) (c)
FIGURE 5.21 Shear erimeter (Examle 5.5 Interior Column).
Page 200 Since Vu is less than the smallest value of 1609 kis of all three abov
e conditions, the deth of the footing is adequate to suort the interior squar
e column load. Ste 5. Check twoway shear at the exterior column The critical
erimeter is a rectangle with sides of 24+36=60.00 in. and a width of 18+ 36/2=36
.00 in. The shear, Vu, is the column load minus the force due to the soil ressu
re on the area enclosed by the above erimeter
The shear erimeter around the column is threesided, as shown in Figure 5.22. T
he distance from line BC to the centroid of the shear erimeter is given by X 2
The force due to the soil ressure on the area enclosed by the erimeter is =6.4
3(6036/144) 96.45 kis Then, summing u the moment about the centroid of the shear
erimeter gives Mu=534(36 9.82 9) 96.45(18 9.82) =8385.16 in.kis
FIGURE 5.22 Illustration of the shear erimeter (Examle 5.5 (a) Exterior column
; (b) interior column).
Page 201 This moment must be transferred to the footing through shear stress and
flexure. The moment of inertia of the shear erimeter jc is j c=2[[3636 3/12]+[3
6363/12]+[3636][189.822]]+[(6036)9.82 2] j c=646590.5+208293.984=854884.5 in. 4 The f
raction of moment transferred by flexure is
The fraction transferred by shear=(1 f )=(10.659)=0.341 The shear stress d e to th
e direct shear and d e to moment transfer will be additive at points A and D in
Fi re 5.22, ivin the larest shear stresses on the critical shear perimeter
Now we will comp te from the followin condition sin ACI e
ations 1136 to 1138,
which is the smallest of the followin: (a) (b) (c) Since V is less than the s
mallest val e of 0.186 ksi of all the above three conditions, the depth of the f
ootin is ade
ate to s pport the interior s
are col mn load. Step 6. Check one
way shear The shear force diaram shows that the maxim m shear is near the exte
rior col mn and, hence, oneway shear is critical at a distance d from the face
of the exterior col mn:
Since V is less than the depth is ade
ate to s pport the re
ired shear condit
ion. Step 7. Desin the flex ral reinforcement (a) The midspan (neative moment
):
Pae 202 Per ACI handbook,

Provide #8 bars at 6in. spacin at the top. Total area As=14.137 in. 2 (b) At t
he face of interior col mn (positive moment):
Per ACI handbook,
Provide #8 bars at 6in. spacin at the bottom. Total area As=14.137 in.2, which
is satisfactory. Check for minim m area of steel re
ired=(200/ fy)bd=12.96 in.
2 Since the provided area of steel is reater than the minim m steel re
ired, t
he flex ral reinforcement provided is ade
ate. Step 8. Check the development le
nth Basic development lenth ldb for #8 bars in 3000 psi concrete (ACI code pro
vision) is iven by
ACI 12.2.3.1: (a) No transverse steel (stirr ps): does not apply (b) Does not ap
ply (c) Does not apply if flex ral steel is in the bottom layer (d) Cover=3 in.
and clear spacin=5.0 in >3 db and therefore 12.3.3.1 (d) applies with a factor
of 1.0 ACI 12.2.3.4 Applies with a factor of 0.8 ACI 12.2.4 Bottom bar,1.0; norma
l wt concrete,1.0; and standard deformed bar,1.0 ACI 12.2.4.1 Top bar with a facto
r of 1.3 l db=351.00.81.3=36 in. (top bar)
Pae 203 ACI 12.3.3.6 The lenth of the bar from the maxim m stress point at the
face of the col mns is 673 =64 in., which is >36 in. and hence is satisfactory.
Step 9. Temperat re and shrinkae reinforcement (ACI 7.12.2) A s=0.0018bh=0.00181
240 = 0.86 in.2/ft At least two thirds of this sho ld be placed as top reinforcem
ent in the transverse direction as the concrete exposed to the dry and hot weath
er ntil covered by earth (backfill). Provide #7 at 12 in. on centers; As=0.6 in
.2/ft As=0.0018bh=0.00181240=0.86 in.2/ft This reinforcement sho ld be divided bet
ween the top and the bottom and sho ld provide two thirds of it at the top since
it will be exposed to temperat re and half of it at the bottom layers in the lo
nit dinal direction or provide 6 #7 at 12in. centers at the top at the interio
r col mn and at the bottom at the exterior col mn. A s=20.611.22 in. 2/ft >0.86 in
.2/ft, satisfactory Step 10. Desin of the transverse beam The transverse strips
nder each col mn will be ass med to transmit the load evenly from the lonit din
al beam strips into the col mn strip. The width of the col mn strip will be ass
med to extend d/2 on either side of the interior col mn and one side of the exte
rior col mn (Fi re 5.23). (a) The maxim m factored load for the interior col mn
=804 kips This load is carried by a 9ft beam and, hence,
FIGURE 5.23 Cross section of beam (Example 5.5).
Pae 204
Per ACI handbook,
Provide #8 bars at 6in. spacin at the bottom. This amo nts to a total of ten b
ars Total As=7.85 in.2, Satisfactory (b) The maxim m factored load for the inter
ior col mn=534 kips This load is carried by a 9ft beam and, hence, load per ft=
534/9
Per ACI handbook,
Provide #8 bars at 6in. spacin at the bottom. This amo nts to a total of seven
bars A s=5.50 in.2 satisfactory Step 11. Details of reinforcement (Fi re 5.24)
Pae 205
FIGURE 5.24 Details of reinforcement (Example 5.5).
5.7 Pile Fo ndations
A str ct re is fo nded on piles if the soil immediately below its base does not
have ade
ate bearin capacity, or if the fo ndation cost estimate indicates tha
t a pile fo ndation may be more economical and safer than any other type of fo n
dation. In this disc ssion, we will consider only piles that are commonly availa
ble and driven into the ro nd by a mechanical drivin devise known as a pile dr
iver. Please note that the eneral principles are also applicable to other types
of pile fo ndations, with minor modifications. Piles may be divided into three
cateories based on the method of transferrin the load into the ro nd (Fi re
5.25Fi re 5.28): 1. Friction piles in coarserained very permeable soils: These
piles transfer most of their loads to the soil thro h skin friction. The proce
ss of drivin s ch piles close to each other (in ro ps) reatly red ces the por
osity and compressibility of the soil within and aro nd the ro p. 2. Friction p
iles in very finerained soils of low permeability: These piles also transfer t
heir loads to the soils thro h skin friction. However, they do not compact the
soil d rin drivin as in case 1. Fo ndations s pported by piles of this type ar
e commonly known as floatin pile fo ndations. 3. Point bearin piles: These pil
es transfer their loads into a firm strat m or a soil layer. Dependin on the e
oraphical location, these piles have to be driven to a considerable depth below
the base of the footin. In practice, piles are sed to transfer their loads in
to the ro nd sin a combination of the above mechanisms.
5.7.1 Analysis of Pile Gro ps
The f nction of a pile cap, a relatively riid body, is to distrib te the loads
to each pile in a ro p of piles. The loads co ld be vertical or horizontal load
s or moments from the s perstr ct re. The horizontal forces at the base are ene
rally resisted by battered or raked piles. The batter can be as steep as 1 on 1,
b t it is economical to limit the batter to
Pae 206 1.0 horizontal to 2.5 vertical (approximately 22 of an inclination to ve

rtical). The horizontal forces may be carried by vertical piles in the form of s
hear and moments. The shear capacity of piles is limited by the material propert
y of the pile. However, it is advisable to resist by the horizontal component of
the axial load in a battered pile. When a footin consistin of N n mber of pil
es is s bjected to a vertical load of P, moments of Mx and My , and a horizontal
force of H, the followin e
ation can be sed to determine the force attrib te
d to each pile. After determinin the force in each pile, the horizontal resista
nce force may be provided by batterin or rakin the piles to develop ade
ate h
orizontal resistance: (5.6) where P is the total vertical load in the pile cap,
Mx is the moment at the pile cap abo t the xaxis, My is the moment of the pile c
ap abo t the yaxis, dx is the xdirectional distance of the pile from the cente
r of the pile ro p, and dy is the ydirectional distance of the same pile from
the center of the pile ro p. The above principle is ill strated by the followin
example in an act al desin sit ation. Example 5.6 Yo have been enaed as th
e enineer to desin the footin of a pier fo ndation for a major bride. The br
ide enineer has determined that the fo ndation needs to be desined for a fact
ored load of 3650 kips, a transverse factored moment of 7050 ftkips, and a lon
it dinal moment of 2400 ftkips. The bride pier is 8 ft (lonit dinal direction
) 10 ft (transverse direction). The bride enineer has proposed to se 18in. s
are PC piles. The eotechnical enineer has recommended limitin the pile capac
ity to 325 kip (factored load). The ro p has to resist a lateral force of 125 k
ips in the transverse direction and 75 kips in the lonit dinal direction. The b
ride enineer has estimated that 17 to 18 piles wo ld be ade
ate. The shear ca
pacity of the 18in. s
are pile is limited to 10 kips.
Sol tion This is a bride fo ndation desin example and hence AASHTO provisions
apply: 1. Determine the n mber of piles and the spacin re
ired to resist the
iven loadin condition. It is iven that the bride enineer pres mes that 18 pi
les wo ld be re
ired. The spacin between piles is more than three times the pi
le diameter=318=54 in. Provide piles at spacin of 60 in. (5 ft) in both directio
ns. 2. Determine the size of the pile cap or the footin. Caref l st dy of the s
it ation indicates that the pile cap sho ld provide hiher resistance in the tra
nsverse direction. An ede distance of 2 ft sho ld be s fficient. If the pile r
o p is arraned with five piles in the transverse direction and fo r piles in th
e lonit dinal direction, Lenth of the pile cap=45ft+22ft=24ft Width of the pile
cap=35ft+22=19ft h=5.00 ft
d=3.75 ft L=24.00 ft B =19.00 ft 3. Analysis of pile ro p. Analysis of the pile

ro p can be carried o t in a tab lar form as iven below: Pile load analysisTra
nsverse direction (Table 5.7) Pile load analysisLonit dinal direction (Table 5.8
) Combined loadin effect: Load per pile (kips) (Table 5.9)
4. Consider oneway shear action: Critical section for shear=d from the face of
the piles
FIGURE 5.25 Arranement of piles and the pile cap. TABLE 5.7 Comp tations for Tr
ansverse Directional Analysis
N
4 4 2 4 4 Total 18
X
10 5 0 5 10
d2
100 25 0 25 100
Nd2
400 100 0 100 400 1000
P kips 3650.00
202.78 202.78 202.78 202.78 202.78
My ftkips 7050.00
70.50 35.25 0.00 35.25 70.50
P My kips
273.28 238.03 202.78 167.53 132.28
Mx ftkips 2400.00
Pae 208
5. Consider twoway shear action:
6. Flex ral behaviorDetermination of reinforcements in the lonit dinal direction
: Minim m cover to reinforcement=3 in.
FIGURE 5.26 Pile cap layo tlonit dinal direction. TABLE 5.8 Comp tations for Lon
it dinal Directional Analysis
N
5 4 4 5
X
7.5 2.5 2.5 7.5 Total
d2
56.25 6.25 6.25 56.25
Nd2
281.25 25 25 281.25 612.5
Mx ftkips
29.39 9.80 9.80 29.39
TABLE 5.9 Comp tations of Combined Analysis
Transverse Lonit dinal

L1 L2 L3 L4
T1
161.67 142.07 122.48 102.89
T2
196.92 177.32 157.73 138.14
T3
232.17
T4
267.42 247.82 228.23
T5
302.67 283.07 263.48 243.89 1160.85
173.39
208.64
Notes: Horizontal force=8.10 kips; hih load on a pile=302.67 kips. =1093.11 kip
s
Page 209
N mbe of #10 bas=26 bas pacing=8.15 in. in the longit dinal diection Check
fo minim m einfocement (AAHTO ection 8.17.1):
whee
whee
Povide 28 #10 bas at the bottom and povide #7 bas at the top at 8-in. spacin
g. 7. Detemination of einfocement in tansvese diection: Min. cove=3 in. R
= 1160.83 kips
FIGURE 5.27 Pile cap layo ttansvese diection.
Page 210
Check fo minim m einfocement AAHTO ection 8.17.1:
8. Lateal foce esistance of the pile cap: The lateal foce co ld be d e to a
centif gal foce, wind foce, o even d e to eathq ake motions. In this examp
le, it is a combination of foces pe section 3 of AAHTO specifications. The la
teal foces wee comp ted pe AAHTO and fo nd that the piles need to esist th
e following foces:
ince the lateal foce of 8.1 kips < 10 kips pe pile, no pile eq ies any bat
teing o aking.
Page 211 9. hinkage and tempeat e einfocement: Aveage RH=75% Ass med shi
nkage=150 micostains Coection fo R H=1.40.01R H H=97.5 micostains E c=4E+0
.6 psi Concete stess=Ec H psi =376.93 psi Depth of shinkage effect=5.00 in. f
om the s face The shinkage ind ced foce pe ft=22.616 kips This foce has to
be esisted by steel einfocement. Othewise the concete will develop cackin
g. Req ied steel to pevent cacking As=22.616/0.85 fy, As=0.443445 in.2 /ft 10
. Tempeat e effect: Tempeat e ise d ing the initial stage of concete c i
ng does moe damage to concete than at latte stages Tempeat e ise co ld be=
25C 6 Tempeat e stains= t nd =6.510 =162.5 microstrins Concrete stress=162.5 Ec
/3 =209.4 psi Assuming the depth of the temperture rising effect to be 6 in. T
empertureinduced force=15.077 kips/ft The required steel re=15.077/0.85fy =0
.2956 in.2/ft Totl re=0.7391 in. 2/ft Spcing of #7 brs=9.9043 in. Provide #
7 brs t 9in. spcing t the top nd the verticl fce.
Some trnsporttion gencies recognize shrinkge nd temperturerelted crckin
g of RC members nd require tht the minimum reinforcement is provided. For exm
ple, Florid Deprtment of Trnsporttion requires the following: Twowy cge r
einforcement must be provided on ll fces of pier footings (1) 5 brs t 12in.
centers s minimum (2) When the minimum dimension exceeds 3.28ft nd volumesur
fce re rtio is greter thn 12 in. V/A=20.39>12 in. The pile cp meets the m
ss concrete requirements
where A b=minimum re of br (mm2)=285 S=spcing of br (mm)=300 dc =concrete c

over mesured to the center of the br (mm)=85.73 db=dimeter of the reinforcing
br=19.05
Pge 212 2dc +db=190.5 mm But (2 dc+db) need not be greter thn 75 mm Ab=0.75S=
225 Therefore, provide #6 brs t 12in. centers. 11. Reinforcement development
length: In this design, the reinforcement must be effective just outside of the
piles within the pile cps. This is mde possible by providing mechniclly nch
ored bentup brs (through 90 bend). This is the most economicl wy of providi
ng sufficient development. Otherwise the footing needs to be extended nd my be
come uneconomicl. 12. Reinforcement detils
FIGURE 5.28 Typicl pile cp detils.
5.8 Design of Grde Bems
Exmple 5.7 One of your clients pproches you to design foundtion for wood
frmed (construction) building. The geotechnicl engineer hs dvised you to us
e grde bem supported by wooden timber piles. Twelveinch dimeter timber pil
es driven to depth of 35ft could crry working lod of 35 kips per pile. The
grde bem hs to crry the wll lod of 2.5 kips per foot of ded lod nd 1.3
kips per foot of live lod. The structurl engineer dvised you tht the timber
piles need to be stggered t lest 1 ft 6in. centers prt. If the building l
ength is 85 ft, determine the pile spcing long the length of the building nd
design the grde bem given the following: The frost depth is 2ft 4 in (Figure 5
.29 nd Figure 5.30).
Pge 213
FIGURE 5.29 Illustrtion for Exmple 5.7: () front elevtion; (b) side elevtio
n.
Answer: Grde bem design Dt: Grde bem woodfrme wll
Grde bem supported by timber piles driven to 35 ft Pile cpcity=35 kips Ultim
te lod=352=70 kips Bem width=3.5ft Bem depth >2ft to 4 in.=3.0ft Self weight
of bem=1.575 kips/ft
FIGURE 5.30 Reinforcement detils for grde bem (Exmple 5.7).
Pge 214 When piles re spced t 60 Lod/pile=(1.575+3.8)632.25 kips < 35 kips Th
us, the design is dequte Wd=2.5 nd 1.575=4.075 kips/ft WL=1.3 kips/ft Wu=1.44.
075 nd 1.7x1.3 =7.92 kips/ft
A s required < A s min Provide 6 #7 brs t the top nd t the bottom
A s provided > As required1.33, OK. Sher check:
provide #4 tie t 12 in. centers.
5.9 Structurl Design of Drilled Shfts
The construction of high rise nd hevier buildings in cities, where the subsurf
ce conditions consist of reltively thick lyers of soft to medium bering str
t overlying deep bedrock, led to the development of drilled shft foundtions.
Therefore, the function
Pge 215 of drilled shft (similr to pile foundtions) is to enble structur

l lods to be tken down through deep lyers of wek soil on to hrd strtum c
lled for very conservtive vlue for bering pressure for the hrd strt ro
und 8 to 10 kips per squre foot. However, the rpid dvncement in the construc
tion technology followed by the development of theories for design nd nlytic
l techniques, the use of computers, nd fullscle testing led to the production
of better understnding of drilled shft behvior. There re mrked difference
s between the behvior of driven piles nd drilled shft. The drilled shft is
lso known s cisson, drilled cisson, or drilled piers. Drilled shfts hve pro
ved to be relible foundtions for trnsferring hevy lods from superstructure
to be the suitble bering strt beneth the surfce of the ground. Economic d
vntges of drilled shft re often relized due to the fct tht very lrge
drilled shft cn be instlled to replce groups of driven piles, which in turn
obvites the need for pile cp. The drilled shft is very often constructed t
o crry both verticl nd horizontl lods.
5.9.1 Behvior of Drilled Shfts under Lterl Lods
Figure 5.31 shows views of two types of foundtions used for column support in t
wo buildings. Figure 5.31() shows two shft foundtions nd Figure 5.31(b) show
s singleshft support. The twoshft system resists the wind moment by dded t
ension nd compression ( pushpull couple) in the shft, lthough some bending is
required to resist the wind sher, while the singleshft foundtion resists bo
th the moment nd sher produced by the wind lod through bending.
5.9.2 Methodology for Design of Drilled Shfts
Drilled shfts re more often used to trnsfer both verticl nd lterl lods.
The design of drilled shft for lterl loding requires stepbystep procedur
es to be followed:
FIGURE 5.31 Elevtion view of: () twoshft foundtion; (b) singleshft found
tion. (From LRFD Bridge Design Specifictions, Customry U.S. Units, 2nd ed., Am
ericn Assocition of Stte Highwy nd
Trnsporttion Officils, Wshington, DC, 1998 (with 1999 interim revisions). Wi

th permission.)
Pge 216 1. Determine the depth of the drilled shft to crry the computergener
ted verticl lod without undergoing excessive moment. 2. Determine the size (d
imeter) nd mechnicl properties of the concrete to resist the bending moment,
sher force, nd xil lod tht will be imposed on the drilled shft by lter
l lods in combintion with xil lods. 3. Determine the deformtion or stiffne
ss of the drilled shft in lterl trnsltion nd rottions to ensure tht lte
rl deformtion flls within cceptble limits. There re three methods tht cn
be used to nlyze lterlly loded drill shfts. Broms method cn be used to es
timte ultimte strengthstte resistnce. The other two methods include the chr
cteristic lod method nd the PY methods, which cn del better with the nonline
r spects of the problem. In the following section Broms method is presented. 5.9
.2.1 Broms Method of Design Broms method is strightforwrd hndclcultion met
hod for lterl lod nlysis of single drilled shft or pile. The method clc
ultes the ultimte soil resistnce to lterl lod s well s the mximum momen
t induced in the pile. Broms method cn be used to evlute fixed or free hed co
ndition in either purely cohesive or purely cohesionless soil profiles. The meth
od is not conducive to lterl lod nlyses in mixed cohesive nd cohesionless
soil profiles. For long fixed hed piles in snds, the method cn lso overpredi
ct lterl lod cpcities (Long, 1996). Therefore, for mixed profiles nd for l
ong fixed hed shft in snds, the COM624P progrm should be used. A stepbyste
p procedure developed by the New York Stte Deprtment of Trnsporttion (1977)
on the ppliction of Broms method is provided below: Step 1. Determine the gener
l soil type (i.e., cohesive or cohesionless) within the criticl depth below th
e ground surfce (bout 4 or 5 shft dimeters). Step 2. Determine the coefficie
nt of horizontl subgrde rection, Kh, within the criticl depth for cohesive o
r cohesionless soils
TABLE 5.10 Vlues of Coefficients of n 1 nd n2 for Cohesive Soils
Unconfined compression strength, qu (kP)
<8 48191 >191 Pile mteril Steel Concrete Timber
n1
0.32 0.36 0.40 n2 1.00 1.15 1.30
Source: From LRFD Bridge Design Specifictions, Customry U.S. Units, 2nd edn, A
mericn Assocition of Stte Highwy nd Trnsporttion Officils, Wshington, D
C, 1998 (with 1999 interim revisions). With permission.
Pge 217 () Cohesive soils:

(5.7)
where qu is the unconfined compressive strength (kP), b is the width or dimete
r of the shft (m), nd n1 nd n2 re the empiricl coefficients tken from Tbl
e 5.10 (b) Cohesionless soils: Choose Kh from the Tble 5.11. (The vlues of Kh
given in Tble 5.11 were determined by Terzghi.) Step 3. Adjust Kh for loding
nd soil conditions () Cyclic loding (or erthquke loding) in cohesionless s
oil: 1. 2. from Step 2 for medium to dense soil. from Step 2 for loose soil.
(b) Sttic lods resulting in soil creep (cohesive soils) 1. Soft nd very soft
normlly consolidted clys Kh=(1/3 to 1/6)Kh from Step 2 2. Stiff to very stiff
clys Kh=(1/4 to 1/2)Kh from Step 2 Step 4. Determine the pile prmeters () M
odulus of elsticity, E (MP) (b) Moment of inerti, I (m4) (c) Section modulus,
S (m3), bout n xis perpendiculr to the lod plne (d) Yield stress of pile
mteril, fy (MP), for steel or ultimte compression strength, f c (MP), for c
oncrete (e) Embedded pile length, D (m) (f) Dimeter or width, b (m) (g) Eccentr
icity of pplied lod ec for freeheded pilesi.e., verticl distnce between gro
und surfce nd lterl lod (m) (h) Dimensionless shpe fctor Cs (for steel pi
les only):
TABLE 5.11 Vlues of Kh in Cohesionless Soils
K h (kN/m3 ) Soil Density
Loose Medium Dense
Above Groundwter
1,900 8,143 17,644
Below Groundwter
1,086 5,429 10,857
Source: From LRFD Bridge Design Specifictions, Customry U.S. Units, 2nd ed., A
mericn Assocition of Stte Highwy nd Trnsporttion Officils, Wshington, D
C, 1998 (with 1999 interim revisions). With
permission.
Pge 218 1. Use 1.3 for pile with circulr section 2. Use 1.1 for Hsection pile
when the pplied lterl lod is in the direction of the piles mximum resisting
moment (norml to the pile flnges) 3. Use 1.5 for Hsection pile when the ppl
ied lterl lod is in the direction of the piles minimum resisting moment (prl
lel to the pile flnges) (i) My the resisting moment of the pile 1. My=Csf yS (k
N m) (for s teel piles) 2. My=fc S (kN m) (for concrete piles) Step 5. Determine
for cohesionless soils h for cohesive soils or (a) (b) for coesive soil, or fo
r coesionless soil
Step 6. Determine te dimensionless lengt factor (a) hD for cohesive soil, or (
) D for coesionless soil Step 7. Determine if te pile is long or sort (a) Co
esive soil: 1. hD>2.25 (long pile) 2. hD<2.25 (short pile) Note: It is suggeste
d that for hD values etween 2.0 and 2.5, oth long and short pile criteria shou
ld e considered in Step 9, and then the smaller value should e used. () Cohes
ionless soil: 1. D>4.0 (long pile) 2. D<2.0 (sort pile) 3. 2.0< D<4.0 (intermedi
ate pile) Step 8. Determine oter soil parameters over te embedded lengt of pi
le (a) Te Rankine passive pressure coefficient for coesionless soil, Kp were
is te angle of internal friction (b) Te average effective weigt of soil, y (k
N/m3) (c) Te coesion, cu (kPa) te unconfined compressive strengt, qu Step 9.
Determine te ultimate lateral load for a single pile, Qu (a) Sort free or fi
ed-eaded pile in coesive soil Use D/b (and ec /b for te free-eaded case), en
ter Figure 5.32, select te corresponding value of Qu/cub2, and solve for Qu (kN
)
Page 219
FIGURE 5.32 Ultimate lateral load capacity of sort piles in coesive soils. (Fr
om LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units, 2nd ed., American As
sociation of State Higway and Transportation Officials, Wasington, DC, 1998 (w
it 1999 interim revisions). Wit permission.)
(b) Long free or fied-eaded pile in coesive soil Using My/cub3 (and ec /b for
te free-eaded case), enter Figure 5.33, select te corresponding value of Qu/
cub2, and solve for Qu (kN) (c) Sort free or fied-eaded pile in coesionless
soil Use D/b (and ec /D for te free-eaded case), enter Figure 5.34, select te
corresponding value of Qu/Kpb3 , and solve for Q (kN) (d) Lon free or fixedhe
aded pile in cohesionless soil Usin My/b4 Kp (and ec /b for the freeheaded case
), enter Fi re 5.35, select the correspondin val e of Q /K pb3y, and solve for
Q (kN)
Pae 220
FIGURE 5.33 Ultimate lateral load capacity of lon piles in cohesive soils. (Fro
m LRFD Bride Desin Specifications, C stomary U.S. Units, 2nd ed., American Ass
ociation of State Hihway and Transportation Officials, Washinton, DC, 1998 (wi
th 1999 interim revisions). With permission.)
(e) Intermediate
both short pile
ep 10: Calc late
ate Qm, from the
free or fixedheaded pile in cohesionless soil Calc late Q for

(Step 9c) and lon pile (Step 9d) and se the smaller val e. St
the maxim m allowable workin load for a sinle pile Qm. Calc l
ltimate load Q determined in step 9 as shown in Fi re 5.36.
Step 11. Calc late the workin load for a sinle pile, Qa to (kN)
orrespondin to a iven desin deflection at the ro nd s rface y
lection correspondin to a iven desin load (Fi re 5.36). If Qa
iven, s bstit te the val e of Qm (kN) from Step 10 for Qa in the
s and solve for Ym (m):
Calc late Qa c
(m) or the def
and y are not
followin case
Pae 221
FIGURE 5.34 Ultimate lateral load capacity of short piles in cohesionless soils.
(From LRFD Bride Desin Specifications, C stomary U.S. Units, 2nd ed., America
n Association of State Hihway and Transportation Officials, Washinton, DC, 199
8 (with 1999 interim revisions). With permission.)
(a) Free or fixedheaded pile in cohesive soil Usin hD (and e/D for the free-he
aded case), enter Figure 5.37, select the corresponding value of yKhD/Qa, and s
olve for Qa (kN) or y (m) () Free or fixed-headed pile in cohesionless soil Usi
ng nD (and e/D for the free-headed case), enter Figure 5.38, select the correspo
nding value of y(EI)3/5Kh2/5/ Qa D, and solve for Qa (kN) or y (m) Step 12. Comp
are Qa to Qm If Qa>Qm1 use Qm and calculate ym (Step 11) If Qa<Qm use Qa and y I
f Qa and y are not given, use Qm and ym Step 13. Reduce the allowale load from
Step 12 for pile group effects and the method of pile installation
Page 222
FIGURE 5.35 Ultimate lateral load capacity of long piles in cohesionless soils.
(From LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units, 2nd ed., American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1998
(with 1999 interim revisions). With permission.)
FIGURE 5.36 Load deflection relationship used in determination of Broms maximum w
orking load. (From LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units, 2nd
ed., American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washing
ton, DC, 1998 (with 1999 interim revisions). With permission.)
Page 223
FIGURE 5.37 Lateral deflection at ground surface of piles in cohesive soils. (Fr
om LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units, 2nd ed., American As
sociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1998 (w
ith 1999 interim revisions). With permission.)
FIGURE 5.38
Lateral deflection at ground surface of piles in cohesionless soils. (From LRFD

Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units, 2nd ed., American Associatio
n of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1998 (with 1999
interim revisions). With permission.)
Page 224
TABLE 5.12 Group Reduction Factors
Z
8 6 4 3
Reduction Factor
1.0 0.8 0.65 0.5
Source: From LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units, 2nd ed., A
merican Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D
C, 1998 (with 1999 interim revisions). With permission.
FIGURE 5.39 Guide for Tale 5.12.
(a) Group reduction factor determined y the center-to-center pile spacing, z, i
n the direction of load (Tale 5.12 and Figure 5.39) () Method of installation
reduction factor 1. For driven piles use no reduction 2. For jetted piles use 0.
75 of the value from Step 13a Step 14. Determine pile group lateral capacity The
total lateral load capacity of the pile group equals the adjusted allowale loa
d per pile from Step 13 times the numer of piles. The deflection of the pile g
roup is the value selected in Step 12. It should e noted that no provision has
een made to include the lateral resistance offered y the soil surrounding an e
medded pile cap.
Page 225 Example 5.8 Drill shaft design You have een engaged as a foundation en
gineering consultant to design a drilled shaft for a uilding. Geotechnical engi
neers have recommended a drilled shaft or a group of piles. The value engineerin
g analysis has indicated the drill shaft will e the most costeffective solution
. The structural engineer analyzing the uilding has given the following loading
data that need to e transferred to the ground: Working DL=520 kips LL=314 kips
Working DL moment=2,550 kip-ft LL moment=1,120 kip-ft Working horizontal load=1
95 kip The attached orehole data (Figure 5.40) were given y the geotechnical e
ngineer. You are required to design a single reinforced concrete drill shaft wit
h concrete and fy=60 ksi.
FIGURE 5.40 Soil profile for Example 5.8.
Page 226 Drill shaft Given:

Neglect resistance from the top layer of 5 ft. We will consider the second layer
and assume the rock layer is the cohesive layer to determine the length of dril
led shaft:
Skin friction from stiff clay (second layer)
End earing from ed shocket Dia=6.0 dia QT=2028.27=565 kips
Therefore, take drill shaft at least 1 diameter depth into the rock, say 6 ft. N
ow check for lateral loads
From the top of stiff clay
Page 227 Solution Following the step-y-step procedure: Step 1. Soil type within
(4D=) 24 ft depth = cohesive stiff clay Step 2. Computation of coefficient of ho
rizontal sugrade reaction, Kh, with the critical depth
Concrete drilled shaft from Tale 5.10
where qu =224 kPa
Step 3. Adjust Kh for loading and soil conditions for stiff clays
Step 4. Determine shaft parameters (Figure 5.41) (a) Modulus of elasticity
Page 228
FIGURE 5.41 Shaft section with reinforcement layout: (a) schematic; () actual d
esign
() Moment of inertia
=0.1250.031131.62 =0.010 m4 Ie =Ig+(n 1)Ise =0.549+( g 1) (0.010) m4 Ie =0.619 m4 (c
) Section modulus S=0.677 m3 3 = 67710 m3
Page 229 (d) Yield stress of drilled shaft Concrete=4,000 si =27.58 MPa (e) Emb
edded shaft length D=23 ft=7.02 m (f) Diameter= b=1.8287 m (g) Eccentricity of a
lied load ec e c=23.82 ft=7.265 m (h) Resisting moment of ile My
Ste 5. Determine h for cohesive soils
Step 6. Determine the dimensionless length factor hD=0.0917.265 =0.66 Step 7. Det
ermine if the shaft is long or short (cohesive soil) hD>2.25 (long) hD<2.25 (sho
rt) Since hD=0.66, it is a short drilled shaft Step 8. Determine the soil parame
ters Rankine passive pressure coefficient cohesionless soil Since the soil that
is of concrete, this design is a cohesive one
Or Cu=2.35 ksf
Page 230 Step 9. Determine the dimensionless factor D/

This is a fixed head (the uilding column is fixed at ase). From Figure 5.32 (f
or cohesive soil), Qu/cu2=20.0 (dimensionless factor) Qu=2cu(20) =622.3520 = 1
692 kips (horizontal force) Step 10. Maximum allowale working load=1692/2.5=676
.8 kips which is>195 kips Step 11. Calculate the deflection y Dimensionless fact
or hD=0.66 From Figure 5.37 (lateral deflection at ground surface for cohesive s
oil), Dimensionless factor (fixed head) Replace Qa Qm y the applied load
Shaft Design (Figure 5.42 and Figure 5.43; Tale 5.13)
Page 231
FIGURE 5.42 Drilled shaft column interaction.
FIGURE 5.43 Rear details of drilled shaft.
Page 232
TABLE 5.13 Strength of Reinforced Column Sections from ACI Column Chart
g
0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012
Pf
2 5 6 7
QPn/ 4g (ksi)
2.60 1.318 0.400 0 10586 5366 1628.4 0
QM n/Agh (ksi)
0.181 0.392 0.317 0.254
QM n (k.ft)
4422 9576 7743 6205
o ce: LRFD Bidge Design pecifications, C stomay U.. Units, 2nd edn, Ameic
an Association of tate Highway and Tanspotation Officials, Washington, DC, 19
98 (with 1999 inteim evisions). With pemission.
Example 5.10: Additional footing design example (igid footing) Machine Fo ndati
on Poblem As a fo ndation enginee yo have been asked to design a machine fo n
dation footing fo a bakey mixe. The mixe loads ae given below. The ea leg
s ae s bjected to additional shock load of 16 kips/ft 2. All fo legs ae iden
tical with 100 in.2 aea. Given that f c=4 ksi and f y=60 ksi, design the footin
g. Maxim m allowable beaing pess e=2.5 ksf (Fig e 5.44 Fig e 5.47). Data fo
m the man fact e o mixe: Net weight/leg DL=10 kips/ft 2 Floo load, FL=10 ki
ps/ft2 hock load, L=16 kips/ft2
FIGURE 5.44 Ill station fo Example 5.10 (plan).
FIGURE 5.45 Ill station fo Example 5.10 (elevation).
Page 233
FIGURE 5.46 Bending moment diagam fo Example 5.10.
FIGURE 5.47 Reinfocement details (Example 5.10).
Load on ea legs=36 kips/ft2 Aea of a ea leg=100 in.2 Aea of a leg=0.69 ft
2 Design load=1.6(FL+L+DL) fo ea legs. Also note that a load facto of 1.6 i
s sed P=40.00 kips By consideing the case with ea leg loading, we will desig
n the footing fo this load case: Total load/ea legs=2P =80 kips Width of the
footing=4.00 ft (4 ft stip) fo wose condition Length of the footing=10.00 ft
Depth=1.50 ft d=13.50 in. Aea=40.00 ft 2, ass me 3-in. cove Pess e nde the
footing=2.225 ksf < 2.5 ksf. OK
Refeences
1. Ameican Concete Instit te: ACI-318 B ilding Code Req iements fo Reinfoce
d Concete and Commentay. 2. ACI 209 p blication on shinkage, Ceep and Thema
l Movements. 3. Notes on ACI 31895 B ilding Code Req iements fo t ct al Conc
ete with Design Applica-
Page 234
tion by Potland Cement Association. 4. AAHTO LRFD Bidge Design pecifications
. 5. Floida Depatment of Tanspotation: Bidge Design G idelines. 6. FHWA, 19
98, Design and Const ction of Diven Pile Fo ndations, Wokshop Man al, vol. I,
P blication N mbe FHWA HI-97013, Revised, Novembe.
Page 235
6 Design of Diven Piles and Pile Go ps
Manjike G naatne CONTENT 6.1 Intod ction 6.2 Design of Pile Fo ndations 6.2
.1 election of Pile Mateial fo Diffeent Const ction it ations 6.2.1.1 Timb
e Piles 6.2.1.2 Concete Piles 6.2.1.3 teel Piles 6.2.2 election of the Metho
d of Installation 6.2.3 Design Citeia 6.2.3.1 Allowable Loads 6.2.3.2 Allowabl
e Deflections 6.3 Estimation of tatic Pile Capacity of a ingle Pile 6.3.1 Esti
mation of Point Capacity 6.3.1.1 Meyehoffs Method 6.3.1.2 Vesics Method 6.3.2 k
in-Fiction Capacity of Piles 6.3.2.1 Unit kin Fiction in andy oils 6.3.2.2
kin Fiction in Clayey oils 6.3.2.3 The Method 6.3.2.4 The Method 6.3.2.5 The
Method 6.3.3 Pie Capacity Estimation from In Situ Tests 6.3.3.1 Pie Capacity E
stimation from Standard Penetration Test Resuts 6.3.3.2 Pie Capacity Estimatio
n from Cone Penetration Test Resuts 6.4 Pie Load Transfer 6.5 Time Variation o
f Pie Capacity (Pie Setup) 6.5.1 Reported Resuts from Fied Studies 236 236 2
36 237 237 238 238 239 239 239 239 241 241 242 244 244 244 246 246 247 247 247 2
48 253 254 256
6.6 Computation of Pie Settement 6.6.1 Eastic Soution 6.6.2 Computation of P

ie Settement Using Approximate Methods 6.6.2.1 Eastic Method for End-Bearing
Pies 6.6.2.2 SPT-Based Method for End-Bearing Pies 6.6.2.3 Eastic Shortening
of Pies 6.7 Pie Groups 6.7.1 Bearing Capacity of Pie Groups 6.7.2 Settement
of Pie Groups
259 259 262 262 263 263 265 265 267
Page 236 6.7.3 Approximate Methods for Computation of Immediate Settement of Pi
e Groups 6.7.3.1 Vesics Pie Group Interaction Factor 6.7.3.2 CPT-Based Method f
or Pie Groups 6.7.3.3 Load Distribution Method for Pie Groups 6.8 Downdrag (Ne
gative S in Friction) 6.9 Load and Resistance Factor Design Criteria 6.9.1 Stren
gth Limit States 6.9.2 Service I Limit State 6.9.3 Design Criteria for Axiay L
oaded Pies 6.10 Static Capacity of Pies on Roc 6.10.1 Determination of Streng
th Properties of Roc 6.11 Puout Capacity of Driven Pies 6.12 Screw Pies 6.1
2.1 Atas Screw Pies 6.12.2 Omega Screw Pie 6.12.3 Appication of Screw Pies
6.13 Pie Hammers 6.13.1 Impact Hammers 6.13.1.1 Drop Hammer 6.13.1.2 Singe Act
ing Air or Steam Hammers 6.13.1.3 Doube Acting Air or Steam Hammers 6.13.1.4 Di
fferentia Acting Air or Steam Hammers 6.13.1.5 Diese Hammers 6.13.2 Vibratory
Hammers 6.14 Additiona Exampes References 271 271 272 272 272 272 273 273 274
277 279 279 280 282 282 282 283 284 284 284 284 285 285 285 286 297
6.1 Introduction
A pie foundation can be empoyed to transfer superstructure oads to stronger s
oi ayers deep underground. Hence, it is a viabe technique for foundation cons
truction in the presence of undesirabe soi conditions near the ground surface.
However, owing to the high cost invoved in piing, this foundation type is on
y utiized after other ess costy aternatives, such as (1) combined footings a
nd (2) ground modifications, have been considered and rued out for the particu
ar appication. On the other hand, pies may be the ony possibe foundation
construction technique in the presence of subgrades that are prone to erosion an

d in offshore construction invoving driing for petroeum.
6.2 Design of Pie Foundations
6.2.1 Seection of Pie Materia for Different Construction Situations
Depending on appicabiity in a given construction situation, one of three diffe
rent pie types, timber, concrete, or stee, is seected to construct a pie fou
ndation.
Page 237 6.2.1.1 Timber Pies Timber is a reativey inexpensive materia to be

used in construction and its durabiity against rotting can be improved using pr
eservatives and advanced techniques such as that are avaiabe in the mar et. Ho
wever, the main drawbac of timber pies is the imited structura capacity and
ength. Hence, timber pies are mosty suitabe for construction of residentia
buidings in marshy areas and for stabiization of sopes (Figure 6.1a). 6.2.1.2
Concrete Pies Concrete pies can be seected for foundation construction under
the foowing circumstances: 1. The need to support heavy oads in maritime are
as where stee pies easiy corrode. 2. Existence of stronger soi types ocated
at reativey shaow depths that are accessibe to concrete pies. 3. Design o
f bridge piers and caissons that require arge-diameter pies. 4. Design of arg
e pie groups is needed to support heavy extensive structures so that the tota
expense can be minimized. 5. The need for minipies to support residentia buid
ings on wea and compressibe sois.
FIGURE 6.1 (a) Groups of timber pies in construction. (From www.timberpiingcou
nci.org. With permission.) (b) Production of precast concrete pies. (From www.
composite-pies-marine-piings.com. With permission.) (c) Stee sheet pies in a
cofferdam appication. (From www.dissenjuhn.com. With permission.)
Page 238 The disadvantages of concrete pies are that they can be damaged by aci
dic environments or organic sois and they undergo abrasion due to wave action w
hen used to construct offshore foundations. Concrete pies are in wide use in co
nstruction due to their reativey high capacity and reasonabe cost. The two mo
st common types of concrete pies are (1) precast and (2) castinsitu . Of these,
precast pies may be constructed to specifications at a separate casting yard o
r at the pie construction site itsef if a arge number of pies are needed for
the particuar construction. In any case, handing and transportation can cause
intoerabe tensie stresses in precast concrete pies. Hence, one shoud be ca
utious in handing and transportation so as to minimize the bending moments in t
he pie. Two other important issues that have to be addressed with precast pies
that have to be driven are the ground dispacement that they cause and the poss
ibe damage due to driving stresses. Therefore, driving of precast pies woud n
ot be suitabe for construction situations where soidispacement-sensitive stru
ctures are ocated in the proximity. Preaugering or jetting woud be aternative
instaation techniques to suit such construction situations. Cast-in-situ pie
s are of two types: 1. Cased type, which are pies that are cast inside a stee
casing that is driven into the ground. 2. Uncased type, which are pies that are
formed by pouring concrete into a dried hoe or into a driven casing before t
he casing is graduay withdrawn. A detaied discussion of the use of casings in
cast-in-situ pie construction is found in Bowes (2002). Auger-cast concrete p
ies have the foowing properties: Higher capacity having arger diameter (ta
buiding foundation) Low vibration during construction (business districts with
high-rise buidings) Higher depth (oad transfer into deeper strong soi). Rep
acement pie (no atera soi movement). No compression of surrounding soi 6.2.
1.3 Stee Pies Stee pies offer excessive strength in both compression and ten
sion. In addition, they are highy resistant to structura damage during driving
. Furthermore, they can be spiced very convenienty to suit any desired ength.
On the other hand, the main disadvantages of stee pies are (1) high expense a
nd (2) vunerabiity to corrosion in marine environments. Therefore, stee pies
are idea for supporting excessivey heavy structures such as mutistorey buid
ings in soft ground underain by dense sands, stiff cays, or bedroc in nonmari
ne environments.
6.2.2 Seection of the Method of Instaation
Pies can be cassified into three categories depending on the degree of soi di
spacement during instaation: (i) arge voume dispacement pies; (ii) sma
voume dispacement pies; and (iii) repacement pies. Driven precast soid con
crete pies, cose ended pipe pies, and driven and cast in-pace concrete pies
fa into the arge voume dispacement category in which a arge voume of soi
is dispaced during instaation. Stee pies
Page 239 with thin cross sections, for exampe, H and open-ended pipe pies, fa
into the sma voume dispacement pie category where the amount of soi disp
aced during instaation is sma. A bored and cast in-pace concrete pies a
nd caissons fa into the repacement pie category, in which the soi is remove
d and repaced with concrete. Instaation of arge voume dispacement pies ob
viousy causes disturbance to the soi surrounding the pie.
6.2.3 Design Criteria
Faiure of a structuray intact pie can be caused due to two reasons: (1) shea
r faiure of the soi surrounding the pie and (2) excessive settement of the f
oundation. Therefore, the tas of the foundation designer is to find out an econ
omica pie to carry the wor ing oad with a ow probabiity of shear faiure, w
hie eeping the resuting settement to within aowabe imits. In designing a
singe pie against shear faiure, it is customary to estimate the maximum oad
that can be appied to a pie without causing shear faiure, generay referred
to as the utimate carrying capacity. As in the case of shaow footings, two d
esign approaches, (1) aowabe stress design (ASD) method and (2) oad resistan
ce factor design (LRFD) method, are avaiabe for pies. The foowing sections
wi mosty eaborate the ASD method and basics of the LFRD method wi be prese
nted in Section 6.9. The ASD requires the foowing conditions: 6.2.3.1 Aowab
e Loads R n/FS=Qa (6.1) where R n is the utimate resistance of the pie, Qa
is the aowabe design oad, and FS is the factor of safety. 6.2.3.2 Aowabe
Defections est tol (6.2) where est is the estimate eflection (settlement) of
a pile founation component an tol is the eflection (settlement) that can be t
olerate by that component.
6.3 Estimation of Static Pile Capacity of a Single Pile
Piles are usually place in service as a group rather than on an iniviual basi
s to meet loaing emans an ensure stability. In aition, if some probability
of nonvertical loaing also exists an the esigner is uncertain of the lateral
capacity of the piles, then it is common to inclue some battere piles as well
in the group (Figure 6.2). As one realizes from Figure 6.2, the structural loa
(Pstructural ) is transferre to each iniviual pile in the group (Ppile,i ) t
hrough the pile cap. The relation between P structural an P pile,i is etermine
by consiering the pile cap as a statically eterminate or a statically
ineterminate structure epening on the pile configuration. The primary objecti
ve of esigning a pile is to ascertain that the founation of a given pile, i, i
n the group, or the iniviual pile capacity, can meet the eman of the loa im
pose on it, i.e., Ppile,i .
Page 240
FIGURE 6.2 Piles in a typical service conition.
The pile esigner must be knowlegeable of the capacity of a pile (1) uner norm
al working conitions (static capacity) an (2) while it is riven (ynamic capa
city). Since the ynamic pile capacity is aresse in etail in Chapter 8, isc
ussions in this chapter woul be limite to the static pile capacity only (Figur
e 6.3). The ultimate working loa that can be applie to a given pile epens on
the resistance that the pile can prouce in terms of sie friction an point be
aring (Figure 6.2). Hence, the expression for the allowable loa Pa on a pile wo
ul take the following form: (6.3) where P pu is the ultimate point capacity, Ps
u is the ultimate sie friction, an FS is the safety factor. A suitable factor
of safety is applie to the ultimate carrying capacity to obtain the allowable l
oa on a pile, subject to the allowable settlement. The magnitue of the safety
FIGURE 6.3 Illustration of pile capacity.
Page 241 factor epens on the confience of the esigner on the esign, an a f
actor of safety between 3 an 4 is very often use.
6.3.1 Estimation of Point Capacity
6.3.1.1 Meyerhoffs Metho The ultimate point capacity component in Equation (6.3)
correspons to the bearing capacity of a shallow footing expresse by Equation
(3.1), an is a moifie form of Equation (3.2): (6.4) where A p is the area of
the pile cross section, q is the vertical effective stress at the pile tip, c is
the cohesion of the bearing layer, an an are the bearing capacity factors mo
ifie for eep founations (an a B/L ratio of 1.0). It is note that the surcha
rge component (0.5 BN . ) of E
at ion (3.2) ha s been d e to the insinificance o
f the s rchare zone of the pile compared to the entire stress reime alon the
depth of the pile. The bearin capacity factors for deep fo ndations can be fo n
d in Fi re 6.4. However, se of the bearin capacity factors mentioned above is
more complex than in the case of shallow footins since, in the case of deep fo
ndations, the mobilization of shear strenth also depends on the extent of the
piles penetration into the bearin layer. In ran lar soils, the depth ratio at w
hich the maxim m strenth is mobilized is called the critical depth ratio (Lb/D)
cr for the mobilization and for different val es of (igure 6.5). According to Me
yerhoff (1976), the maximum values of and are usually mobilized at depth ratios
of 0.5 ( Lb/ D)cr . Hence, one has to follow an interpolation process to evaluat
e the bearing capacity factors if the depth ratio is less than 0.5 (Lb/D)cr. Thi
s is illustrated in Example 6.1.
IGURE 6.4
Bearing capacity factors for deep foundations.
Page 242
IGURE 6.5 Variation of critical depth ratio with friction angle of soil.
Sandy Soils In the case of sandy soils, where the cohesive resistance is negligi
ble, Equation (6.4) can be reduced to (6.5) where the limiting point resistance
is (6.6) Clayey Soils The most critical design condition in clayey soils is the
undrained condition where the apparent angle of internal friction is zero. Under
these conditions, it can be seen that Equation (6.4) reduces to (6.7) where cu
is the undrained strength of the clay. It must be noted that in the case of stee
l piles (HP or pipe type) Ap is usually computed as the entire cross-sectional a
rea due to plugging of the section with bearing soil, especially when it is driv
en to firm bearing. However, when piles are driven to bearing on rock, Ap is com
puted as the steel area of the cross section. 6.3.1.2 Vesics Method Based on the
theory of cavity expansion, Vesic (1977) expressed the point bearing capacity of
a pile by an expression similar to Equation (6.4):
(6.8) where
Page 243 c and q are defined as in Equation (6.4). K0 is the coefficient of eart
h pressure at rest. and be obtained from Table 6.1(a) and (b) based on the rigid
ity index Ir and the reduced rigidity index Irr defined as follows: (6.9) and (6
.10) where Gs is the shear modulus of the foundation soil and v is th avrag p
lastic volumtric strain undrgon by th foundation soil du to th imposd str
sss. Th following valus ar rcommndd for Ir (Bowls, 2002): It is notd t
hat in th cas of sand that dos not xhibit volumtric dilation or undraind c
lay v0 Thn, Ir=Irr .
TABLE 6.1 (a) Factors for Vsics Baring Capacity Evaluation Mthod
Irr ()
0 5 10 20 30 35 40 45
10
6.97 8.99 11.55 18.83 30.03 37.65 47.04 53.66
50
9.12 12.82 17.99 34.53 63.21 84.00 110.48 144.11
100
10.04 14.69 21.46 44.44 86.64 118.22 159.13 211.79
200
10.97 16.69 25.43 56.97 118.53 166.15 228.97 311.04
500
12.19 19.59 31.59 78.78 178.98 260.15 370.04 516.60
Source: rom Bowles, J.E., 2002, oundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill, Ne
TABLE 6.1 (b) actors for Vesics Bearing Capacity Evaluation Method
Irr
()
0 5 10 20 30 35 40 45
10
1.00 1.79 3.04 7.85 18.34 27.36 40.47 59.66
50
1.00 2.12 4.17 13.57 37.50 59.82 93.70 145.11
100
1.00 2.28 4.78 17.17 51.02 83.78 134.53 212.79
200
1.00 2.46 5.48 21.73 69.43 117.34 193.13 312.04
500
1.00 2.71 6.57 29.67 104.33 183.16 311.50 517.60
Source: rom Bowles, J.E., 2002, oundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill, Ne
Page 244
6.3.2 Skin-riction Capacity of Piles
The skin-friction capacity of piles can be evaluated by means of the following e
xpression: (6.11) where p is the perimeter of the pile section, z is the coordin
ate axis along the depth direction, f is the unit skin friction at any depth z,
and L is the length of the pile. 6.3.2.1 Unit Skin riction in Sandy Soils Since
the origin of skin friction in granular soils is due to the frictional interact
ion between piles and granular material, the unit skin friction (skin-frictional
force per unit area) can be expressed as (6.12) where K is the earth pressure c
oefficient (K0 for bored piles and 1.4 K0 for driven piles), is the angle of fri
ction between the soil an the pile material (usually assume to be 2/3 if one l
ooks for a generic value; if a more appropriate value for interaction between a
particular pile material an a soil is neee, one can use the values suggeste
in Chapter 10), an is the vertical effective stress at the point of interest (i
.e., where f is compute It can be seen from the above expression that the unit s
kin friction can increase linearly with epth. However, practically, a epth of
15B (where B is the cross-sectional imension) has been foun to be the limiting
epth for this increase. K0 , the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest
, is typically expresse by (6.13)
6.3.2.2 Skin Friction in Clayey Soils In clayey soils, on the other han, skin f
riction results from ahesion between soil particles an the pile. Hence, the un
it skin friction can be simply expresse by f = cu (6.14) where the dhesion fct
or cn be obtined from Tble 6.2 bsed on the undrined sher strength. Tble
6.2 hs been developed bsed on informtion from Peck (1974).
TABLE 6.2 Adhesion Fctors
Undrined Strength (kP)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

1.0 0.95 0.8 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5
Pge 245 Exmple 6.1 Estimte the mximum llowble sttic lod on the 200mm2 d
riven pile shown in Figure 6.6. Assume the following soil properties: Loose Snd
Unit weight (kN/m ) Undrined cohesion (kP) Friction ngle 28
3
Cly
17.5 40 38 18.0
Dense Snd
17.0
Solution Computtion of skin friction in loose snd Applying Equtions (6.12) n
d (6.13), one would obtin f =1.4K0 (17.0)z tn up to a epth of 3.0m (i.e., 15.00
.2) and constant thereafter. Assume that Also assume that the surficial loose sa
nd is normally consolidated. Hence the over consolidation ratio (OCR)=1.0, K0=0.
574 f =4.203z kPa for z < 3m f =12.6 kPa for z > 3m Comutation of skin friction
in clay Alying Equation (6.14), one obtains f = (40) where =1.0 from Tble 6.2
f =40 kP The dense snd lyer cn be treted s n endbering lyer nd hence
its skinfrictionl contribution cnnot be included. Since the pile perimeter i
s constnt throughout the depth, the totl skinfrictionl force (Eqution (6.11
)) cn be computed by multiplying the re of the skinfriction distribution sho
wn in Figure 6.6 by the pile perimeter of 0.8 m. Hence, P sf=(0.8)[0.5(3)(12.6)+
12.6(1)+40(6)]=217.2 kN Computtion of the point resistnce in dense snd From F
igure 6.5, (L/D)cr =15 For the current problem, L/D=1/0.2=5. Since in this cse,
FIGURE 6.6 Illustrtion for the Exmple 6.1.
Pge 246
Note tht n
vlue of 300 is obtined from Figure 6.4. Also
Then, by substituting in Eqution (6.5) P pu=0.04(2081)(122.4) kN=974.3 kN But Pp
u mx=0.04(50)(208) tn 38=271.8 kN. Therefore, P pu=271.8 kN Finlly, by pplyin
g Eqution (6.3), one cn determine the mximum llowble lod s P ll=(271.8+2
17.2)/4=122.3 kN In prctice, the ultimte crrying cpcity is estimted using
the sttic bering cpcity methods nd then often verified by pile lod tests.
6.3.2.3 The Method In the uthors opinion, the pile cpcity evlutions outlined
bove re generlized in the method populrly known s the method expressed s
follows: (6.15) in which the mthemticl symbols hve been defined bsed on E
qutions (6.12) nd (6.14). Slden (1992) derived the following nlyticl expre
ssion tht explins the dependence of the fctor on the undrined sher streng
th of sturted fine grined soils (6.15b) where su is the undrined sher stren
gth described in the Section 1.4.2.2 nd C1=0.4 to 0.5 for bored piles nd gret
er thn 0.5 for driven piles. 6.3.2.4 The Method The method suggested y Burland
(1973) for the computation of skin-friction derives from the concepts used in t
he formulation of Equation (6.12) that is used for the determination of skin fri
ction in granular soils. It can e expressed in the following general formulatio
n:
(6.16) Comparison of Equations (6.12) and (6.16) shows that the factor represent
s the term K tan , which is completely dependent on the anle of friction Bowles
(2002) shows that,
Pae 247 for most ran lar soils, the factor is in the range of 0.27 to 0.3, pro
viding a convenient practical way of evaluating the skin friction of piles in gr
anular soils. 6.3.2.5 The Method A semiempirica approach for prediction of s in
-friction capacity of pies in cayey sois was presented by Vijayvergia and Fro
cht (1972) based on oad tests conducted on ong pies that support offshore oi
production structures. The corresponding expression for s in-friction capacity
is given in Equation (6.17) (6.17) Based on bac cacuation of observed capacit
ies of static pie oad tests, the nondimensiona coefficient has been presented
as a function of the depth as shown in Figure 6.7.
6.3.3 Pie Capacity Estimation from In Situ Tests
6.3.3.1 Pie Capacity Estimation from Standard Penetration Test Resuts Meyerhof
f (1976) proposed a reationship (Equation (6.18)) to determine the point capaci
ty of a pie in coarse sand and grave, in Pa, using standard penetration test
(SPT) data: (6.18) where N is the weighted SPT average in an infuence zone betw
een 8B beow and 3B above the pie tip, qpu is in Pa (Bowes, 2002 suggests the
use of N55 for N in this reationship), Lb is the pie penetration in the beari
ng ayer, and D is the pie diameter (or the equivaent diameter). As pointed ou
t in Section 6.3.1, the point resistance reaches a imiting vaue at a critica
Lb/D. For the above outined qpu vs. N reationship (Equation (6.18)), the sugge
sted critica Lb/D is about 90. Meyerhoff (1976) aso proposed the foowing at
ernative reationship for nonpastic sit: qpu=300N (6.19)
FIGURE 6.7 Dependence of the factor on pie penetration.
Page 248 On the other hand, for the utimate unit s in friction in sands, the fo
owing reationships were proposed by Meyerhoff (1976): (6.20a) for moderate to
arge dispacement pies and (6.20b) for sma dispacement pies such as stee
H pies, soi ayers within the embedded ength. where is the weighted average
SPT of
6.3.3.2 Pie Capacity Estimation from Cone Penetration Test Resuts AASHTO (1996
) recommends the foowing technique proposed by Nottingham and Schmertmann (197
5) to determine the point bearing capacity in cay based on cone penetration dat
a: (6.21) where qc1 and qc2 are minimum averages (excuding sudden pea s and tro
ughs) of qc vaues in the infuence zones beow the pie tip and above the pie
tip, respectivey. These infuence zones are shown in Figure 6.8. R 1 is a reduc
tion factor evauated from Tabe 6.3. R2 is 1.0 for the eectrica cone and 0.5
for the mechanica cone. A simiar expression is avaiabe for the evauation of
point bearing resistance of sands (DeRuiter and Beringen, 1979): (6.22) where q
c1 and qc2 are minimum averages (excuding sudden pea s and troughs) of qc vaue
s in the infuence zones beow the pie tip and above the pie tip, respectivey
. for normay consoidated sand and 0.67 for overconsoidated sand.
FIGURE 6.8 Tip infuence zone.
Page 249
TABLE 6.3 Cu vs. R1
Cu ( Pa)
<50 75 100 125 150 175 200 1 0.64 0.53 0.42 0.36 0.33 0.30
R1
Nottingham and Schmertmann (1975) aso deveoped a correation between s in fric
tion and the seeve resistance obtained from cone penetration test (CPT) as expr
essed in Equation (6.23): f su= f s (6.23) In the cse of electricl cone penetr
ometers, , the frictionl resistnce modifiction fctor cn be evluted from
Tble 6.4 bsed on the depth of embedment, Z/B. Tomlinson (1994) dvoctes the
use of the cone resistnce in evluting the skin friction developed in piles si
nce the former is found to be more sensitive to vritions in soil density thn
the ltter. Tomlinson (1994) provides the empiricl dt in Tble 6.5 for this e
vlution. Exmple 6.2 The SPT profile of site is shown in Figure 6.9. Estimt
e the depth to which HP 360 108 pile must be driven t this site if it is to c
rry lod of 1500 kN. Assume tht the SPT test ws performed in silty cly in t
he bsence of wter nd the unit weights of pet, silty cly (dry), sturted si
lty cly, nd sturted mediumdense snd re 10.5, 16.0, 17. 5, 17.2 kN/m 3, re
spectively. Use Meyerhoffs method for estimting point bering nd the method fo
r estimting skinfriction cpcity.
TABLE 6.4
Frictionl Resistnce Modifiction Fctors Applied to CPT Results ( )
Z/B
5 10 15 20 25 30 2.5 1.7 1.25 1.0 0.85 0.8
Timber
1.4 1.1 0.85 0.8 0.7 0.7
Concrete
2.0 1.25 0.9 0.82 0.8 0.75
Steel
35 40
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.75 0.75
Pge 250
TABLE 6.5 Reltionships between Pile Shft Friction nd Cone Resistnce
Pile Type
Timber Precst concrete Precst concrete with enlrged bse Steel displcement O
penended steel tube Openended steel tube driven into fine to medium snd
Ultimte Unit Shft Friction
0.012q c 0.012q c 0.018q c 0.012q c 0.0008 q 0.0033 qc
Source: From Tomlinson, M.J., 1994, Pile Desig n nd Construction Prctices, 4th
ed., E & FN Spon, London. With permission.
Dimensions of HP 360108 pile Depth=346 mm, width=371 mm, flnge thickness=12.8 mm
, web thickness =12.8mm Plugged re=0.371m0.346m=0.128m 2=Ap Pile perimeter (ss
uming no plugging for skin friction)=371(2)+12.8(4)+346(2) + (37112.8)(2)=2.2m=p
Minimum pile dimension=0.346 m Limiting skinfriction depth in snd=Ls,lm =15(0.
346)=5.19m (ssumed to pply from the clysnd interfce) Criticl endbering
penetrtion=Lp,cr (Figure 6.5)=3(0.346) for clys=1 m =10(0.346) for snd=3.46m
The following soil strength properties cn be obtined bsed on the SPT vlues (
Tble 6.6): vlue re obtined from Figure 6.4 =2/3 N K=1.4K0 tan =1.4(1 sin N) t
an From Equations (6.7) an (6.14), the maximum total ultimate resistance prouc
e by the clayey layers=point bearing+skin friction=9(0.128)(25)+(2.2)[1.03(19)(
1) + 0.92(50)(4)+(1.0)(25)(2)]=28.8+556.6585.4 kN. Hence, the pile has to be riv
en into san (say up to a epth of L m).
TABLE 6.6 Soil Parameters Relate to the Pile Design in Example 6.2
Depth (m)
01 15 57
Cu
(kPa)
9 9 9
a
1.03 0.92 1.0
()
K
Ls,lm =5.2 Applies?
Lp,cr
1 1 1
19 50 25
710.1 10.112.3 12.3

34 36 38
100 150 200
23 24 25
0.26 0.26 0.25
No No Yes
3.46 3.46 3.46
Page 251
Since the critical embedment is 3.46 m, one can assume that the ile needs to be
driven assing a 12.3 m deth for comlete mobilization of oint caacity and s
kin friction. Assume that for deths greater than 16.8 m the soil roerties are
similar to those from 12.3 to 16.8m. Effective clay overburden=(10.5)(1)+16(4)+
(17.59.8)(2)=89.9 kPa Effective sand overburden=( L 7)(17.29.8)=7.4L 51.8 From Equat
ion (6.5) for net ultimate oint resistance P u=(2001)(0.128)[89.9+7.4L 51.8]=(18
8.5L+970.5) kN P su=(in sand)=2.2{(0.26)(3.1)(1/2)[89.9+89.9+(3.1)(17.29.8)] + (0
.26)(2.2)(1/2)[89.9+(3.1)(17.29.8)+89.9+(3.1+2.2) (17.2 9.8)]+0.25(L 12.3)[89.9+(5.
3)(17.29.8)]} =2.2{81.7+69+32.3(L 12.3)}=2.2(32.3L 246.6) kN Total ultimate resista
nce=556.6+188.5 L+970.5+2.2(32.3 L 246.6) =259.6L+984.6 Alying Equation (6.3),
1500=(259.6L+984.6)/2.5 L=10.7m Hence, it must be driven to only 13.5 m below th
e ground. Examle 6.3 A cased concrete ile is required to carry a safe working
load of 900 kN in comression at a site where the CPT results are given in Figur
e 6.10. Recommend a suitable ile size and a deth of enetration.
Page 252
FIGURE 6.10 CPT results for Examle 6.3.
From Figure 6.10(a), it is seen clearly that the immediate subsurface consists o
f a loose sand layer u to a deth of 11.0 m underlain by a denser sand layer. B
ased on the cone resistance (Figure 6.10), and Equation (6.22), the maximum endb
earing resistance that can be obtained from the loose fine sand layer is
Assume that a 400 mm diameter ile is emloyed in order not to overstress the co
ncrete as shown later in the solution. The ti area of this ile=0.126m2 and the
ile erimeter= 1.26m. Then, the maximum working load that can be carried at th
e ti is comuted as 4.5(1000)(0.126)/2.5=226 kN. Hence, it is advisable to set
this ile in the dense sand with an embedment of 13.0 m as shown in Figure 6.10(
b). By alying Equation (6.22) again,
TABLE 6.7 Comutational Aid for Examle 6.4
Deth Interval (m)
02.0 2.04.0 4.06.0 6.08.0 8.010.0
fs (MPa)
0.1 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.16
fs (kP)
0.07 0.077 0.084 0.098 0.112
Psu (kN), Eqution (6.11)
176 194 211 246 282
10.012.0 12.013.0
0.2 0.22
0.14 0.154
352 194
Pge 253 For depth of embedment (z/B) rtio of 13.5/0.4=33.75, from Tble 6.4,
=0.7. As shown in Tble 6.7, Eqution (6.23) cn be pplied on incrementl bsi
s, Totl ultimte skin friction=1654 kN Sttic pile cpcity=(1260+1654)/2.5=116
5.6kN Hence, the lod cn be crried sfely t pile embedment of 13.0 m. The s
me design is repeted under LRFD guidelines in Section 6.9.
6.4 Pile Lod Trnsfer
When structurl lod is pplied on pile, it will be supported by certin mo
unts of skin friction nd point bering resistnce tht re mobilized s require
d. The degree of mobiliztion of both skin friction nd point bering resistnce
depends on the reltive displcement undergone by the pile t the prticulr lo
ction of reference with respect to the surrounding soil. This condition is grp
hiclly illustrted in Figure 6.11, tht shows the mobiliztion of skin friction
through sher stress long points on the embedded pile surfce governed by the
sher strin undergone by the pile with respect to the surrounding soil (slip)
t those loctions. Although the mgnitude of slip needed to mobilize the ultimt
e sher resistnce depends on the soil type, typiclly it would be within few
millimeters (e.g., <10mm). Similrly, mobiliztion of point (tip) resistnce dep
ends on the xil strin or penetrtion of the pile tip in the bering lyer nd
for complete mobiliztion, penetrtion of 10 to 25% of the pile dimeter woul
d be required. The discussion in the previous section enbles one to evlute th
e ultimte or the mximum resistnce tht cn be mobilized t the tip or the sh
ft. It is quite typicl of mny soil types to rech criticl stte t much h
igher strin thn is required for the mobiliztion of ultimte or pek strength,
especilly in sher. The sher strength t the criticl stte is known s the r
esidul sher strength (Figure 6.11). Bsed on the bove discussion, one relize
s tht when certin structurl lod is pplied on pile tht hs been lredy
instlled by driving or in situ csting, the following conditions must be stis
fied: 1. P working= Ps +P p 2. P s nd Pp cuse n immedite settlement of the p
ile with respect to the surrounding lyers nd the bering lyer producing slip
t the frictionl interfce nd penetrtion of the bering lyer, respectively.
The bove slip induces sher strins, , and the penetration ind ces an axial str
ain, , on th pil tip. 3. Th magnituds of and , rspctivly, dtrmin th l
vls of intrfacial shar strss, normal strss at th tip, , baed on the defo
rmation characteritic
FIGURE 6.11
Mobilization of pile reitance.
Page 254 hown in Figure 6.11. On the other hand, it i the mobilization of and
that finally determine the magnitude of P and Pp. It i realized how an interp
lay between force P and P p occur under condition 1 to 3 until an equilibri
um i finally reached. Thi proce i known a the pile load tranfer proce.
A typical load tranfer curve at the equilibrium i illutrated in Figure 6.12.
A load tranfer curve uch a in Figure 6.12 depict the axial load carried by t
he pile at any given depth. Hence, the difference between the applied load and t
he axial load at that depth indicate the cumulative frictional reitance mobil
ized up to that depth. The axial load in the pile effective at any depth z can b
e experimentally determined by intalling train gage at that depth. When the l
ongitudinal train, z at a dpth z, is lctronically monitord, th axial forc
at that point, P(z), can b stimatd as follows: P(z)=EAp z (6.24) whr E is t
h lastic modulus of th pil matrial. Th plot of P(z) vs. z (th load transf
r curv) in Figur 6.12 corrsponds to th applid working load of Pw1 whr th
mobilizd point rsistanc is shown as P p1. Th abov tchni
u also provids
on with th mans of obsrving th variation of th load transfr curv as Pw
is incrasd, for instanc, to Pw2 (Figur 6.12).
6.5 Tim Variation of Pil Capacity (Pil Stup)
Du to th initial disturbanc causd by pil installation and th cons
unt st
abilization of th surrounding soil and por watr; in most soils, th axial or
latral pil capacity changs with tim. A numbr of rsarchrs hav proposd a
nalytical mthods to stimat th chang in pil capacity with tim. Thilakasiri
t al. (2003) hav prformd a cas study comparing many prviously stablishd
mthods of prdicting variation of pil capacity with tim.
FIGURE 6.12 Pil load transfr curvs.
Pag 255 Flaat (1972) idntifid thr diffrnt zons surrounding a drivn pil
in clay: (i) rmoldd zon of 100 to 150 mm thicknss from th pil surfac; (
ii) transition zon; and (iii) unaffctd zon outsid th transition zon. Pil
driving can st up high por prssur in th rmoldd zon and th soil is rmo
ldd undr constant watr contnt. Th por prssur gnratd during th instal
lation procss would b dissipatd with tim dpnding on th prmability of th
surrounding soils. Furthr, th structur of th soil disturbd du to driving
may also b rcovrd with tim. Th procss of rcovry of th soil structur
with tim and th consolidation of surrounding soil with tim du to dissipation
of th xcss por prssur is trmd thixotropic rcovry It is blivd that th
tim takn for th rcovry to b complt dpnds on th amount of disturbanc
causd by th pil installation procss and th proprtis of th surrounding
soil. Du to th thixotropic rcovry, th ultimat carrying capacity of th pil
will vary with tim. If th ultimat carrying capacity of th pil is incras
d du to thixotropic rcovry, it is trmd st up, whras if it is dcrasd, it
is trmd rlaxation. Th phnomnon of tim-dpndnt strngth gain in pils dri
vn into cohsiv soil dposits is wll stablishd (Fllnius t al., 1989; Sko
v t al, 1989; Svinkin and Skov, 2002). Du to th rapid dissipation of xcss
por prssur, th incras in baring capacity of pils drivn into sandy dpos
its is xpctd to b complt within a fw hours or at most within a fw days a
ftr installation. Howvr, substantial incrass in capacity of drivn pils in
sand ovr a long priod of tim hav bn rportd (Tavnas and Audy, 1972; Yor
k t al., 1994; Tomlinson, 1994; Chun t al., 1999). Sinc a substantial incras
in th ultimat carrying capacity of a pil drivn into sand ovr a long prio
d of tim cannot b attributd to dissipation of xcss por prssur, Chun t a
l. (1999) suggstd th possibility of othr rasons for such an incras in th
ultimat carrying capacity. Som of ths ar: (i) bonding of sand particls to
th pil surfac; (ii) incras in strngth du to soil aging; and (iii) longt
rm changs in th strss stat surrounding th pil du to brakdown of arching
around th pil rsulting from th crp bhavior of sand particls. Svinkin and
Skov (2002) modifid an arlir rlationship suggstd by Skov and Dnvr (1989
) for cohsiv soils to includ th pil capacity at th nd of initial driving
(EOID) (6.25a) whr R u(t) is th baring capacity of th pil at tim t, t is
th tim sinc nd of initial driving (EOID), R EOID is th baring capacity of
th pil at th nd of initial driving, B is a factor, dpnding on soil typ, p
il typ, and siz valuatd by fitting fild data. Svinkin and Skov (2002) sugg
std that th pil capacity gain rlationship givn by E
uation (6.25a) should
b usd only as a guid for assssmnt of pil capacity with tim. Th pil capa
city vs. tim rlationships proposd by Skov and Dnvr (1989) and Svinkin and S
kov (2002) indicat that whn plottd on a log tim scal th capacity gain cont
inus indfinitly. Chun t al. (1999) showd that th capacity gain was not inf
init but vntually convrgd to a constant valu (long-trm capacity). Chun t
al. (1999) obsrvd that thr is a linar rlationship btwn th ratio of b
aring capacity gain (Ru(t) /REOID) and th rat of th ratio of capacity gain d/
dt [Ru(t)/REOID], whr REOID and Ru(t) ar EOID capacity and th capacity at ti
m t aftr installation, rspctivly, and proposd th following gnral rlati
onship to stimat th capacity gain rgardlss of th soil typ:
Pag 256
(6.26a) whr C =(R u( )/ REOID), which is th long-trm ratio of capacity gain,
B is a constant (=G/K), K is th dissipation factor, and G is th aging factor.
Factor K dpnds on th prmability of th soil whil factor G dpnds on th a
ging potntial associatd with soil proprtis. A highr B valu could b xpct
d for sandy soils, whr th aging ffct is prdominant, and a lowr valu of
B could b associatd with clayy soils as th por prssur dissipation is prd
ominant. Th ratio of capacity gain can b obtaind by solving th abov diffr
ntial
uation: (6.26b)
6.5.1 Rportd Rsults from Fild Studis
Tomlinson (1994) rports th rsults of pil load tsts carrid out on 200215 mm
pils into soft clay at diffrnt tims aftr installation. Figur 6.13(a) shows
th masurd and stimatd (Skov and Dnvr, 1989) capacity gain ratio for on
pil; Figur 6.13(b) shows th masurd and stimatd (Svinkin and Skov, 2002; C
hun t al., 1999) capacity gain ratio for th sam pil. It is vidnt from Figu
rs 6.13(a) that for larg lapsd tims aftr EOID th rlationship proposd by
Chun t al. (1999) prdicts th capacity gain ratio ovr th ntir tim duratio
n bttr than th mthod proposd by Svinkin t al. (2002) for th cas studis
considrd abov. Two matrial paramtrs, B and C, ar ndd for th Chun mth
od of capacity prdiction whr B and C ar th long-trm capacity gain ratio an
d a matrial constant, rspctivly. Th rlvant valu of B is obtaind by cons
idring th tim capacity variation of th masurd capacity gain ratio whras
paramtr C is obtaind by matching th masurd with th prdictd valus of th
capacity gain ratio. Th valus of paramtrs B and C stimatd by Thilakasiri
t al. (2003) and availabl valus obtaind from th litratur ar shown in Ta
bl 6.8. Also indicatd in Tabl 6.8 ar th tims takn to dvlop 90% of th l
ong-trm capacity and th prcntag of th long-trm capacity dvlopd 1 wk
aftr th EOID. Tabl 6.8 shows that th 1-wk wait priod from th EOID is suf
ficint for pils in sand whras th 1wk priod is not nough for pils driv
n into clay dposits for which a minimum wait priod of 2 to 3 wks may b r
u
ird. Mor rcntly, Bullock t al. (2005) publishd thir tst findings on a Fl
orida tst pil program. Th Florida DOT commonly uss 457mm (18 in.), s
uar, p
rstrssd, concrt pils to support low-lvl bridgs. Bullock t al. (2005) p
rovidd th instrumntation and installd ddicatd tst pils of this typ at f
our bridg construction sits in northrn Florida. Each pil includd an O-cll
cast into th tip, strain gaugs at soil layr boundaris, and total strss cll
s and por prssur clls cntrd in on pil fac btwn adjacnt strain gaug
lvations. Thy calculatd th shar forc and avrag shar strss acting on
th fac of th pil from th diffrnc in load btwn adjacnt strain gaug
lvls. Th strain gaugs dfind a total of 28 sid shar sgmnts, of which 18
also includd por prssur and total
horizontal strss instrumntation. Subs

unt stagd (rpatd) tsts ovr tim pr
ovidd data to invstigat th Sid Shar Stup (SSS) for ach sgmnt. Bullock
t al. (2005) xprssd E
uation (6.25a) as
Pag 257
FIGURE 6.13 (a) Masurd and stimatd capacity from Svinkin t al. (2002) and C
hun t al. (1999) for th pil I of Tomlinson (1994). (From Svinkin, M.R. and Sk
ov, R., 2002, Stup ffct of cohsiv soils in pil capacity, 2002, http://www.
vulcanhammr.nt/svinkin/st.htm. With prmission.) (b) Sid shar stup rsults
from th Florida pil tsting program. (From Bullock, P.J., Schmrtmann, J.H.,
Mcvay, M.C., and Townsnd, F., 2005, Journal of Gotchnical and Gonvironmnta
l Enginring, 131(3): 292300. With prmission.)
Pag 258
TABLE 6.8 Availabl Valus of Paramtrs B and C for Chun (1999) Mthod
Sourc
Tomlinson (1994)pil I Tomlinson (1994)pil II Chun t al. (1999) Chun t al. (199
9) Chun t al. (1999) Chun t al. (1999) Chun t al. (1999) Chun t al. (1999) C
hun t al. (1999)
Soil Paramtr C Paramtr B Tim for 90% Capacity Gain Aftr Typ of R(dys) 7 D
ys (% of R )
Soft cly Soft cly Cly Cly Stiff cly Snd Snd Snd Snd 3.01 3.58 5.34 6.13
2.8 2.08 1.41 2.8 1.6 8.2 8.2 1.64 9.29 1.7 0.57 4.33 1.7 0.21 16 16 3 20 3 1 5
3 1 72 69 99 60 99 100 94 100 100
Source: From Thilksiri, H.S., Abeysinghe, R.M., nd Tennkoon, B.L., 2003, A
study of strength gin of driven piles, Proceedings of the 9th Annul Symposium,
Engineering Reserch Unit, University of Mortuw, Sri Lnk. With permission.
(6.25b) where Q is the cpcity of the entire pile in subsequent segmentl nly
sis, Q0 is the cpcity t initil reference time t0, t is the time since EOID,
t0 is the reference time since EOID, nd A is the dimensionless setup fctor. Bu
llock et l. (2005) presented the following reltionship between the segmentl s
ide sher setup fctors nd the side sher setup fctor for the entire pile: (6.
25c) where f s0i is the unit side sher stress t time t0 for segment i, Li is t
he length of segment i, nd A i is the side sher setup fctor for segment i . V
lues of A obtined by Bullock et l. (2005) for stged nd unstged tests re s
hown in Figure 6.13(b). Bullock et l. (2005) recommend reduction fctor of Cs
t =(A unstged/ A stged)=0.4 for ll soil types to correct setup A fctors mes
ured using stged field tests, including repeted dynmic restrikes, repeted s
ttic tests, or repeted SPTTs.
Bsed on the relevnt literture nd the bove study, Bullock et l. (2005) rec
h the following generl conclusions nd recommendtions: 1. Using stged tests o
f unloded piles, nd n ccurte mesurement of side sher obtined by the Oce
ll test method, this reserch demonstrted SSS similr to tht observed by other
s in prior reserch. 2. All pile segments showed setup, with similr verge mg
nitudes in ll soils nd t ll depths, continuing long fter the dissiption of
pore pressures, nd with postdissiption setup due to ging effects t pproxim
tely constnt horizontl effective stress. The pile tests (ll soil types) nd
the SPTT predictor tests (cohesive soils only) confirm the pproximtely semil
ogliner time setup behvior previously observed by others.
Pge 259 3. For soils similr to those tested in this reserch or known to exhib
it SSS, defult A=0.1 is recommended without performing predictor tests, nd h
igher vlues when supported by dynmic or sttic testing of whole piles, or stg
ed SPTTs in cly nd mixed soils. Reduce Avlues mesured during stged tests
(pile or SPTT) by the fctor Cst =0.4. Reduce pile segment Ai nd SPT A by the
fctor Cpile=0.5 for movement comptibility with wholepile side sher cpcity
(if unknown). If the SPTT Astged 0.5, use the defult Ai =0.2 nd A=1. 4. A con
servtive method is proposed for including SSS in pile cpcity design. The ppe
ndix in Bullock et l. (2005) provides some idelized, but relistic, exmples t
o show the methods recommended for including SSS in design. Depending on the per
centge of cpcity due to side sher, the finl design time, nd the pplicble
setup fctors, SSS my significntly increse design pile cpcity. 5. Dynmic
tests during initil driving nd subsequent restrikes provide method, fter
pplying the 0.4 reduction fctor for stge testing, by which to check the design
A vlue. Repeted restrikes lso llow SSS behvior to occur t the incresed
rte of stged testing, nd my permit the cceptnce of pile tht initilly d
oes not demonstrte dequte cpcity. The reserch progrm by Bullock et l. (2
005b) confirms the pproximte semilogliner time reltionship of SSS nd exten
ds it to instrumented pile segments s well s the entire pile. Shortterm dynm
ic tests nd longterm sttic tests produced similr SSS behvior (Bullock et l
., 2005), pprently with no significnt chnge before nd fter the dissiptio
n of excess pore pressure. The mesured side sher nd horizontl effective stre
sses seemed resonble, with negligible dhesion t the pilesoil interfce nd
n increse in the interfce friction coefficient (tn ) of 40% uring SSS. All
epths ha about the same range of pile segment A1 values, with a minimum A 1=0.
2 an with no apparent epth epenency. These finings apply to all of the soil
types teste, ranging from plastic (plasticity inex 60%) clays to shelly sans.
6.6 Computation of Pile Settlement
In contrast to shallow footings, a pile founation settles not only because of t
he compression the tip loa causes on the unerlying soil layers, but also becau
se of the compression cause by the skin friction on the surrouning layers. The
elastic shortening of the pile itself is another source of settlement. In ait
ion, if an unerlying saturate soft clay layer is stresse by the pile, the iss
ue of consoliation settlement will also have to be aresse. In this section,
only the immeiate settlement components will be treate analytically, as the co
nsoliation settlement computation of a pile group is provie in Example 6.4.
6.6.1 Elastic Solution
Accoring to Poulos an Davis (1990), the immeiate settlement of a single pile
(with a loa of p) can be estimate from the following expressions:
Page 260 Floating piles: (6.27a) I=I0R kR hR (6.27b) End-beaing piles: I=I0R kR
bR (6.27c) whee I0 is the infl ence facto fo an incompessible pile in a semiinfinite medi m with s=0.5 (Fig e 6.14), Rk is the coection facto fo pile c
ompessibility K (=E p/Es) (Fig e 6.15), R h is the coection facto fo a fin
ite medi m of thickness h (Fig e 6.16), Rv is the coection facto fo the Poi
sson atio ( s ) of soil (Fig e 6.17), Rb is the coection facto fo stiffness
of beaing medi m (Fig e 6.18), Es is the elastic mod l s of soil, E p is the
elastic mod l s of the pile mateial, d is the minim m pile dimension (pile diam
ete), db is the diamete of the pile base, and h is the total depth of the soil
laye. Eq ations (6.27a)(6.27c) acco nt fo all of the following components of s
ettlement: 1. Immediate settlement occ ing at the tip 2. Immediate settlement
d e to the stessing of s o nding soil 3. Elastic pile shotening. Example 6.4
Fig e 6.19 shows the config ation of a single concete pile (300mm300mm) embed
ded 1 m in a clay laye and loaded by 500 kN. Estimate the immediate settlement
of the pile top. Ass me that Econc =27,600 MPa Based on the PT val es (ass med
as coected fo the oveb den) Fo gan la soils E =250(N+15) kPa (Table 2.11
) E sand=5.25 MPa, < s=0.3 Fo clayey soils E =300(N+6) kPa E clay=12.3 MPa, <s=
0.3 K=Ep/Es=27,600/5.25=5257 L/d=20/0.3=66.67 db/b =1/1=1.0 (No base enlagement
) h/L=20/20=1.0. Based on the above, the following paametes can be extacted f
om Fig e 6.14Fig e 6.17: I0=0.038 (Fig e 6.14) R k=1.1 (Fig e 6.15) R h=0.7
(Fig e 6.16) R v=0.93 (Fig e 6.17)
Page 261
FIGURE 6.14. ettlement-infl ence facto, I0 . (Fom Po los, H.G. and Davis, E.H
., 1990, Pile Fo ndation Analysis and Design, Kiege, Melbo ne, FL. With pemi
ssion.)
Theefoe, if the pile is consideed as a floating (fiction) pile, the settleme
nt of pile top (Eq ations (6.27a) and (6.27b)) =(500)(0.038)(1.1)(0.7)(0.93)/(52
50)/0.3 m =8.63 mm On the othe hand, if the pile was diven to beaing in the s
tiff clay, E clay/E sand=12.3/5.25=2.34 R b=0.95 (Fig e 6.18a) Th s, the new se
ttlement of pile top wo ld be (Eq ations (6.27a) and (6.27c)) =(500)(0.038)(l.l)
(0.95)(0.93)/(5250)/0.3m=11.72mm
Page 262
FIGURE 6.15 Compessibility coection facto fo settlement, Rk. (Fom Po los,
H.G. and Davis, E.H., 1990, Pile Fo ndation Analysis and Design, Kiege, Melbo
ne, FL. With pemission.)
6.6.2 Comp tation of Pile ettlement Using Appoximate Methods
6.6.2.1 Elastic Method fo End-Beaing Piles One can se the Timoshenko and Good
ie (1951) method to estimate the immediate settlement ndegone by the tip of a
n individ al point beaing pile (Eq ation (4.8)). (6.28)
FIGURE 6.16
Depth coecto fo settlement, Rh. (Fom Po los, H.G. and Davis, E.H., 1990, Pi
le Fo ndation Analysis and Design, Kiege, Melbo ne, FL. With pemission.)
Page 263
FIGURE 6.17 Poissons atio coection facto fo settlement, Rv . (Fom Po los, H
.G. and Davis, E.H., 1990, Pile Fo ndation Analysis and Design, Kiege, Melbo
ne, FL. With pemission.)
whee B is the pile diamete (o eq ivalent diamete) I1=1.0 and I2=0 (Table 4.1
, fo N and M=0) IF =0.50 fo L/B q=Pp/ Ap If the point load, P p, is not known,
one can make an ass mption on the atio of P p/Pw to obtain P p fom Pw. 6.6.2.2
PT-Based Method fo End-Beaing Piles Meyehoff (1976) s ggested a simple exp
ession to detemine the tip settlement of a pile based PT data. Bowles (2002) m
odified this expession to obtain the following fom: (6.29) whee N 55 is the w
eighted PT aveage in the infl ence zone that extends 2B below the tip and B ab
ove the tip, qP is the tip stess in kPa. 6.6.2.3 Elastic hotening of Piles An
axially loaded pile will ndego elastic shotening d e to the compessive axia
l stess it caies tho gho t its length. Using Hookes law, the magnit de of ela
stic shotening can be expessed in the following expessions: Fo a pile with a
nifom coss section (6.30a) Fo a tapeed pile (6.30b)
Page 264
FIGURE 6.18 Base mod l s coection facto fo settlement, Rb. (Fom Po los, H.G
. and Davis, E.H., 1990, Pile Fo ndation Analysis and Design, Kiege, Melbo ne
, FL. With pemission.)
Page 265
FIGURE 6.19 Ill station fo Example 6.4.
whee E P is the elastic mod l s of the pile mateial, A P is the coss section
aea of the pile, P(z) is the axial load at a depth of z fom the pile top, and
L is the length of the pile. Th s, one can estimate the elastic settlement fom
the aea nde the stabilized load tansfe c ve. If the act al load tansfe c
ve is not known, one has to make an ass mption of the load distib tion along
the pile length to estimate the elastic pile shotening.
6.7 Pile Go ps
Fo p poses of stability, pile fo ndations ae s ally const cted of pile go
ps that tansmit the st ct al load tho gh a pile cap, as shown in Fig e 6.20
. If the individ al piles in a go p ae not ideally placed, thee will essentia
lly be an ovelap of the individ al infl ence zones, as shown in Fig e 6.20. Th
is will be manifested in the following go p effects, which m st be consideed w
hen designing a pile go p: 1. The beaing capacity of the pile go p will be di
ffeent (geneally lowe) than the s m of the individ al capacities owing to the
above inteaction. 2. The go p settlement will also be diffeent fom individ
al pile settlement owing to additional stesses ind ced on piles by neighboing
piles.
6.7.1 Beaing Capacity of Pile Go ps
The efficiency of a pile go p is defined as (6.31)
Page 266
FIGURE 6.20 Ill station of pile go p effect. (Fom Concete Const ction Engin
eeing Handbook, CRC Pess. With pemission.)
o
whee is te group efficiency. Owing to te compleity of individual pile intera
ction, te literature does not indicate any definitive metodology for determini
ng te group efficiency in a given situation oter tan te following common te
converse Labarre equation tat is appropriate for clayey soils: (6.32)
1 were =tan (diametersacing ratio), n is the number of rows in the grou, and
m is the number of columns in the grou. Although the above exression indicates
that the maximum achievable grou efficiency is about 90%, reached at a sacing
diameter ratio of 5, the results from exerimental studies (Das, 1995; Bowles,
2002; Poulos and Davis, 1990) have shown grou efficiency values of well over 10
0% being reached under certain conditions, esecially in dense sand. This may be
exlained by ossible densification usually accomanied by ile driving in medi
umdense sands. Comutation of grou caacity will be addressed in Examle 6.5.
According to FHWA (1998) guidelines, the following grou effects can be included
: Cohesive soils:
Stiff cohesive soilsno loss in resistance due to grou effects Soft cohesive soil
swhen the ile ca is not touching the ground Grou efficiency= =0.7 for center-t
o-center spacing of 3.0D Group efficiency= =1.0 for center-to-center spacing of
6.0D
Page 267 were D is te diameter of a single pile. Generally, in order to determ
ine te group capacity, one would first determine te pile capacity based on te
individual pile capacities and te group efficiency. Ten a second estimate is
obtained by considering te group as a single pier. Te ultimate group capacity
is considered as te more critical (or lesser) estimate. Coesionless soils Reco
mmended group efficiency is 100% (or =1.0) irrespective of te pile spacing and
te interaction between te pile cap and te ground. Bot topics are discussed i
n te subsequent sections and illustrative eamples are provided.
6.7.2 Settlement of Pile Groups
One simple metod of determining te immediate settlement of a pile group is by
evaluating te interaction factor, F, defined s follows: (6.33) or
where si is the settlement of pile (i) under its own lod nd sj,i is the ddi
tionl settlement in pile i cused by the djcent pile j. The settlement of ind
ividul piles cn be determined on the bsis of the method described in Section
6.6. Then, once F is estimted from Figure 6.21, b, or c, bsed on the lengthdi
meter rtio, the reltive stiffness k, the spcingdimeter rtio, nd soil el
sticity properties, one cn esily compute the settlement of ech pile in grou
p configurtion. At this point, the issue of flexibility of the pile cp hs to
be considered. This is becuse if the pile cp is rigid (thick nd reltively sm
ll in re), it will ensure equl settlement throughout the group by redistribu
ting the lod to ccommodte equl settlements. On the other hnd, if the cp is
flexible (thin nd reltively extensive in re), ll of the piles will be equ
lly loded, which results in piles undergoing different settlements. Under condi
tions where the consolidtion settlement under pile group is significnt, one
cn ssume tht the pile group cts s lrge rigid single footing nd use the
consolidtion settlement principles discussed in Section 1.5, compressibility,
nd settlement. However, in this cse, the difference in lod ttenution between
shllow footing nd rigid pile group with substntil skin friction is cco
unted for by ssuming tht the lod ttenution origintes from the lower middle
third point of the pile length, s shown in Figure 6.22. Exmple 6.5 This probl
em is solved in British nd US units. Hence, the reder is referred to Tble 4.1
for conversion of these units to SI units. The pile group (6, 1 ft1 ft piles) sh
own in Figure 6.23 is subjected to lod of 80 kips. A compression test perform
ed on representtive cly smple t the site yielded n unconfined compression
strength of 3 psi nd n elstic
Pge 268
FIGURE 6.21 Determintion of F fctor for: () L/d =10; (b) L/d=25; nd (c) L/d
=50. L is the pile length nd d is the pile dimeter; K nd Vs re s defined in
Eqution (6.33). (From Poulos, H.G. nd Dvis, E.H., 1990, Pile Foundtion Anl
ysis nd Design, Krieger, Melbourne, FL. With permission.)
Pge 269
FIGURE 6.22 Illustrtion of pile group lod ttenution.
modulus of 8000 psi, while consolidtion test indicted no significnt overcon
solidtion, with compression index of 0.3 nd wter content of 15%. Estimte
the sfety of the pile foundtion nd its totl settlement. The sturted unit
weight is 115 psf. Computtion of skin friction of single pile. Using Eqution
(6.14),f =1.0(0.5)(3)(144)(216)= 216 psf. From Eqution (6.11), the resultnt s
kinfrictionl force=(3.0)(144)(4)(50) = 43.2 kips.
FIGURE 6.23 Illustrtion for Exmple 6.5: () pln; (b) elevtion. (From Concret
e Construction Engineering Hndbook, CRC Press. With permission.)
Pge 270 Computtion of end bering of single pile. Using Eqution (6.7), Ppu=
(1)(9)(216)=1.944 kips (in fct, one could expect the insignificnce of this con
tribution owing to the frictionl nture of the pile). Thus, the ultimte cpcity
of the pile is 45.14 kips. Estimtion of group efficiency. Using Eqution (6.32
), =1[(31)(2)+(21)(3)]( )/[90(3)(2)]=0.8. Ten, te group capacity can be obtained a
s 0.8(45.14)(6)=216 kips (Equation (6.31)) and te safety factor can be computed
as 216/80 kips=2.7. Estimation of single pile immediate settlement. Te relativ
e stiffness factor of te pile, K, is Econcrete./ Es=4,000,000/8,000500L/D=50/1=5
0. Ten I0=0.045 (Figure 6.14) R k=1.85 (Figure 6.15) R =0.8 (Figure 6.16) R v=
1.00 (undrained v=0.5) (Figure 6.17) Substituting te above parameters in Equati
on (6.27a)
5 s=P(0.045)(1.85)(0.8)(1.00)/(800012)=0.03210 P in.
where P is the load on a single ile in kis. Analysis of grou settlement. If t
he ca is assumed to be rigid, then the total settlement of all six iles must b
e identical. The total settlement consists of both immediate settlement and cons
olidation settlement. However, only an average consolidation settlement can be c
omuted for the entire ile grou based on the stress attenuation method (Figure
6.22) assuming equal consolidation settlement. Thus, one has to assume equal im
mediate settlements as well. Owing to their ositions with resect to the alie
d load, it can be seen that iles 1, 3, 4, and 6 can be considered as one tye o
f ile (tye 1) carrying identical loads, while iles 2 and 5 can be categorized
as tye 2. Thus, it will be sufficient to analyze the behavior of ile tyes 1
and 2 only. Assume that the loads carried by iles of tyes 1 and 2 are P1 and P
2, resectively. Then, for vertical equilibrium 4P 1+2P 2=80 kis (6.34) Using F
igure 6.21, the interaction factors for ile tyes 1 and 2 due to other iles ca
n be obtained as follows: Then, using Equation (6.33), the total settlement of
ile tye 1 is estimated as 5 (1+1.7)(0.03210 P 1), and the total settlement of i
le tye 2 would be (1+1.9)(0.032 5 10 P2). By equating the settlement of ile tye
s 1 and 2 (for equal immediate), one obtains 2.7P 1=2.9P 2 P 11.074P2
Page 271
PILE TYPE 1 Pile i
1 2 3 4 5 6
E F=1.7
PILE TYPE 2 F from pile i
0 4 8 4 5.67 8.94 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.35 0.25
s/d for pile i
Pile i
1 2 3 4 5 6
E F=1.9
s/d for pile i
4 0 4 5.67 4 8.94
F from pile i
0.4 0.4 0.35 0.4 0.35
By substituting in Eqution (6.34), 2(1.074P 2)+P 2=40 P 2=12.706 kips P 1=13.64
6 kips
5 Hence, the immedite settlement of the pile group is equl to 2.9(0.032)(10 )(
12.706)(103) =0.012 in., Sult =(0.3)(41.67)(1/ 1.4) log[1+111.71/2,849]=0.149 ft
=1.789 in. Computtion of consolidtion settlement. On the bsis of the stress
ttenution shown in Figure 6.22, the stress increse on the midplne of the wet
cly lyer induced by the pile group cn be found s
=80,000/[(8+20.835)(4+20.835)]=111.71 psf The initial effective tre at the ab
ove point i equal to (11562.4)(33.33+20.835)= 2849 pf. For a aturated oil amp
le from Section 1.7, e=wG=0.15(2.65)=0.4 (auming the olid pecific gravity, G
, of 2.65). Then, by applying Equation (1.18), one obtain the conolidation e
ttlement a Suit =(0.3)(41.67)(1/1+0.4)log[1+111.71/2849]=0.149 ft=1.789 in. It
i een that in thi cae, the conolidation ettlement i predominant.
6.7.3 Approximate Method for Computation of Immediate Settlement of Pile Group
6.7.3.1 Veics Pile Grou Interaction Factor Vesic (1977) suggested the following
grou factor to convert the single ile settlement to that of a ile grou: (6.
35)
where Si )g=immediate settlement of the ile grou, Si )g=immediate settlement o

f a single ile, B g is the least lateral grou dimension and B is the ile dime
nsion. Equation (6.35) is mostly recommended for cohesionless soils.
Page 272
FIGURE 6.24 Aroximate stress distributions due to ile grous.
6.7.3.2 CPTBased Method for Pile Grous Bowles (2002) rovides an exression (E
quation (6.36)) to evaluate the settlement of a ile grou (6.36) where qc is th
e weighted cone resistance in the influence zone that extends 2 B below the ti
and B above the ti and q is the vertial pressure at the pile tip, B is the wid
th of the group; k is defined as follows:
where L is the pile length. 6.7.3.3 Load Distribution Method for Pile Groups Bow
les (2002) outlines a simplified method to ompute the settlement of pile groups
. In order to obtain the settlement due to skin frition a 2:1 distribution of t
he load is used from the pile ap in the ase of piles ompletely embedded in fr
ition layers (Figure 6.24a) or a fititious pile ap starting at the frition l
ayer (Figure 6.24b). The tip settlement is similarly estimated based on a 2:1 di
stribution of the load from a fititious pile ap at the tip (Figure 6.24). The
approximate stress distributions shown in Figure 6.24 an be used to predit th
e immediate settlement as well as the onsolidation settlement (Example 6.5). In
the ase of omputation of immediate settlement, one an use the method outline
d in Setion 4.5.1 (Equation (4.8)) onsidering the footing to be the pile ap o
r the fititious pile ap in Figure 6.24. On the other hand, in the ase of omp
utation of onsolidation settlement, the above distribution an be used to evalu
ate the stress inrease p in Equations (1.13)(1.15).
6.8 Downdrag (Negative Skin Frition)
Aording to FHWA (1997), the potential for downdrag loading must be onsidered
when the indiators in Table 6.9 are present. In terms of performane limits, do
wndrag presents a foundation settlement onern for frition piles and for endb
earing piles founded on a very stiff layer suh as very dense sand or rok.
6.9 Load and Resistane Fator Design Criteria

Aording to FHWA (1998), the general LRFD pile design riteria an be expressed
as given below.
Page 273
TABLE 6.9 Conditions Where Downdrag Is Signifiant in Design 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total s
ettlement of the ground surfae >10mm Settlement of ground surfae after pile dr
iving >1 mm Height of embankment filling on ground surfae >2m Thikness of soft
ompressible layer >10m Water table drawn down >4 m Piles length >25 m
Soure: From Federal Highway Administration, 1997, Load and Resistane Fator De
sign (LRFD) for Highway Bridge Substrutures, Washington, DC. With permission.
6.9.1 Strength Limit States
(6.37) where R n is the ultimate nominal resistane of pile, is the resistane f
ator, Qi is the load effet, is the load modifier, which is iven as i is the l
oad factor, and = 0.95 D R I were est=estimate eflection (settlement) an tol
lerable eflection. where is te effect of ductility, is te effect of redundanc
y, and D R I is te operational importance. For a driven pile foundation design,
D= R=1.00 I =1.05 for structures deemed operationally important =1.00 for typica
l structures =0.95 for relatively less important structures Te following design
considerations must be evaluated for piles at te strengt limit state: 1. Bear
ing resistance of single pile groups 2. Pile group puncing 3. Tensile resistanc
e of uplift loaded piles 4. Structural capacity of aially or laterally loaded p
iles
6.9.2 Service I Limit State
est=f( i Qi ) tol (6.38) where est=estimate eflection (settlement) an tol=toler

able eflection. Similarly, the following must be evaluate at the service I lim
it states:
Page 274
TABLE 6.10 Loa Factors
Limit State
Strength I Service I
Dea Loa of Structural Components Dea Loa of Wearing an Nonstructural Attach
ments Surfaces an Utilities
1.25 1.00 1.5 1.00
Vehicular Live Loa
1.75 1.00
Source: From Feeral Highway Aministration, 1998, Loa an Resistance Factor De
sign (LRFD) for Highway Brige Substructures, Washington, DC. With permission.
1. Settlement of piles 2. Structural capacity of axially or laterally loae pil
es FHWA (1998) recommens the loa factors provie in Table 6.10 to be use in
LRFD.
6.9.3 Design Criteria for Axially Loae Piles
Accoring to AASHTO LRFD Specification, the ultimate geotechnical resistance of
piles subjecte to axial loaing can be expresse by (6.39) where an are resist
ance factors (Table 6.11), qp is the ultimate unit point resistance, qs is the u
ltimate unit skin friction, an Ap an A s are cross-sectional area an embee
surface area of pile, respectively. On the other han, accoring to AASHTO LRFD
Specification, the ultimate structural resistance of piles subjecte to axial l
oaing can be expresse by (6.40) where P n is the ultimate structural resistanc
e of the pile, P r is the factore structural resistance of the pile, an is the
resistance factors (Table 6.14). Example 6.6 Figure 6.25 shows a brige pier su
pporte by a steel pile (HP 360108) group that has to be esigne to carry a ea
loa of 5000 kN an a live loa of 4000 kN. The CPT results for the site are al
so illustrate in Figure 6.25 in an iealize form. Use the LRFD metho to estim
ate the number of piles neee in the group assuming that the riving conitions
are severe. Step 1: Geotechnical resistance. For en bearing, Equation (6.21) F
or Z=10m, R 1=1.0, R 2=1.0 qp=(1.0)(1.0)(16,000+16,000)/2=16000 kPa Qp=16,000(0.
346)(0.371)=2,053 kN For skin-friction
F = Cu nd f=
fs
Pge 275
So Cu=( / )f s Cu cn be determined from Tble 6.2 nd Tble 6.4 using tril nd
error. It is recorded in the column 4 of Tble 6.12. Referring to Tble 6.12 for
determintion of segmentl frictionl contributions. Totl Qsi de=583.6 kN
TABLE 6.11 Resistnce Fctors for Geotechnicl Resistnce of PilesASDBsed Clib
rtion (Sfety Fctor of 2.75)
Method/Soil/Condition
Ultimte bering resistnce of single piles Skin friction: cly Method -Method
-Method End bearing: cay and roc Cay Roc S in friction and end bearing: sand
SPT method CPT method S in friction and end bearing: a sois Load test Pie d
riving anayzer Boc faiure Upift resistance of singe pies Cay Method
Resistnce Fctor
0.70 0.50 0.55 0.70 0.50
0.45 0.55
0.80 0.70 0.65 0.60
-Method -Method SPT method CPT method Load test Group upift resistance
a
0.40 0.45 0.35 0.45 0.80 0.55 0.55
Sand Cay
ASD safety factor of 2.0. Source: From Federa Highway Administration, 1997, Loa
d and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Highway Bridge Substructures, Washingt
on, DC. With permission.
Page 276
TABLE 6.12 Iustration of Computations for Exampe 6.6
Depth (m)
0 1.73 2
Steel (Tble 6.4)
fs (kP)
30 30 30 20 20 20 20
Cu (kP)
75 39.87 35.73 17.47 15.81 15.40 14.38
fpile (kP)
60 37.5 34.2 18 16.4 16 15
Fsegmentl (kPN)
0 114 185 42.6 68.3 65.5 61.7 46 583.6 kN
3.46 1.25 4 1.14 5.19 0.9 6.92 0.82 8.65 0.8 10 0.75
Step 2: Structurl resistnce
Step 3: Compute pplied lods
Pu=1.25(5000)+1.75(4000) =13,250 kN P=5,000+4,000 =9,000kN
Step 4: Determine the number of piles required. Geotechnicl criterion LRFD
=13,250/1,449 =9.1=10 piles Structurl criterion =13,250/1,021.7 =13 piles
ASD
=9,000(2.75)/2,636 =9.4=10 piles =9000(2.75)/2919 =8.47=9 piles
Then the number of piles required is 13. Exmple 6.7 For Exmple 6.3, the fctor
ed xil resistnce cn be obtined from Eqution (6.39) s follows:
From Tble 6.13, for CPT results
Assuming tht the lod of 900 kN is desynthesized s follows: Weight of structur

l components=700 kN Weight of vehiculr trffic=200 kN The LHS of Eqution (6.3
7) cn be used to compute the fctored lod s
Pge 277
TABLE 6.13 Resistnce Fctors for Geotechnicl Resistnce of Piles (Relibility
Bsed Clibrtion)
Vlues by Method of Axil Pile Cpcity Estimtion A Pile Length (m)
10 30 10 30
A Type II
0.92 0.96 0.69 0.73 0.78 0.70
T
2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5
Type I
0.78 0.84 0.65 0.71
0.79 0.79 0.68 0.68 0.74 0.50

Type I
0.53 0.55 0.41 0.44 0.56 0.55
Type II
0.65 0.71 0.56 0.62
CPT
0.59 0.62 0.48 0.51 0.55 0.55
SPT
0.48 0.51 0.36 0.38 0.43 0.45
sign (LRFD) for Highway Bridge Sustructures, Washington, DC. With permission.
TABLE 6.14 Resistance Factors for Structural Design of Axially Loaded Piles
Pile Type
Steel Severe driving conditions Good driving conditions Prestressed concrete Con
crete-filled pipe Steel pipe Concrete Timer
Resistance Factor
0.35 0.45 0.45 0.35 0.55 0.55
sign (LRFD) for Highway Bridge Sustructures, Washington, DC. With permission.
iQi =1.25(700)+1.75(200)=1225 kN It is seen that E
ation (6.37) is satisfied fo
r the eotechnical strenth. As for the str ct ral strenth, Table 6.14 provides
the str ct ral resistance factor for a concrete pile with a steel casin as 0.3
5. Ass min that the compressive strenth of concrete is 20 MPa Factored resista
nce=20,000(0.35)=7000 kPa Factored load=() B(0.4)2(7000)=879 kN<1225 kN Since E

ation (6.37) is not satisfied from a str ct ral perspective, the diameter of the
pile has to be increased to abo t 0.5 m, which wo ld improve the eotechnical s
trenth f rther.
6.10 Static Capacity of Piles on Rock

In the case of piles driven into rock, the static capacity can be estimated in a
manner similar to that followed for soils. Accordin to K lhawy and Goodman (19
80), the ltimate point bearin capacity of a pile driven in rock wo ld be iven
by
Pae 278
FIGURE 6.26 Wede bearin capacity factors for fo ndations on rock. (From Tomlin
son, M.J., 1994, Pile Desin and Constr ction Practices, 4th ed., E & FN Spon, L
ondon. With permission.) TABLE 6.15 Permissible Stresses d rin Pile Drivin
Pile Type
Steel Concrete 0.90Fy (compression) 0.90Fy (tension)
Stress Level
0.70Fy of steel reinforcement (tension) Prestressed concrete (normal environment
s) and f pe m st be in MPa; the res ltin max stress is also in MPa (severe corr
osive environments) Timber fpe (tension) 3 all (compreion) 3 all (tenion)
Source: From AASHTO, 1996, Standard Specification for Highway Bridge, 16th ed.
, American Aociation of State Highway and Tranportation Official, Wahington
, DC. With permiion.
(6.41) where c i the coheion, B i the bae width, D i the depth of the pile
bae below the rock urface, is the effective density of the rock mass, Nc , N
,
and Nare bearin capacity factors
dependent (Fi re 6.26), Ap is the base area of the pile, Fc=1.25 for a s
are p
ile and 1.2 for a circ lar pile, and F =0.8 for a s
are pile and 0.7 for a circ
lar pile.
Pae 279
TABLE 6.16 Properties of Rock Mass Related to the Unconfined Strenth and the Ro
ck Q ality Desination (RQD) Val e
RQD
010 70100
Cohesion
0.1
0.1
30 3060
So rce: From Tomlinson, M.J., 1994, Pile Desi n and Constr ction Practices, 4th
TABLE 6.17 Friction Anle of Intact Rock
Classification
Low friction Shale Marl Medi m friction Sandstone Siltstone Chalk Gneiss Low fri
ction Basalt Granite
Type
Schists (hih mica content)
Friction Anle
2027
2734
3440
So rce: From Tomlinson, M.J., 1994, Pile Desi n and Constr ction Practices, 4th
6.10.1 Determination of Strenth Properties of Rock Shear strenth properties of
rock can also be determined based on triaxial tests performed on rocks (Section
1.4.2.3). On the other hand, there are a n mber of alternative methods to obtai
n the cohesive and frictional properties of rock based on correlations with basi
c classifications, classification properties s ch as rock
ality desination (R
QD), and easily meas red strenth properties s ch as the nconfined compressive
strenth (
). These correlations are ill strated in Table 6.16 and Table 6.17.
6.11 P llo t Capacity of Driven Piles
Uplift loadin can be ca sed by b oyancy effects, lateral loads from s pported s
tr ct res, or expansive clays. FHWA (1998) recommends that the eval ation of the
p llo t capacity be eval ated sin the same analytical techni
es sed to comp
te the skinfriction capacity (Section 6.3.2). It is also recommended that a 20
% red ction factor be introd ced in the skin
friction capacity for ASD desins. However, if one ses the LRFD methodoloy the
correspondin resistance factors (Table 6.11) are incl sive of the above red c
Pae 280 tion factor. In p llo t calc lations, ca tion m st also be exerted in c
heckin the tensile strenth of the pile material (Table 6.15).
6.12 Screw Piles
Two types of screw piles are available in constr ction: (1) steel screw piles an
d (2) concrete screw piles. Screw piles made of steel are circ lar hollow sectio
ns of shaft with one or more tapered steel plates (helices) welded to the o tsid
e of the t be at the base. The steel pile is screwed into the ro nd as iant se
lftappin screws with a s itable tor
e ratin by sin planetary drive or rota
ry hydra lics attached to earth movin e
ipment s ch as mini excavators, bobcat
s, proline crane borers, or lare excavators. The p rpose of providin additiona
l helices is to red ce the slenderness ratio of the pile. In the case of concret
e screw piles, the hollow t be with an a er head is screwed into the ro nd nt
il it reaches the base depth. Then, the hollow cavity is filled with reinforced
concrete while the t be and the a er are screwed back. D rin and at completion
of the screw pile installation, the installer monitors the installin tor
es t
o ens re that a s fficient load capacity is achieved. Constant tor
e monitorin
provides an acc rate indication of ro nd profile and fo ndin soil capacity th
at can be compressive or tensile. Some effect of friction on the pile shaft may
be considered as well. Screw piles enerally work in both sand and clay conditio
ns. From the desin point of view, soil types and profiles play a cr cial role i
n the desin and performance of a screw pile. The displacement screw piles are o
f a diameter of 0.40 to 0.70m, a lenth of 10 to 22m, and a rane of bearin cap
acity of 1000 to 2000 kN. Since the bearin capacity depends on the type of pile
, the method of installation, and the nat re of the soil, it is pr dent to
FIGURE 6.27 Installation proced re Atlas screw pile. (From Van Impe, W.F., 2004,
Two Decades of F ll Scale Research on Screw Piles. With permission.)
Pae 281
FIGURE 6.28 Installation of the reinforcement cae. (From Van Impe, W.F., 2004,
FIGURE 6.29 Fillin of f nnel and t be with concrete. (From Van Impe, W.F., 2004
, Two Decades of F ll Scale Research on Screw Piles. With permission.)
Pae 282 obtain the relevant experimental coefficients from load tests carried o
t ntil lare displacements are obtained or p to the reion of ltimate pile c
apacity. Compared to the driven, vibrated, and bored piles, the screw piles have
some advantaes s ch as no refl x of c t soil, no vibrations, and no noise d rin
the installation (Van Impe, 2004). The followin sections ill strate the instal
lation are experienced proced re.
6.12.1 Atlas Screw Piles
A schematic overview of the installation proced re is shown in Fi re 6.27Fi re
6.29.
6.12.2 Omea Screw Pile
A schematic overview of the installation proced re of the Omea screw pile is sh
own in Fi re 6.30Fi re 6.32.
6.12.3 Application of Screw Piles
D e to their
ick and vibrationfree installation facility screw piles can be
sed in renovation work incl din operations within existin b ildins, close to
adjacent b ildins, old
ay walls, and pilin to strenthen or renew fo ndation
s ( nderpinnin). They are also sef l in the constr ction of new homes, araes
, room additions, mobile home anchorin systems, and commercial constr ction. F
rthermore, they find wide application in reconstr ction work in ind stry, road w
orks, or str ct res in close proximity to waterretainin, vibrationsensitive i
nstallations and b ildins containin vibrationsensitive e
ipments. Screw pile
s can also be sed for nderpinnin of damaed str ct res since it is one of the
easiest methods to achieve a deep and th s sec re fo ndation depth.
FIGURE 6.30 Installation proced re Omea screw pile. (From Van Impe, W.F., 2004,
Pae 283
FIGURE 6.31 Detail of the Omea displacement a er. (From Van Impe, W.F., 2004,
6.13 Pile Hammers
The process and the method of installation are j st as important as the desin o
f pile fo ndations. When the hammers are sed to install a pile, the followin i
mportant factors m st be considered: 1. Weiht and size of the pile 2. Drivin r
esistance and net transferred enery 3. Available space at site 4. Crane facilit
y 5. Noise control or restrictions Hammeroperatin principle: The drivin crite
ria re
ired to achieve a certain pile capacity can be eval ated based on concep
ts of work or enery (Chapter 9). The hammer enery is e
ated with the work don
e when the hammer forces the pile into the ro nd. The enery ratin of hammers
operated by ravity is assined based on the potential enery at f ll stroke. Mo
re recently, acc rate wave analysis has been implemented to derive dynamic form
lae (Chapter 9). Pile hammers can be cateorized into two main types, s ch as im
pact hammers and vibratory hammers.
Pae 284
FIGURE 6.32 Omea displacement a er. (From Van Impe, W.F., 2004, Two Decades of
F ll Scale Research on Screw Piles. With permission.)
6.13.1 Impact hammers
6.13.1.1 Drop Hammer A drop hammer (Fi re 6.33) is still in se beca se of its
simplicity in operation and maintenance, and low cost. Drop hammers consist of a
hoistin enine with a friction cl tch, a hoist line, and a drop weiht. The ha
mmeroperatin speed depends on the skill of the operator and the heiht of fall
. Overstressin and damain the pile is one of the reatest risks in sin a dr
op hammer. In order to prevent pile damae, the maxim m stroke sho ld be limited
, th s it leads to less overall efficiency in the installation of piles. Hence,
the c rrent se of drop hammers is enerally limited to sheet pile installations
where pile capacity is not an iss e (www.v lcanhammer.net). 6.13.1.2 Sinle Act
in Air or Steam Hammers In sinle actin air or steam hammers, the hoist line h
as been replaced by a press rized medi m of air or steam. The sinle cylinder st
eam enine principle is sed to lift the ram weiht with motive press re. The ra
m contains a compact block with a ram point attached at its base, which is shown
in Fi re 6.34. 6.13.1.3 Do ble Actin Air or Steam Hammers
Fi re 6.35 ill strates the workin principle of a do ble actin hammer, where t
he efficiency of drivin is increased by replacin the sinle cylinder steam en
ine with a do ble actin steam enine.
Pae 285
FIGURE 6.33 Drop hammer. (From www.v lcanhammer.com. With permission.)
6.13.1.4 Differential Actin Air or Steam Hammers Differential actin air or ste
am hammers consist of pistons of two different diameters connected to the ram. T
heir workin principle is ill strated in Fi re 6.36. 6.13.1.5 Diesel Hammers Th
e basic difference between the diesel hammers and air or steam hammers is that t
he air or steam cylinder hammers have sinlecylinder enines, re
irin motive
power from an external so rce; whereas the diesel hammers enerate internal powe
r sin their own f el. However, they s ffer from some disadvantaes s ch as hi
h cost, diffic lty of maintenance, and air poll tion.
6.13.2 Vibratory Hammers
Vibratory hammers (Fi re 6.37) consist of paired co nterrotatin eccentric mas
ses within a ho sin that is attached to the pile head. Usin the eccentric mass
es, an axial force is applied to the pile sin soidally. A vibratory hammer is s
ally operated sin a hydra lic power pack. For drivin or extractin sheet pil
es and installin nondisplacement Hpiles and open end pipe piles, vibratory ham
mers are enerally sed. The sae of vibratory hammers in ran lar soils is mor
e effective than in silty or softer clays. Sim lations based on wave e
ation an
alysis are bein carried o t to test the performance of vibratory hammers. Since
there is no reliable techni
e to estimate pile capacity while drivin a pile s
ome other test is re
ired to confirm the capacity of the pile.
Pae 286
FIGURE 6.34 Sinle actin air or steam hammer. (From www.v lcanhammer.net. With
permission.)
Example 6.8 Fi re 6.38(a) shows the s bs rface profile of a site where a new ta
ll b ildin will be constr cted in downtown Boston, MA. It is decided to se a s
teel pile ro p fo ndation (HP 25062), of which a sinle pile is shown in Fi re
6.38(d). Each pile in the ro p is re
ired to carry a vertical load of at least
1000 kN (Table 6.18): Sat rated nit weiht of silty sand=17.5 kN/m3 SPT variat
ion for sand=5+z Sat rated nit weiht of Boston Bl e clay=17.5 kN/m 3 Dry nit
weiht of clay=16.5 kN/m3 SPT variation for clay=1+2z (for z<1.0 m) =2+ z(for z>
1.0 m) Moist re content of clay=15% Compression index of clay=0.3
Pae 287
FIGURE 6.35 Schematic of do ble actin air or steam hammer. (From www.v lcanhamm
er.net. With permission.)
(a) Plot the SPT profile for the site. (b) Determine the depth to which the pile
has to be driven. (c) Plot the load transfer c rve ass min that it is linear a
nd that 25% of the load is transmitted to the tip. (d) The total settlement of t
he pile top. (a) SPT variation with the depth is plotted in Fi re 3.8(b) (b) St
eel pile fo ndation: HP 25062 Depth=246mm Width=256mm Flane thickness=10.7mm Web
thickness=10.5 mm Pl ed area, A p=(0.2460.256)=0.063m2 Pile perimeter, p=0.2562
+0.2462+(0.2460.0105)2 =1.475m Min. pile dimension=0.246 mm Limitin skin friction
depth in sand, Ls,lm =15D=15(0.246)=3.69 m Critical endbearin penetration=Lp,c
r/ D=8, Lp,cr=8(0.246)=1.97m (from Fi re 6.5 for For clay, from Fi re 6.5
Pae 288
FIGURE 6.36 Schematic of differential air or steam hammer. (From www.v lcanhamme
r.net. With permission.)
The followin soil strenth properties can be obtained based on the SPT val es:
FIGURE 6.37 Vibratory pile drivin. (From www.apevibro.com. With permission.)
Pae 289 From E

ation (6.7), and E
ation (6.14),
The maxim m total ltimate resistance by clay layer =point bearin+skin friction
=9.0(0.063) 35+1.475 [11.018+40.9835] =248.7 kN<<1000 kN So, the pile has to driven
into sand layer. Say, p to a depth of L m Effective clay overb rden=16.51+(17.59.8
)4=47.9 kPa Effective sand overb rden=( L 5)(17.59.8)=(7.7L 38.5) kPa Pile point ca
pacity in sand= Pp, lt =A p[
(N
1)] =0.063(2101)(7.7L 38.5+47.9) =(101.39L+123.77)
kPa Pile ltimate skin resistance, P s, lt=P s,clay+Ps,sand (6.5)
Pae 290
Pae 291
TABLE 6.18 Worksheet for Example 6.8
From Fi re 6.4 Depth (m)
Boston clay Silty sand 01 1 5
()
Cu (kPa)
18 35 9 9
1.0 0.98 70 110 140 210

K

Ls,lm 3.69m Applies?
L p,cr (m)
0.738 0.738
510 32 1015 34 1520 36 20+ 38
21.3 0.257 22.6 0.257 24 0.257 25.3 0.254
Yes Yes Yes Yes
1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97
P s,cly=1.475[11.018+40.9835]=228.92 kN P s,snd=1475[(0.257)(5)(l/2){47.9+47.9+5(1
7.59.8)} +(0.257)(5)(1/2){47.9+5(17.59.8)+47.9+10(17.59.8)} +(0.257)(5)(1/2){47.9+1
0(17.59.8)+47.9+15(17.59.8)} +(0.254)( L20){47.9+15(17.59.8)}] =1.475[86.29+135.76+1
85.23+41.5L830] Totl ultimte resistnce=Pp,ult +Ps,ult =101.39L+123.77+228.92+6
1.2L623.5 =162.59L270.81 Therefore, 162.59L 270.81=10002.5 where FS=2.5 Therefore, L
=17.04 m<20 m Revise, Ps,snd=1.475[86.29+135.76+(0.257) (L15){47.9+10(17.59.8)}]
=47.35L382.67 Therefore, 101.39L+123.77+228.92+47.35L382.6710002.5 Therefore, L=17.0
0m within the 1520 m lyer So, it is dequte. (c) Ps,cly=228.92 kN(26.55 kN (1s
t 1 m) +137.2 kN(next 4 m)) P s,snd=47.3517382.67=422.3 kN P p,ult=101.3917+123.77
=1847.4 kN (d) Totl settlement of pile top
(6.28)
Pge 292
Elstic shortening of pile, (6.30)
Totl settlement=tip settlement+elstic shortening =0.0237m+0.0482m = 0.0719m 72
mm Exmple 6.9 Figure 6.39 shows the subsurfce profile of site where pile g
roup is to be designed s the foundtion of high rise. The following re the s
oil properties: Dry unit weight of silty snd=16.5 kN/m3 Sturted unit weight o
f silty snd=17.5 kN/m 3 Averge cone resistnce of silty snd=1.5 MP Friction
rtio of silty snd=0.01 Sturted unit weight of cly=18.5 kN/m3 Moisture conte
nt of cly=15% Compression index of cly=0.3 The envisioned pile group contins
16 piles rrnged in squre configurtion with spcing of four dimeters. Th
e piles to be used re concrete ones with dimeter of 12 in. () Find the mxi
mum lod tht cn be llowed on the group.
Pge 293
Pge 294 (b) Assuming n pproprite lod distribution, compute the settlement o
f the building. (You my neglect the elstic shortening.) Single pile point cp
city, Pp=Ap[q(N q 1)] (6.5) A p=pile crosssectionl re=( /4)(0.3)2=0.0707m 2 Co
ne tip resistance=(10.01)1.5 Ma=1.48 Ma Effective overburden pressure at pile b
ottom Q=16.51+(17.59.8)5=55 ka For q=55ka, cone tip=1.48Mpa =35 or =35, Nq=120 (
ure 6.4) Therefore, P p=0.0707[55(1201)]=463 kN or concrete-silty sand,
Ultimate side (skin) friction in sand:
Therefore, Total single pile capacity=Ps+Psu /S=463+67.2/4=132.5 kN (a) Maximum
load allowed on the group=16single pile capacity =16132.5 kN=2120 kN L=width of p
ile group =340.3+0.3=3.9m Load=2120 kN Stress area=( L+2)(L+2)=5.9m5.9m (igure 6.3
9c) Applied stress on clay,
Consolidation settlement for clayey layer
H=clay thickness=3m e 0=wGs=0.152.6=0.39
Page 295
Example 6.10 igure 6.40(a) shows the subsurface profile of a site where a new t
all building that is to be constructed in downtown Boston. It is decided to use
a pile foundation of which a single pile is also shown: Saturated unit weight of
sand=17.5 kN/m3 Dry unit weight of sand=16.5 kN/m3 Angle of internal friction o
f sand=22 Saturated unit weight of Boston Blue clay=17.5 kN/m 3 Undrained strengt
h of Boston Blue clay=20 kPa Elevation of Boston Blue clay= 7m Depth of pile= 10
m (a) Select a pile type for this foundation with appropriate justification. (b)
If it is decided to use piles of 25 cm in diameter, determine the maximum load
that can be carried by each pile. Allowable pile load capacity,
Ultimate point capacity in clay (by Meherhoffs method): (6.7)
where A p is the base crosssectional area, Cu is undrained cohesion, and Su is
undrained shear strength 20ka. Ultimate side (skin) friction in sand: (6.11) wh
ere p is the perimeter of the pile section, f is the unit skin friction at any d
epth is the length of the pile in the sand layer
age 296
(6.12)
age 297
(6.13)
Ultimate Side (Skin) Friction in Clay: f= Cu (6.14) =dhesion fctor 0.98 (inte
rpoltion, Tble 6.2) Cu=undrined cohesion Su 20 kP P su,cly=PfLcly= (0.25)(0.
98)(20)(3)=46.18 kN (6.11) Total skin friction= Psu,sand+Psu,clay=45.81+46.18=91
.99 kN Therefore, (6.3) Augercast concrete iles are referred due to their hig
her caacity (larger diameters) and low vibration during construction.
References
AASHTO, 1996, Standard Secifications for Highway Bridges, 16th ed., American As
sociation of State Highway and Transortation Officials, Washington, DC. Bowles,
J.E., 2002, Foundation Analysis and Design, McGrawHill, New York. Bullock, P.J
., Schmertmann, J.H., Mcvay, M.C., and Townsend, F., 2005a, Side shear setu I:
Test iles driven in Florida, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engin
eering, 131(3): 292 300. Bullock, P.J., Schmertmann, J.H., Mcvay, M.C., and Towns
end, F., 2005b, Side shear setu II: Results from Florida test iles, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(3): 301 310. Burland, J.B., 1
973, Shaft friction iles in claya simle fundamental aroach, Ground Engineerin
g, 6(3): 3042. Chun, B.S., Cho, C.W., and Lee, M.W., 1999, Prediction of increase
in ile bearing caacity with time after driving, Eleventh Asian Regional Confe
rence on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam. Das, B
.M., 1995, Princiles of Foundation Engineering, PWS Publishing, Boston, MA. DeR
uiter, J. and Beringen, F.L., 1979, Pile foundations for large North Sea structu
res, Marine Geotechnology, 3(3): 267314. Federal Highway Administration, 1998, Lo
ad and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Highway Bridge Substructures, Washing
ton, DC.
Fellenius, B.H., Riker, R.E, OBrien, A.J., and Tracy, G.R., 1989, Dynamic and sta
tic testing in soil exhibiting setu, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 115(
7): 9841001.
Page 298
Goble, G.G., Raushe, F., Likens and Associates, Inc. (GRL), 1996, Design and Con
struction of Driven Pile Foundations, Volume I, NHI Course 13221 and 132222, US
Deartment of Transortation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Ku
lhawy, F.H. and Goodman, R.E., 1980, Design of foundations in discontinuous rock
, Proceedings of the International Conference of Structural Foundations on Rock,
Sydney, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, 209220. Meyerhoff, G.G., 1976, Bearing caac
ity and settlement of ile foundations, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASC
E, 102(GT3): 197227. Nottingham, L. and Schmertmann, J., 1975, An Investigation o
f Pile Design Procedures, Final Reort D629 to Florida Deartment of Transortat
ion, Deartment of Civil Engineering, University of Florida. Peck, R.B., 1974, F
oundation Engineering, 2nd ed., John Wiley, New York. Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.
H., 1990, Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, Krieger, Melbourne, FL. Seed, H.B
. and Reese, L.C., 1955, The action of soft clay along friction iles, Proceedin
gs ASCE, 81, Paer 842. Skov, R. and Denver, H., 1989, Timedeendence of bearin
g caacity of iles, Proceeding of the 3rd International Conference on the ali
cation of Stress Wave Theory to Piles, Bitech Publishers, Ottawa, Canada, . 87
9888. Sladen, J.A., 1992, The adhesion factor, alications and limitations, Cana
dian Geotechnical Journal, 29(2): 322326. Svinkin, M.R., 1995, Pilesoil dynamic
system with variable daming, Proceedings of the 13th International Modal Analys
is Conference, IMACXIII, Beyond the Modal Analysis, SEM, Bethel, Connecticut, V
ol. 1, . 240247. Svinkin, M.R. and Skov, R., 2002, Setu effect of cohesive soi
ls in ile caacity, 2002, htt://www.vulcanhammer.net/svinkin/set.htm. Tavenas,
F. and Audy, R., 1972, Limitations of the driving formulas for redicting the b
earing caacities of iles in sand, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 9(1): 4762. Th
ilakasiri, H.S., Abeyasinghe, R.M., and Tennakoon, B.L., 2003, A study of streng
th gain of driven iles, Proceedings of the 9th Annual Symosium, Engineering Re
search Unit, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. Tomlinson, M.J., 1994, Pile Desi
gn and Construction Practices, 4th edn, E & FN Son, London. Van Ime, W.F., 200
4, Two Decades of full scale research on screw iles, Ghent University Laborator
y of Soil Mechanics Technologieark 9, B9052 Ghent, Zwijnaarde, Belgium. Vesic,
A.S., 1977, Design of Pile Foundations, National Cooerative Highway Research P
rogram, Synthesis of Practice, No. 42, Transortation Research Board, Washington
, DC. Vijayvergiya, V.N. and Frocht, J.A., 1972, A new way to redict caacity o
f iles in clay, 4th Offshore Technology Conference, Paer 1718, Houston, Texas.
York, D.L., Brusey, W.G., Clemente, F.M., and Law, S.K., 1994, Setu and relaxa
tion in glacial sand, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 120(9): 14981513
.
Websites
htt://www.screwiling.com/ htt://www.uslgrou.com.au/stlscw.html htt://www.
iling.com.au htt://www.vulcanhammer.net htt://sbe.naier.ac.uk/rojects/ilede
sign/guide/chater8.htm htt://www.aevibro.com
Page 299
7 Design of Drilled Shafts
Gray Mullins CONTENTS 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Construction Considerations 7.2.1 Dry
or Wet Construction 7.2.2 Casing 7.2.3 Concreting and Mix Design 7.3 Design Ca
acity of Drilled Shafts 7.3.1 ASD versus LRFD 7.3.2 Standard Penetration Test Da
ta in Sand 7.3.3 Estimation of Side Shear 7.3.4 Estimation of End Bearing 7.4 Us
e of Triaxial or SPT Data in Clay 7.4.1 Side Shear (Alha Method) 7.4.2 End Bear
ing 7.5 Designing Drilled Shafts from CPT Data 7.5.1 Estimation of Side Shear 7.
5.2 Estimation of End Bearing 7.6 Designing from Rock Core Data 7.6.1 Estimation
of Side Shear 7.6.2 Estimation of End Bearing 7.7 Designing from Load Test Data
7.7.1 Estimation of Side Shear 7.7.2 Estimation of End Bearing 7.8 Design of Po
stgrouted Shafts 7.8.1 Postgrouting in Sand 7.8.2 Postgrouting in Other Formatio
ns 7.9 Economy of Load Testing 300 300 301 301 302 302 303 304 304 305 307 307 3
09 311 311 312 312 313 313 313 314 314 315 316 316 318
7.9.1 Selecting the Most Economical Shaft Diameter 7.9.2 Selecting the Most Econ
omical Design Method 7.10 Pressure Injected Footings 7.10.1 Construction of Pres
sure Injected Footings 7.10.2 Concreting of the Shaft Nomenclature References
319 319 321 322 323 324 325
Page 300
7.1 Introduction
Drilled shafts are dee, cylindrical, castinlace concrete foundations oured
in and formed by a bored (i.e., drilled) excavation (Figure 7.1). They can range f
rom 2 to 30ft in diameter and can be over 300 ft in length. The term drilled shaf
t is synonymous with castin situ iles, bored iles, rotary bored castin situ
iles, or simly shafts. Although once considered a secialty foundation for urba
n settings where vibrations could not be tolerated or where shallow foundations
could not develo sufficient caacity, their use as structural suort has recen
tly increased due to heightened lateral strength requirements for bridge foundat
ions and the ability of drilled shafts to resist such loads. They are articular
ly advantageous where enormous lateral loads from extreme event limit states gov
ern bridge foundation design (i.e., vessel imact loads). Further, relatively ne
w develoments in design and construction methods of shafts have rovided consid
erably more economy to their use in all settings (discussed in an ensuing sectio
n on ostgrouting drilled shafts). Additional alications include roviding fou
ndations for high mast lighting, cantilevered signs, and cellular hone and comm
unication towers. In many instances, a single drilled shaft can relace a cluste
r of iles eliminating the need (and cost) for a ile ca. With resect to both
axial and lateral design rocedures for water crossing bridges, all foundation t
yes and their resective designs are additionally imacted by scour deth redi
ctions based on 50 or 100 year storm events. Scour is the removal or erosion of
soil from around iles, shafts, or shallow footings caused by highvelocity stre
am flows. It is articularly aggravated by constricted flow caused by the resen
ce of numerous bridge iers. The scourmandated additional foundation deth dram
atically changes driven ile construction where iles cannot be driven dee enou
gh without overstressing the iles or without redrilling dense surficial layers
. Similarly, the increased unsuorted length and slenderness ratio associated w
ith the loss of suorting soil can affect the structural stability of the relat
ively slender ile elements. In contrast, drilled shaft construction is relative
ly unaffected by scour deth requirements and the tremendous lateral stiffness h
as won the aeal of many designers.
7.2 Construction Considerations
The design methods for drilled shafts resented in this chater are largely base
d on emirical correlations develoed between soil boring data and measured shaf
t resonse to fullscale load tests. In that the database of test cases used to
develo these correlations included many different tyes of construction, these
methods can be thought to address construction ractices. In reality, most of th
e design methodologies are extremely conservative for some tyes of construction
and only mildly conservative for others. The construction of drilled shafts is
not a trivial rocedure. Maintaining the stability of the excavation rior to an
d during concrete lacement is imerative to assure a structurally sound shaft.
Various methods of construction have been adoted to address sitesecific condi
tions (e.g., dry or wet drilling, slurry tye, cased or uncased, tremie laced,
or freefall concrete). All of these aroaches as well as the fresh roerties o
f the concrete can affect the loadcarrying caability of the finished shaft. It
is imortant that the design engineer be familiar with drilled shaft constructi
on methods and can assure that good construction ractices are being used.
Page 301
7.2.1 Dry or Wet Construction
Dry construction can only be erformed in soil formations that are inherently st
able when cut (e.g., clay or rock) and where ground water is not resent. Any in
trusion of ground water into the excavation can degrade the structure of the sur
rounding soil and hence reduce the caacity of the shaft. In situations where th
e ground water is resent and likely to intrude, some form of wet construction s
hould be used. Wet construction imlies that a slurry is laced in the excavatio
n that is caable of maintaining a net ositive ressure against (or flow into)
the walls of the excavation. The slurry can be mineral, synthetic, or natural. M
ineral slurries consist of bentonite or attaulgite clay remixed with water to
roduce a stable susension. As mineral slurries are slightly denser than water,
a 4 to 6 ft head differential above the ground water should be maintained at al
l times during introduction and extraction of the drilling tool. This head diffe
rential initially causes a lateral flow into the surrounding soil which is quick
ly slowed by the formation of a bentonite (or attaulgite) filter cake. Soil ar
ticles can be easily susended in this slurry tye for extended eriods of time
allowing concrete lacement to be conducted without significant amounts of debri
s accumulation. However, no more than 4% slurry sand content is ermitted in mos
t states in the United States at the time of concreting. Synthetic slurries cons
ist of a mixture of olymers and water that form a syruy solution. A 6 to 8 ft
head differential should be maintained at all times during the introduction and
extraction of the drilling tool when using a synthetic slurry. This head differe
ntial also causes lateral flow into the surrounding soils, but a filter cake is
not formed. Rather, the long strings of the olymer stabilize the excavation wal
ls by clinging to the soil as they flow into the soil matrix. As such, the flow
remains relatively uniform and generally will not slow. The soil tyically falls
out of susension relatively quickly when using synthetic slurries that ermit
debris to be removed from the bottom in a timely fashion. Natural slurries are n
othing more than readily accessible water (ground water, lake water, or salt wat
er). An 8 to 10 ft head differential should be maintained at all times during in
troduction and extraction of the drilling tool when using a natural slurry. This
head differential causes a lateral flow into the surrounding soil that is fast
enough to induce outward lateral stress sufficient to maintain the excavation st
ability. Although it is ossible to use this method in granular soils, it is nei
ther recommended nor ermitted by most State agencies in the United States. Slig
ht ressure differentials induced by tool extraction can cause local excavation
wall instabilities. As such, this method is most commonly used when excavating c
lay or rock where the ground water is likely to be resent. The slurry tyes men
tioned above and the time the slurry is left in an excavation can affect the ca
acity of the finished shaft (Brown, 2000). To minimize these effects, local sec
ifications have been imosed largely based on ast erformance in similar soils
(FDOT, 2002).
7.2.2 Casing
Wall stability can also be maintained by using either artial or fulllength cas
ing. A casing is a relatively thinwalled steel ie that is slightly larger in
diameter than the drilling tool. It can be driven, vibrated, jetted, or oscillat
ed (rotated) into osition rior to excavation. The urose of the casing is to
rovide stability to weak soils where slurries are ineffective or to bring the t
o of the shaft elevation to a level higher than the surface of freestanding bo
dies of water. When stabilizing weak soils the casing is often temorary, remove
d after concreting. Shafts constructed over water must use ermanent casing that
can be removed after the concrete has fully cured. The method of installing and
removing temorary casings can also
affect the caacity of the finished shaft. Oscillation removal can increase side
shear over vibrated or direct extraction methods. Quickly extracted
Page 302 casings can induce necking due to low ressure develoed at the base of
the extracted casing. With the excetion of fulllength temorary casing method
s, the ractical uer limit of shaft length is on the order of 30 D (i.e., 90 f
t for 3 ft diameter shafts) but can be as much as 50D in extraordinary circumsta
nces using secial excavation methods.
7.2.3 Concreting and Mix Design
Drilled shaft concrete is relatively fluid concrete that should be tremie laced
(or umed to the base of the excavation) when using any form of wet constructi
on to eliminate the ossibility of segregation of fine and coarse aggregate or m
ixing with the in situ slurry. A tremie is a long ie tyically 8 to 12 in. in
diameter used to take the concrete to the bottom of the excavation without being
altered by the slurry (i.e., mixing or aggregate segregation). Prior to concret
ing, some form of isolation lug should be laced inline or at the ti of the t
remie to revent contamination of the concrete flow as it asses through the ini
tially emty tremie. During concrete lacement, the tremie ti elevation should
be maintained below the surface of the rising concrete (tyically 5 to 10ft). Ho
wever, until a concrete head develos at the base of the excavation, the otenti
al for initial mixing (and segregation) will always exist. In dry construction,
freefall concrete lacement can be used although it is restricted by some State
agencies in the United States. The velocity roduced by the falling concrete ca
n induce higher lateral ressure on the excavation walls, increase concrete dens
ity, and decrease orosity or ermeability. However, velocityinduced imacts on
reinforcing steel may misalign tied steel stirrus and the air content (if sec
ified) of the concrete can be reduced. The concrete mix design for drilled shaft
s should roduce a sufficient slum (tyically between 6 and 9 in.) to ensure th
at lateral fluid concrete ressure will develo against the excavation walls. Fu
rther, the concrete should maintain a slum no less than 4 in. (slum loss limit
) for several hours. This tyically allows enough time to remove the tremie and
any temorary casing while the concrete is still fluid enough to relace the vol
ume of the tremie or casing and minimize suction forces (net negative lateral r
essure) during extraction. However, recent studies suggest that a final slum in
the range of 3.5 to 4 in. (or less) at the time of temorary casing extraction
can drastically reduce the side shear caacity of the shaft (Garbin, 2003). As d
rilled shaft concrete is not vibrated during lacement, the maximum aggregate si
ze should be small enough to ermit unrestricted flow through the steelreinforci
ng cage. The ratio of minimum rebar sacing to maximum aggregate diameter should
be no less than 3 to 5 (FHWA, 1998).
7.3 Design Caacity of Drilled Shafts
The caacity of drilled shafts is develoed from a combination of side shear and
end bearing. The side shear is related to the shear strength of the soil and in
sands can be thought of as the lesser of the friction (Fr= N) that develops betw
een the shaft concrete and the surroundin soil or the internal friction within
the surroundin soil itself. Althouh a coefficient of friction ( ) can be reason
ably approximated, the determination of the normal force (N) is more difficult d
ue to lateral stress relaxation durin excavation. In clayey soils or rock side
shear is most closely related to the unconfined compressive strenth, qu. The en
d bearin is analoous to shallow foundation bearin capacity with a
Pae 303 very lare depth of footin. However, it too is affected by constructio
ninduced disturbances and like the side shear, it has been empirically incorpor
ated into the desin methods discussed in the ensuin sections. Most of the desi
n charts and tables in this chapter are developed in British units. Hence, the
reader is referred to Table 7.9 for the appropriate conversions to relevant SI u
nits. The desin approach for drilled shafts can be either allowable stress desi
n (ASD) or load and resistance factor desin (LRFD) as dictated by the client,
local municipality, or State aency in the United States. In either case, the co
ncept of usable capacity as a function of ultimate capacity must be addressed. T
his requires the desiner to have some understandin of the capacity versus disp
lacement characteristics of the shaft. Likewise, a permissible displacement limi
t must be established to determine the usable capacity rather than the ultimate
capacity that may be unattainable within a reasonable displacement. The permissi
ble displacement (or differential displacement) is typically set by a structural
enineer on the basis of the proposed structures sensitivity to such movement. T
o this end, design of drilled shafts (as well as other foundation types) must su
perimpose displacement criteria onto loadcarrying capability even when using an
LRFD approach. This is divergent from other nongeotechnical LRFD approaches that
incorporate design limit states independently (discussed later). The designer m
ust be aware of the difference in the required displacements to develop signific
ant capacity from side shear and end bearing. For instance, in sand the side she
ar component can develop 50% of ultimate capacity at a displacement of approxima
tely 0.2% of the shaft diameter (D) (AASHTO, 1998), and develops fully in the ra
nge of 0.5 to 1.0%D (Bruce, 1986). In contrast, the end bearing component requir
es a displacement of 2.0%D to develop 50% of its capacity (AASHTO, 1998), and fu
lly develops in the range of 10 to 15% D (Bruce, 1986). Therefore, a 4ft diamete
r shaft in sand can require up to 0.5 in. of displacement to develop ultimate si
de shear and 7.2 in. to develop ultimate end bearing. Other sources designate th
e displacement for ultimate end bearing to be 5% D but recognize the increase in
capacity at larger displacements (Reese and Wright, 1977; Reese and ONeill, 1988
). In most instances, the side shear can be assumed to be 100% usable within mos
t permissible displacement criteria but the end bearing may not. This gives rise
to the concept of mobilized capacity. The mobilized end bearing is the capacity
that can be developed at a given displacement. Upon determining the permissible
displacement, a proportional capacity can then be established based on a capaci
ty versus displacement relationship as determined by either load testing or past
experience. A general relationship will be discussed in the section discussing
end bearing determination methods.
7.3.1 ASD versus LRFD
In geotechnical designs, both ASD and LRFD methods must determine an ultimate ca
pacity from which a usable capacity is then extracted based on displacement crit
eria. As such the ultimate capacity is never used, but rather a displacementres
tricted usable capacity is established as the effective ultimate capacity. For d
rilled shafts, this capacity typically incorporates 100% of ultimate side shear
and the fraction of end bearing mobilized at that displacement. Once this value
has been determined, the following generalized equations represent the equality
that must be satisfied when using either an ASD approach or an LRFD approach, re
spectively:
(7.1a)
age 304 or (7.1b) where F is the safety factor, u represents the sum of facto
red or inflated service loads based on the type of loads, n represents the effe
ctive ultimate shaft capacity, is the number of shafts, and N (the resistance fa
ctor) reduces the effective ultimate capacity based on the reliability of the ca
pacity determination method. The use of LRFD in geotechnical designs is relative
ly new and as such present methods have not yet completely separated the various
limit states. Typically there are four LRFD limit states: strength, service, fa
tigue, and extreme event. These limit states treat each area as mutually exclusi
ve issues. Strength limit states determine if there is sufficient capacity for a
wide range of loading conditions. Service limit states address displacement and
concrete crack control. Fatigue addresses the usable life span of steel in cycl
ic or stress reversal regions. Extreme event limit states introduce less probabl
e but more catastrophic occurrences such as earthquakes or large vessel impacts.
Any of the four limit states can control the final design. The ASD method lumps
all load types into a single service load and assumes the same probability for
all occurrences. Although LRFD strength limit states should be evaluated without
regard to the amount of displacement required to develop full ultimate capacity
(n), present LRFD methods establish geotechnical ultimate capacity based on so
me displacement criteria. As a result, LRFD geotechnical service limit states ar
e relatively unused. To this end, this chapter will emphasize the design methods
used to determine ultimate capacity and will denote (where applicable) the disp
lacement required to develop that capacity. The following design methods are eit
her the most uptodate or the most widely accepted for the respective soil type
or soil exploration data.
7.3.2 Standard enetration Test Data in Sand
Standard penetration test (ST) (Section 2.4.1) results are most commonly used f
or estimating a drilled shaft capacity in sandy soils. For some design methods d
irect capacity correlations to the ST blow count (N) have been developed; in ot
her cases correlations to soil properties such as unit weight or internal angle
of friction are necessary. Where the unit weight or the internal friction angle
(sands) of a soil is required the relationships shown in Figure 7.2 can be used.
7.3.3 Estimation of Side Shear
The side shear developed between a shaft and surrounding sandy soils can be esti
mated using the methods given in Table 7.1. The ultimate loadcarrying capacity
from side shear (Qs) can be expressed as the summation of side shear developed i
n layers of soil to a given depth containing n layers: (7.2)
where f si is the estimated unit side shear for the ith soil layer, Li is the th
ickness of (or length of shaft in) the ith soil layer, and Di is the diameter of
the shaft in the i th soil layer. Using the above methods, the variation in est
imated side shear capacity is illustrated for a 3 ft diameter shaft and the give
n ST boring log in sandy soil in Figure 7.3. Although
age 305
FIGURE 7.1 Details of a drilled shaft. (From www.dot.state.fl.us/construction. W
ith permission.)
any of these methods may correlate closely to a given site or local experience,
the author recommends the ONeill and Hassan (1994) approach in spite of its less
conservative appearance.
7.3.4 Estimation of End Bearing
Recalling the importance of the mobilized end bearing capacity concept, a parame
ter termed the tip capacity multiplier (TCM) will be used to quantify the relati
onship between ultimate and usable end bearing capacity. Four design methods usi
ng two different approaches to mobilized capacity are discussed. The first and s
econd assume ultimate end bearing occurs at 1.0 in. displacement (Touma and Rees
e, 1974; Meyerhof, 1976). The others assume ultimate end bearing occurs at a 5%
displacement as shown in Figure 7.4 (Reese and Wright, 1977; Reese and ONeill, 19
88). Figure 7.4 shows the latter relationship in terms of the permissible displa
cement expressed as a percentage of the shaft diameter. Therein, the TCM for con
vention shafts tipped in sand is linearly proportional to the displacement where
the TCM=1 at 5% displacement. This concept can be extended to the first two des
ign methods as well where TCM=1 at 1.0 in. displacement. Table 7.2 lists the fou
r methods used to estimate the ultimate end bearing to which a TCM should be app
lied.
age 306
TABLE 7.1 Drilled Shaft Side Shear Design Methods for Sand
Source
Touma and Reese (1974)
Side Shear Resistance, fs (in tsf)
where K=0.7 for Db <25 ft K=0.6 for 25 ft<Db 40 ft K=0.5 for Db >40ft Meyerhof (
1976) Quiros and Reese (1977) Reese and Wright (1977) fs=N /100 fs=0.026N<2.0 ts
f fs=N/34, for N 53 fs=(N 53)/450+1.6, for 53<N 100 fs 1.7 where =1.5 0.135z0.5, z i
n ft where =1.50.135z0.5 for N >15 = N/15(1.50.135z0.5) for N 15
Reese and ONeill (1988) Beta method ONeill and Hassan (1994) Modified eta method
Source: AASHTO, 1998, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customa ry U.S. Units,
2nd edn, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Was
hington, DC, with 1999 interim revisions. With permission.
Figure 7.5 shows the calculated ultimate end earing using each of the four meth
ods in Tale 7.2. The Reese and Wright (1977) or Reese and ONeill (1988) methods
are recommended y the author for end earing analysis. Using the comined capac
ity from 100% side shear and TCM*qp using ONeill and Hassan (1994) and Reese and
ONeill (1988)
FIGURE 7.2 Estimated soil properties from SPT low count.
Page 307
FIGURE 7.3 Comparison of estimated side shear capacities in sandy soil (3ft diam
eter).
methods, respectively, the effective ultimate capacity of a 3 ft diameter drille
d shaft can e estimated as a function of depth, Figure 7.6. This type of curve
is convenient for design as it is a general capacity curve independent of a spec
ific design load. However, when using an LRFD approach, the factored load (Pu) s
hould e divided y the appropriate resistance factor efore going to this curve
.
7.4 Use of Triaxial or SPT Data in Clay
Unconsolidated, undrained (UU) triaxial test results are preferred when estimati
ng the side shear or end earing capacity of drilled shafts in clayey soil. The
mean undrained shear strength (Su) is derived from a numer of tests conducted o
n Shely tue specimens where In many instances, oth UU and SPT data can e ot
ained from which local SPT (N) correlations with Su can e estalished. In the a
sence of any UU test results, a general correlation from Kulhawy and Mayne (199
0) can e used Su=0.0625N, in units of tsf (7.3a)
7.4.1 Side Shear (Alpha Method)
The alpha method of side shear estimation is ased on correlations etween measu
red side shear from full-scale load tests and the clay shear strength as determi
ned y UU test results. Therein, the unit side shear fs is directly proportional
to the product of the adhesion factor (Tale 7.3) and Su f s= Su (7.3b)
Pge 308
FIGURE 7.4 End bering response of snds s function of displcement. (Bsed o
n Reese, L.C. nd ONeill, M.W., 1988, Drilled Shfts: Construction nd Design, FH
WA, Publiction No. HI88042. With permission.)
The side sher developed round drilled shfts in clyey soil hs severl limit
tions tht were not pplied previously pplied to shfts cst in snd. Specific
lly, the top 5 ft of the shft sides re considered noncontributing due to cycli
c lterl movements tht seprte
TABLE 7.2 Drilled Shft End Bering Design Methods for Snds
Source
Toum nd Reese (1974)
End Bering Resistnce, qp (in tsf)
Loose snd, q p=0.0 Medium dense snd, q p=16/k Very dense snd, qp =40/k where
k=1 for Dp=1. k=0.6 Dp for Dp 1.67 ft Only for shft depths >10D qp =(2NcorrDb )
/(15Dp ) qp <4/3Ncorr for snd qp <Ncorr for nonplstic silts qp =2/3N for N 60 q
p =40 for N >60 qp =0.6N for N 75 qp =45 for N >75
Meyerhof (1976)
Reese nd Wright (1977) Reese nd ONeill (1988)

For D>4.17ft, the end bering resistnce should be reduced to qpr=4.17qp /D . So
urce: From AASHTO, 1998, LRFD Bridge Design Specifictions, Customry U.S. Units
, 2nd edn, Americn Assocition of Stte Highwy nd Trnsporttion Officils, W
shington, DC, with 1999 interim revisions. With permission.
Pge 309
FIGURE 7.5 Comprison of end bering methods in snd (3ft dimeter, boring B1).
the shft from the soil s well s potentil desicction seprtion of the surfi
cil soil. Additionlly, the bottom 1D of the shft side sher is disregrded to
ccount for lterl stresses tht develop rdilly s the end bering mobilizes
. Although rrely used tody, belled ends (Figure 7.1) lso ffect the side she
r ner the shft bse. In such cses, the side sher surfce re of the bell s
well s tht re 1D bove the bell should not be expected to contribute cpci
ty.
7.4.2 End Bering
The end bering cpcity of shfts tipped in cly is lso dependent on the men
undrined sher strength of the cly within two dimeters below the tip, S u. As
discussed with shfts tipped in snds, TCM should be pplied to estimted end
bering cpcities
TABLE 7.3 Adhesion Fctor for Drilled Shfts in Clyey Soils
Adhesion Fctor (Dimensionless)
0.55 0.49 0.42 0.38 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.31 Tret s rock
Undrined Sher Strength, Su(tsf)
<2.0 2.03.0 3.04.0 4.05.0 5.06.0 6.07.0 7.08.0 8.09.0 >9.0
Source: From AASHTO, 1998, LRFD Bridge Design Specifictions, Customry U.S. Uni
ts, 2nd edn, Americn Assocition of Stte Highwy nd Trnsporttion Officils,
Wshington, DC, with 1999 interim revisions. With permission.
Pge 310 using the reltionship shown in Figure 7.7. At displcements of 2.5% of
the shft dimeter, shfts in cly mobilize 75 to 95% of ultimte cpcity. Unl
ike snds, however, there is little reserve bering cpcity beyond this displc
ement. Therefore, mximum TCM of 0.9 is recommended for conventionl shfts t
displcements of 2.5% D nd proportionlly less for smller permissible displc
ements. Similr to shllow foundtion nlyses, the following expressions my be
used to estimte the ultimte end bering for shfts with dimeters less thn 7
5 in. (AASHTO, 1998): qp=N cSu 40 tsf (7.4) where Nc =6[1+0.2(Z/D)] 9 for Su>0.25
tsf (7.4b) Nc =4[1+0.2(Z/D)] 9 for Su<0.25 tsf (7.4c) nd Z/D is the rtio of th
e shft dimeter to depth of penetrtion. For shfts greter thn 75 in. in dim
eter reduction fctor should be used s follows: qpr=qpFr (7.5) where (7.6)
FIGURE 7.6 Exmple design curve using boring B1 from Figure 7.3.
Pge 311 nd =0.0071+0.0021 Z/P 0.015 (7.7) b=0.45 (2 S u)0.5 (7.8) where Su is
in tsf for 0.5<b<1.5
7.5 Designing Drilled Shfts from CPT Dt
Cone penetrtion test dt re considered to be more reproducible thn SPT dt
nd cn be used for shft designs in cohesionless nd cohesive soils using corre
ltions developed by Alsmmn (1995). Although tht study provided design vlues
for both mechnicl nd electric cone dt, single pproch is presented belo
w tht cn conservtively be used for either bsed on tht work.
7.5.1 Estimtion of Side Sher
This method for determining side sher resistnce in cohesionless soils is divid
ed into two soil ctegories: grvelly snd or grvel nd snd or silty snd. In
ech cse (s given in Tble 7.4), the side sher is correlted to the cone tip
resistnce, qc , insted of the sleeve friction due to the bsence of tht dt
from some cse studies t the time of the study. In cohesive soils, single exp
ression is given, which is lso dependent on the totl verticl stress, v0. The
ame region of the haft hould be dicounted (top 5 ft and bottom 1D) when in
coheive oil a dicued earlier. The upper limit for ide hear recommended
by Alamman (1995) are omewhat le than thoe cited from AASHTO (1998) (e.g.,
2.0 tf for and uing the beta method). However, CPT data can alo be ued to e
timate the internal friction and oil denity neceary for the Touma and Reee
(1974) or beta method (Table 7.1).
TABLE 7.4 Side Shear Reitance from CPT Data
Soil Type
Gravelly and/gravel Sand/ilty and Clay
Ultimate Side Shear Reitance, q (tf)
f=0.02q c for q c>50 tf f=0.0019q c+0.9 1.4 for q c>50 tf f=0.015qc for qc 50
tf f=0.012qc +0.7 1.0 for qc>50 tf f=0.023 (q c 0.9 vo)
Source: From AASHTO, 1998, LRFD Bridge Deign Specification, Cutomary U.S. Uni
t, 2nd edn, American
Aociation of State Highway and Tranportation Official, Wahington, DC, with

1999 interim reviion. With permiion.
Page 312
TABLE 7.5 End Bearing Reitance from CPT Data
Soil Type
Coheionle oil Coheive oil
Ultimate End Bearing Reitance, qp (tf)
qp =0.15q c for qc 100 tf qp =0.05q c+10 30 for q c>100 tf qp =0.25(qc 25 vo)
Source: From AASHTO, 1998, LRFD Bridge Deign Specification, Cutomary U.S. Uni
t, 2nd edn, American Aociation of State Highway and Tranportation Official,
Wahington, DC, with 1999 interim reviion. With permiion.
7.5.2 Etimation of End Bearing
Expreion for etimating the end bearing uing CPT data were alo recommended
in the ame tudy (Alamman, 1995). Therein, the end bearing categorie were lim
ited to coheionle and coheive oil. Table 7.5 provide correlation baed o
n thoe finding. The capacitie etimated from Table 7.5 expreion are ultima
te value that hould be aigned a proportionally le uable capacity uing th
e general relationhip hown in Figure 7.6 and Figure 7.7 for and and clay,
repectively.
7.6 Deigning from Rock Core Data
A common application for drilled haft i to be ocketed in a rock formation om
e ditance, H. In thee cae, the ide hear of ofter overlying material i
diregarded due to the mimatch in the diplacement required to mobilize both ma
terial type. Rock ocket require relatively mall movement to develop full ca
pacity when compared to and or clay trata. Further, although the end bearing
trength of a rock ocket can be quite coniderable, it too i often dicounted f
or the ame reaon. Alternately, a rock ocket may be deigned for all end beari
ng intead of ide hear knowing that ome ide hear capacity will alway be av
ailable in reerve.
FIGURE 7.7
End bearing repone of haft tipped in clay. (Baed on Reee, L.C. and ONeill,
M.W., 1988, Drilled Shafts: Construction and Design, FHWA, ublication No. HI8
8042. With permission.)
age 313
TABLE 7.6 Drilled Shaft Side Shear Design Methods for Rock Sockets
Source
Carter and Kulhawy (1988) Horvath and Kenney (1979) McVay and Townsend (1990) fs
=0.15 qu fs=0.67 qu fs=0.5 qu
Side Shear Resistance, fs(tsf)
for q u 20 tsf
0.5 for 0.5
q u>20 tsf
0.5
qs
Source: From AASHTO, 1998, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Uni
ts, 2nd edn, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC, with 1999 interim revisions. With permission.
The side shear strength of rocksocketed drilled shafts is similar to that of cl
ayey soils in that it is dependent on the in situ shear strength of the bearing
strata. In this case, rock cores are taken from the field and tested using vario
us methods. Specifically, mean failure stresses from two tests are commonly used
: the unconfined compression test, qu, and the splitting tensile test, qs. The t
est results from these tests can be used to estimate the side shear of a rock so
cket using the expressions in Table 7.6. The estimated side shear capacity can b
e reduced by multiplying qs by either the rock quality index, RQD, or the percen
t sample recovered from the rock core. Local experience and results from load te
sts can provide the best insight into the most appropriate approach.
When determining the end bearing resistance (as well as side shear) of drilled s
hafts in rock, the quality of rock and type of rock can greatly affect the capac
ity. In competent rock the structural capacity of the concrete will control the
design. In fractured, weathered rock or limestone, the quality of the formation
as denoted by the RQD or percentage recovery should be incorporated into the cap
acity estimate. However, these parameters are influenced by drilling equipment,
driller experience, and the type of core barrel used to retrieve the samples. Th
e designer should make some attempt to correlate the rock quality to load test d
ata where possible. The Federal Highway Administration recommends the following
expression for estimating the end bearing resistance in rock (FHWA, 1988): qb=2.
5qu%Rec 40 tsf (7.9) The value of 40 tsf is undoubtedly conservative with respec
t to ultimate capacity, but when used in conjunction with a rock socket side she
ar it may be reasonable. Under any circumstances, load testing can verify much h
igher capacities even though they are near impossible to fail in competent rock.
7.7 Designing from Load Test Data
The use of an instrumented load test data for design is thought to be the most r
eliable approach and is given the highest resistance factor (LRFD) or lowest saf
ety factor (ASD) as a result. This method involves estimating the shaft capacity
using one of the previously
age 314 discussed methods (or similar) and verifying the estimated capacity usi
ng a fullscale prototype shaft loaded to ultimate capacity. These tests can be
conducted prior to construction or during construction (denoted as design phase
or construction phase load testing, respectively). In either event, the shaft sh
ould be loaded well in excess of the design load while monitoring the response (
i.e., axial displacement, lateral displacement, or internal strains). An instrum
ented load test is one that incorporates strain gages along the length of the fo
undation to delineate loadcarrying contributions from various soil strata. The
test can merely distinguish side shear from end bearing or additional informatio
n from discrete shaft segments or soil strata can be obtained. Any test method c
apable of applying the ultimate load can provide useful feedback to the designer
. Tests conducted on lesser loads are still useful, but provide only a proof test
to the magnitude of the maximum load and can only provide a lower bound of the a
ctual capacity. As such, the designer should realize that a test shaft that fail
s geotechnically, thus providing the ultimate capacity, is desirable in such a p
rogram so that the upper limit of capacity can be realized. The challenge then i
s to design a shaft that fails at a load reasonably close to the desired ultimat
e without being too conservative. However, the loading apparatus should have suf
ficient reserve to account for a slightly conservative capacity estimate.
The ultimate side shear can be determined from load testing by evaluating the re
sponse from embedded strain gages at various elevations in the shaft. It is desi
rable to delineate bearing strata by placing these gages at the interface betwee
n significantly different soil strata (e.g., claysand interface). At a minimum,
one level of gages should be placed at the tip of the shaft to separate the loa
dcarrying contributions from the side shear and end bearing. By monitoring the
strain at a given level, the corresponding load and difference in load between l
evels can be determined. It is further desirable to use four gages per level to
help indicate eccentricities in the loading as well as provide redundancy. The l
oad at a particular level can be evaluated using strain gage data using the foll
owing expression: (7.10) where i is the load at the ith level, is the strain m
easured at the ith level, E i is the composite modulus of the i th level, and Ai
is the crosssectional area of the ith level. The side shear from a given shaft
segment can then be calculated from the difference in measured load from the tw
o levels bounding that segment i +1)/(L D) f s=(P i (7.11) where L and D are the
length and diameter of the shaft segment, resectively. If only using a single g
age level at the toe of the shaft, Pi is the alied load to the to of the shaf
t and Pi+1 is the load calculated from strain at the toe.

The end bearing can be similarly determined from strain data. However, the ultim
ate end bearing is not necessarily established. Rather, the effective ultimate c
aacity (usable caacity) is determined on the basis of ermissible dislacement
. Although several
Page 315
FIGURE 7.8 End bearing load test results.
aroaches do exist that attemt to extract a single caacity value from test da
ta, the entire load versus dislacement resonse should be noted. Figure 7.8 sho
ws the end bearing resonse as measured from a load test. A comarison between t
he measured and redicted values should be reared so that the original design
aroach can be calibrated. The end bearing strength is determined from strain g
age data using the following exression: (7.12)
7.8 Design of Postgrouted Shafts
The end bearing comonent of drilled shafts is only fractionally utilized in vir
tually all design methods (TCM<1.0) due to the large dislacement required to mo
bilize ultimate caacity. Consequently, a large ortion of the ultimate caacity
necessarily goes unused. In an effort to regain some of this unusable caacity,
mechanistic rocedures to integrate its contribution have been develoed using
ressure grouting beneath the shaft ti (also called ostgrouting or base grouti
ng). Pressure grouting the tis of drilled shafts has been successfully used wor
ldwide to recomress soft debris or loose soil relaxed by excavation (Bolognesi
and Moretto, 1973; Stocker, 1983; Bruce, 1986; Fleming, 1993; Mullins et al., 2
000 a, b; Da and Mullins, 2002). The ostgrouting rocess entails: (1) install
ation of a grout distribution system during conventional cage rearation that
rovides grout tubeaccess to the bottom of the shaft reinforcement cage and (2)
after the shaft concrete
Page 316 has cured, injection of highressure grout beneath the ti of the shaf
t, which both densifies the in situ soil and comresses any debris left by the d
rilling rocess. By essentially reloading the soil beneath the ti, higher end
bearing caacities can be realized within the service dislacement limits. Altho
ugh ostgrouting along the sides of the shaft has been reorted to be effective,
this section will only address the design of ostgrouted shaft tis. The overal
l caacity of the shaft is still derived from both side shear and end bearing wh
ere the available side shear is calculated using one or a combination of the met
hods discussed earlier. Further, the calculation of the available side shear is
an imortant ste in determining the ressure to which the grout can be umed.
7.8.1 Postgrouting in Sand
The design aroach for ostgrouted drilled shaft tis makes use of common aram
eters used for a conventional (ungrouted) drilled shaft design. This methodology
includes the following seven stes: (1) Determine the ungrouted end bearing ca
acity in units of stress. (2) Determine the ermissible dislacement as a ercen
tage of shaft diameter (e.g., for a 4ft diameter shaft, (3) Evaluate the ultima
te side shear resistance for the desired shaft length and diameter (in units of
force). (4) Establish a maximum grout ressure that can be resisted by the side
shear (ultimate side shear divided by the ti crosssectional area). (5) Calcula
te the grout ressure index, GPI, defined as the ratio of grout ressure to the
ungrouted end bearing caacity (Ste 4/Ste 1). (6) Using design curves from Fig
ure 7.9, determine the ti caacity multilier, TCM, using the GPI calculated in
Ste 5. (7) Calculate the grouted end bearing caacity (effective ultimate) by
multilying the TCM by the ungrouted end bearing (TCMSte 1). The ungrouted caac
ity (GPI=0) is reresented by these curves at the yintercet where TCM=1 for a
5% dislacement (no imrovement). The 1% and 2% intercets reduce the end bearin
g according to the normal behavior of artially mobilized end bearing. Interesti
ngly, the grouted end bearing caacity is strongly deendent on available side s
hear caacity (grout ressure) as well as the ermissible dislacement. However,
it is relatively indeendent of the ungrouted end bearing caacity when in sand
y soils. As such, the end bearing in loose sand deosits can be greatly imroved
in both stiffness and ultimate caacity given sufficient side shear against whi
ch to develo grout ressure. In dense sands and clays significant imrovement i
n stiffness can be realized with more modest effects on ultimate caacity. Figur
e 7.10 shows the effective ultimate caacity that can be exected from a grouted
shaft similar to that from examle in Figure 7.3.
7.8.2 Postgrouting in Other Formations
Postgrouting shaft tis in other formations such as clays, silts, and rock can b
e advantageous for the same reasons as in sand. However, the degree of imroveme
nt may be more modest. In clays and lastic silts, the TCM can be assumed to be
1.0 although studies have shown it to be as high as 1.5 if sufficient side shear
can be develoed (Mullins and ONeill,
Page 317
FIGURE 7.9 Correlations used in ste 6 (Section 7.8.1) to establish TCM. (From M
ullins, G., Da, S., Frederick, E., and Wagner, R., 2001, Pressure Grouting Dri
lled Shaft Tis, Final Reort submitted to Florida Deartment of Transortation,
Aril, 257 . With ermission.)
FIGURE 7.10 Postgrouted shaft caacity extended from examle in Figure 7.3.
Page 318 2003). In nonlastic silts, the TCM can be assumed to be 1.0 for initia
l designs but a verification load test rogram is recommended as much higher val
ues may be reasonable. In rock, ostgrouted shafts have the otential to engage
both the side shear and end bearing simultaneously. In all soil tyes, the achie
ved grout ressure can be used as a lower bound for usable end bearing and the a
ttainable grout ressure is always deendent on the available side shear against
which to react. In contrast, sufficient side shear caacity does not assure tha
t grout ressure can be develoed without excessive volumes of grout. Postgrouti
ng shaft tis rovide caacity verification for every shaft grouted. To otimize
its use and design, a full load test rogram should be scheduled at the onset t
o confirm the TCM most aroriate for a given site and soil tye.
7.9 Economy of Load Testing
Although the cost of foundations is most closely linked to the resence of an ad
equate bearing strata and the alied load, it is also directly affected by the
design aroach and the diameter of the shaft selected. As such, a designer may
emloy a range of safety factors (or resistance factors) given the level of conf
idence that can be assigned to a articular scenario. The most common method of
establishing a articular level of certainty is via some form of testing. This t
esting can range from alying the full anticiated load (static or statnamic te
sts) to a minimum of a subsurface investigation to estimate in situ soil roert
ies. Load tests result in the highest increase in designer confidence and can be
incororated into the design in the form of adjusted or calibrated unit strengt
hs, reduced safety factors, or increased resistance factors. The effects of desi
gn uncertainty can be illustrated by the AASHTO (1998) secifications for driven
iles where the designer must select from nine different resistance factors ran
ging from 0.35 to 0.80 based on the design methodology. Four of these conditions
are selected based on the level or quality of testing that is anticiated. Ther
ein, the highest resistance factor (0.8) and confidence is associated with a loa
d test. The next highest resistance factor (0.65) is assigned to test methods re
lated to installation monitoring. In contrast, the lowest confidence and resista
nce factor (0.35 to 0.45) is assigned when a design is based solely on caacity
correlations with SPT data. Although some resistance factors for drilled shafts
are not given by AASHTO (1998), the resistance factors most commonly range from
0.5 to 0.8 for no testing to load testing, resectively. The following two exam
les will use estimated costs to illustrate the imact of shaft size (diameter) a
nd design aroach on cost effectiveness. The cost of shaft construction and tes
ting can vary significantly based on the number of shafts and tye of material e
xcavated as well as the hysical conditions and location of the site. Even thoug
h a tyical unit rice of a drilled shaft includes each of these arameters, thi
s aroach can be used for comarisons using udated sitesecific values. Given
:
3 ft diameter shaft 4 ft diameter shaft 6 ft diameter shaft Static load test Sta
tnamic load test $100/lineal foot $200/lineal foot $400/lineal foot $125/ton of
test $35/ton of test Excavation and concreting Excavation and concreting Excavat
ion and concreting 1% of shafts tested (1 min) 1% of shafts tested (1 min)
Page 319 Use: Boring log and effective ultimate caacity calculations from Exam
le in Figure 7.3, as well as the following resistance values (slightly udated f
rom most recent AASHTO):
Assume a maximum excavation deth of 30D where D is the shaft diameter.
7.9.1 Selecting the Most Economical Shaft Diameter
Many otions are available to the designer when selecting the diameter of shaft
to be used for a secific foundation. For instance, a long, small diameter shaft
can rovide equivalent axial caacity to a shorter, larger diameter shaft. Figu
re 7.11 shows the result of reevaluating examle in Figure 7.3 for 3, 4, and 6 f
t diameter shafts while incororating the cost er ton of caacity using $100, $
200, and $400 er ft of shaft, resectively. These curves are based on axial ca
acity and the cost may further vary given significant lateral loading and the as
sociated bending moment requirements. In this case, the 3 ft diameter shaft is t
he most cost effective at all deths.
7.9.2 Selecting the Most Economical Design Method
The next comarison that can be made is that which evaluates the cost effectiven
ess of various design or testing methods. As additional testing (beyond soil ex
loration) incurs extra exense, a breakeven analysis should be erformed to jus
tify its use. In this case, a 3ft diameter shaft will be used due to the results
shown in Figure 7.12 where it was consistently less costly. The maximum caacit
y that can be reasonable rovided by a 3 ft
FIGURE 7.11 Effect of shaft size selection on cost.
Page 320
FIGURE 7.12 Breakeven analysis of various design or testing methods.
diameter shaft will be calculated to be 602 tons at a deth of 90 f t (30D). (As
de excavations are ossible, the ultimate structural caacity based on concrete
strength should not be exceeded.) The effective ultimate caacity is then reduc
ed based on the resumtion of testing (or no testing) and the aroriate resis
tance factor. Using these values a 3500 ton factored ier load (Pu) would requir
e more or fewer shafts given various resistance factors as shown in Table 7.7. T
he above shaft costs will also have to incororate the cost of testing as well.
As such, larger rojects can justify more extensive testing, whereas very small
rojects may not warrant the exense. Figure 7.12 incororates the cost of testi
ng while extending the above examle to a wide range of roject sizes (exressed
in terms of total structure load and not the number of shafts). The individual
curves reresenting the various design aroaches exhibit different sloes based
on the ermissible loadcarrying caability er unit length of shaft.
TABLE 7.7 The Effect of Various Design Aroaches on Required Number of Shafts
Design Method or Test Scheme
Static Statnamic No testing
Resistance Factor
0.75 0.73 0.55
Eff. Ult. Caacity @ 90 in., Pn (tons)
602 602 602 451.5 439.5 331.1
Number of Shafts Required (P u=3500 tons)
7.75 (8) 7.96 (8) 10.57 (11)
Total Shaft Costs
$69,750 $71,640 $116,640
Source: From AASHTO, 1998, LRFD Bridge Design Secifications, C ustomary U.S. Un
its, 2nd edn, American Association of State Highway and Transortation Officials
, Washington, DC, with 1999 interim revisions. With ermission.
Page 321 Comaring the costs for each design and test aroach, it can be seen t
hat for smaller rojects u to eight shafts (less than 3500 tons total), no test
ing (over and above SPT) is most cost effective. Above 3500 tons, the cost savin
gs roduced by statnamic or static load testing become significant with statnami
c costs being slightly less in all cases. The selection of load test method and
the associated cost are often based on the availability of test equiment caabl
e of roducing the ultimate geotechnical caacity. Further, the disarity betwee
n testing and no testing can be even more drastic when designhase testing can b
e imlemented. Therein, the estimated ultimate caacity based on emirical desig
n methods is often conservative and can be raised using the results of a test r
ogram that further widens the range of shaft numbers (testing versus no testing)
required for a given ier. In general, load test results tyically show that r
edictions of ultimate caacity are conservative. This form of verification can b
e helful in all instances: when underredictions are severe, the design caacit
y of the foundations can be adjusted to rovide cost savings; when overredicti
ons are encountered, more moderate design values can be incororated to circumve
nt ossible failures.
7.10 Pressure Injected Footings
Pressureinjected footings (PIF) are castin situ concr ete foot ings conta in i
ng an e base of concrete formed by ramming concrete into lace. Installation of
PIF needs only a minimum of site rearation. They can contain a cased or uncase
d concrete shaft with or without reinforcement to transmit the load from the su
erstructure to the exanded base. Due to highenergy driving during installation,
the concrete can enetrate stiff soils and reach large deths laterally as well
as vertically. The soil surrounding the ile base is imroved due to the exuls
ion caused by the dry concrete lug, and thus the soil bearing caacity can be i
ncreased significantly and immediately. It is generally easier to form an exand
ed base in granular soil strata (Figure 7.13). However, PIFs also have some draw
backs such as high cost and the induction of otentially disrutive vibrations a
t adjacent structures generated during installation. Even though the alication
of PIF is less oular due to cost and environmental considerations, this const
ruction method is still cometitive and is widely used when site conditions are
suitable. Preexcavation and reaugering can be erformed at roosed PIF locatio
ns to remove obstructions and reduce driving vibrations that could endanger exis
ting buildings and adjacent structures. Pressure injected footing may be vertica
l or battered and its bearing caacity obviously deends on the diameter of the
ile base and the driving tube used. The driving tube can be chosen based on the
secified loads. In cases where negative friction is encountered, a ermanent s
teel casing or ie may be laced without any difficulty to reduce the friction.
Furthermore, a ermanent steel casing of sufficient thickness, strength, and ri
gidity can be rovided to revent deformation, collase, or distortion caused by
driving adjacent PIF or by soil or hydrostatic ressure. Casings are made water
tight in general. When soil conditions indicate that it may be tedious or even i
mractical to fill the annular sace between the shaft and the soil surrounding
a single casing, the shaft can be suorted laterally or the PIF can be reinforc
ed. In situations where a single PIF is used as the foundation and the shaft is
cased, the shaft can be suorted at the to in at least two directions erendi
cular to each other. On the other hand, in cases where two PIFs are
Page 322
FIGURE 7.13 Illustration of the formation of ressure injected footings. (From h
tt://www.geoforum.com. With ermission.)
used in a grou and their shafts are cased, the grous may be suorted laterall
y at the to in a direction erendicular to the line joining the centers of the
footings. Shafts are reinforced only when they are required to withstand condit
ions other than comression, such as tension, moment, or shear. However, shaft r
einforcement may also be required for comression or lateral loads for battered
shafts. Design of PIF deends uon the assumed subsurface elevations to which th
e PIF is exected to enetrate at various locations and the total energy require
d to drive them. Based uon results of PIF test loadings, as in the case of ile
driving, one can generally secify the actual elevation to which PIF should en
etrate and the total energy needed to drive the concrete into the base. The foll
owing emirical formula is used to determine the allowable bearing caacity of P
IF by ramming zeroslum concrete, in batches of 0.14 mm 5 cubic feet, into gran
ular soil stratum by a dro hammer: (7.13) where L is the safe bearing caacity
of PIF in metric tons or tons, B is the average number of blows of hammer requir
ed to inject one cubic meter or one cubic foot of concrete in exanded base, dur
ing injection of the last batch, W is the weight of the dro hammer in metric to
ns, H is the height of the fall of dro hammer in meters feet, V is the total vo
lume of concrete in exanded base measured in cubic meters or cubic feet, and K
is a constant determined from the load test. In the absence of a load test, Kva
lues shown in the Table 7.8 (Norlund, 1982) can be used.
7.10.1 Construction of Pressure Injected Footings
During the construction rocedure, a thickwalled steel casing is laced vertica

lly on the ground. Using a secial concrete bucket, a certain amount of almost d
ry concrete is oured into the bottom of the driving tube. Then the concrete is
rammed into the ground using a 2
Page 323
TABLE 7.8 Recommended K Values for PIF
Recommended K with Comacted Soil Descrition
Gravel Medium to coarse sand Fine to medium sand
Recommended K Concrete Shaft
9 11 14
With Cased Shafts
12 14 18
Note: N =number of blows from standard enetration test. Source: From Norlund, R
.L., 1982, Dynamic formula for PIF, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 108, March. With ermission.
TABLE 7.9 Unit Conversion Table
From English
Ft In Tons Tsf (cf) lbs/ft kis/ft
3 3
To SI
m m kN kPa N/m
3 3
Multily by
0.3048 0.0254 8.9 95.76 157.1
Quantity
Lengths Loads Stress/strength
From SI To English Multily by
m m kN kPa N/m
3 3
ft in tons tsf lbs/ft
3 3
3.28 39.37 0.114 0.0104 0.0064 0.0064 0.0089 0.0089 0.7375 0.7375 0.7375 0.7375
0.3048 0.3048
157.1 Force/Unit volume 112.98 Moment; or energy 112.98 1.356 1.356 1.356 1.356
3.2808 3.2808 Daming Blow count
kN/m
kN/m
Kis/ft
Lbinch kiinch lbft kift ftlb ftki s/ft Blows/ft
Nmm kNmm Nm kNm Joule kJoule s/m Blows/m
Nmm kNmm Nm kNm Joule kJoule s/m blows/m
lbinch kiinch lbft Kift ftlb ftki s/ft blows/ft
Source: Courtesy of New York Deartment of Transortation.
to 8 ton hammer droing from a height of several meters while the tube is held
in osition by steel cables. Under the imact of the hammer, the concrete create
s a lug at the bottom of the casing that enetrates slightly into the soil. Alt
ernatively, the steel casing can be installed by todriving using ordinary dro h
ammers. In such cases, the driving casing must be rovided with a bottom late t
hat would be left in the ground. A largestem auger can also be used to install
the casing. When the tube has been driven to the required deth, the casing is v
ery slightly lifted and held in osition using steel cables. The lug is then re
moved by imarting heavy blows using the hammer and ascertaining that a certain
amount of rammed concrete remains in the casing in order to revent any future s
eeage of water or erosion of
soil into the ile shaft. This oeration is verified with marks made on the driv
ing cable of the hammer and on the lifting cables. The exanded base of the ile
is then formed by adding enough dry concrete to achieve a redetermined driving
set. Hence, an enlarged concrete bulb that would serve as a ile base would be fo
rmed in the foundation soil that is also heavily comressed and densified.
7.10.2 Concreting of the Shaft
The shaft of the ile is formed by ramming successive layers of dry concrete by ra
ising the casing 0.2 to 0.5 m at a time. The hammer moves the concrete laterally
into the soil that
Page 324
FIGURE 7.14 Concreting of the shaft during construction of PIF. (From htt://www
.tggonline.com/geotechnical/rojects. With ermission.)
is already comressed by the driving action. Because of the ramming rocess, the
concrete comes in close contact with the soil, thus forming a cylindrical shaft
. As mentioned before, the shaft rests on an enlarged base formed to induce a hi
ghly densified refusal state in the bearing layer. Furthermore, it has been exeri
enced that wet concrete accelerates the construction rocess (Figure 7.14).
Nomenclature
% R ercent recovery of rock coring (%) m D D Dp fs adhesion factor applied to
S (DIM) coefficient relatin the vertical stress and the nit skin friction of
a drilled shaft (DIM) SPT N corrected coefficient relatin the vertical stress a
nd the nit skin friction of a drilled shaft (DIM) diameter of drilled shaft (FT
) depth of embedment of drilled shaft into a bearin strat m (FT) diameter of th
e tip of a drilled shaft (FT) anle of internal friction of soil (DEG) nominal
nit side shear resistance (TSF) nit weiht (pcf)
K K N Nc
empirical bearin capacity coefficient (DIM) load transfer factor averae ( ncor
rected) SPT Standard Penetration Test blow co nt, SPT N (blows/FT) bearin capac
ity factor (DIM)
Pae 325
N corr
b
c
s Qs
S
corrected SPT blow co nt end bearin resistance ( nits of stress) cone penetrati
on tip resistance ( nits of stress) averae splittin tensile strenth of the ro
ck core (TSF) side shear capacity ( nits of force) averae nconfined compressiv
e strenth of the rock core (TSF) vertical effective stress (TSF) ndrained shea
r strenth (TSF) meas red strain from embedded strain ae
References
AASHTO, 1994, LRFD Bride Desin Specifications, SI, 1st edn, American Associati
on of State Hihway and Transportation Officials, Washinton, DC, with 1996 and
1997 interim revisions. AASHTO, 1998, LRFD Bride Desin Specifications, C stoma
ry U.S. Units, 2nd edn, American Association of State Hihway and Transportation
Officials, Washinton, DC, with 1999 interim revisions. ASTM D 000099, s bmissio
n 2000, Standard Test Method for Piles Under Rapid Axial Compressive Load, nder
review at American Society for Testin and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. ASTM D
119494, Standard Test Method for Bearin Capacity of Soil for Static Load and Spr
ead Footins, American Society for Testin and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. ASTM
D 158684, Standard Method for Penetration Test and SplitBarrel Samplin of Soil
s, American Society for Testin and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. ASTM D114398, 1
998, Standard Test Method for Piles Under Static Axial Compressive Load, in Ann
al Book of ASTM Standards, Part 20, Philadelphia, PA. Alsamman, O.M., 1995, The
se of CPT for calc latin axial capacity of drilled shafts, Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Illinois, UrbanaChampain. Azizi, F., 2000, Applied Analyses in
Geotechnics, E & FN Spoon, New York. Baker, A.C. and Broadrick, R.L., 1997, Gro
nd Improvement, Reinforcement, and Treatement: A Twenty Year Update and a Vision
for the 21st Cent ry, Earth Tech, Clear Water, FL. Bolonesi, A.J.L. and Morett
o, O., 1973, Stae ro tin preloadin of lare piles on sand, Proceedins of 8t
h ICSMFE, Moscow. Brown, D., 2002, Effect of constr ction on axial capacity of d
rilled fo ndations in piedmont soils, Jo rnal of Geotechnical Enineerin, 128(1
2). 000000. Br ce, D.A., 1986, Enhancin the performance of lare diameter piles
by ro tin, Parts 1 and 2, Gro nd Enineerin, May and J ly, respectively. Br c
e, D.A., N fer, P.J., and Triplett, R.E., 1995, Enhancement of Caisson Capacity
by MicroFine Cement Gro tinA Recent Case History, ASCE Special P blication 57,
Verification of Geotechnical Gro tin. Carter, J.P. and K lhawy, F.H., 1987, Ana
lysis and Desin of Fo ndations Socketed into Rock, Research Report 14934, Geotec
hnical Enineerin Gro p, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Dapp, S. and M llins,
G., 2002, Press rero tin drilled shaft tips: f llscale research investiatio
n for silty and shelly sands, Deep Fo ndations 2002: An International Perspectiv
e on Theory, Desin, Constr ction, and Performance, ASCE Geo Instit te, GSP No.
116, Vol. I, pp. 335350. FHWA, 1998, Load and Resistance Factor Desin (LRFD) for
Hihway Bride S bstr ct res, U.S. Department of Transportation, P blication No
. FHWA HI98032.
Flemmin, W.G.K., 1993, The improvement of pile performance by base ro tin, Pr
oceedins of the Instit tion of Civil Enineers, London. Florida Department of T
ransportation, 2002, Section 455: Str ct res and Fo ndations, Tallahassee, FL.
Pae 326
Garbin, E.J., 1999, Data Interpretation for Axial Statnamic Testin and the Deve
lopment of the Statnamic Analysis Workbook, Masters Thesis, University of So th F
lorida, Tampa, FL. Horvath, R.G. and Kenney, T.C., 1979, Shaft resistance of roc
k socketed drilled piers, In Proceedins of the Symposi m on Deep Fo ndations, A
SCE, Atlanta, Georia, 1979, pp. 182214. K lhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W., 1990, Man
al on Estimatin Soil Properties for Fo ndation Desin, Electric Power Research
Instit te, Palo Alto, CA. Littlejohn, G.S., Inle, J., and Dadasbile, K., 1983
, Improvement in base resistance of lare diameter piles fo nded in silty sand,
Proceedins of the Eihth E ropean Conference on Soil Mechanics and Fo ndation E
nineerin, Helsinki, May. McVay, M.C. and Townsend, F.C., and Williams, R.C., 1
992, Desin of socketed drilled shafts in limestone, Jo rnal of Geotechnical En
ineerin, 118(10), 16261637 pp. Meyerhof, G.G., 1976, Bearin capacity and settle
ment of piled fo ndations, Jo rnal of Geotechnical Enineerin, ASCE, 102(GT3):
197227. M llins, A.G., Dapp, S., Fredrerick, E., and Waner, R., 2000, Press re G
ro tin Drilled Shaft Tips, Final Report s bmitted to Florida Department of Tran
sportation, April, 357 pp. M llins, G., Dapp, S., and Lai, P., 2000, Press re r
o tin drilled shaft tips in sand, New Technoloical and Desin Developments in
Deep Fo ndations, Dennis, N.D. et al. (eds.), ASCE, Geo Instit te, Vol. 100, pp.
117. M llins, G., Dapp, S., and Lai, P., 2000, New Technoloical and Desin Deve
lopments in Deep Fo ndations, Press reGro tin Drilled Shaft Tips in Sand, Amer
ican Society of Civil Enineers, Denver, CO. M llins, G., Dapp, S., Frederick, E
., and Waner, R., 2001, Press re Gro tin Drilled Shaft Tips, Final Report s bm
itted to Florida Department of Transportation, April, 257 pp. M llins, G. and ONe
ill, M., 2003, Press re Gro tin Drilled Shaft Tips, Research Report s bmitted t
o A.H. Beck Fo ndation, Inc., May, 198 pp. Norl nd, R.L., 1982, Dynamic form la
for PIF, Proceedins of the American Society of Civil Enineers, Vol. 108, March
. ONeill, M.W. and Reese, L.C., 1970, Behavior of Axially Loaded Drilled Shafts i
n Bea mont Clay, Research Report No. 898, Center for Hihway Research, University
of Texas at A stin, December. ONeill, M.W. and Hassan, K.M., 1994, Drilled shaft
s: effects of constr ction on performance and desin criteria, Proceedins of th
e International Conference on Desin and Constr ction of Deep Fo ndations, Decem
ber, Vol. 1, pp. 137187. ONeill, M.W., 1998. Project 89 revisited, Proceedins of
the ADSC Drilled Shaft Fo ndation Symposi m Held to Honor Dr. Lymon C. Reese, AD
SC, Dallas, TX, Jan ary, pp. 747. ONeill, M.W., 2002, Disc ssion of side resistance
in piles and drilled shafts, Jo rnal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Enine
erin, 127(1): 316. Q iros, G.W. and Reese, L.C., 1977, Desin proced res for axi
ally loaded drilled shafts, research report 1765F, project 3572176, center for Hi
hway Research, University of Texas, A stin, 156 pp. Reese, L.C. and Wriht, S.J.
, 1977, Constr ction Proced res and Desin for Axial Loadin, Vol. 1, Drilled Sh
aft Man al, HDV22, Implementation Packae 7721, Implementation Division, U.S. De
partment of Transportation, McLean, Virinia, 140 pp. Reese, L.C. and ONeill, M.W
., 1988, Drilled Shafts: Constr ction and Desin, FHWA, P blication No. HI88042.
Stocker, M.F., 1983, The infl ence of post ro tin on t he load bearin capaci
ty of bored piles, Proceedins of the Eihth E ropean Conference on Soil Mechani
cs and Fo ndation Enineerin, Helsinki, May. To ma, F.T. and Reese, L.C., 1974,
Behavior of bored piles in sand, Jo rnal of the Geotechnical Enineerin Divisi
on, ASCE, 100(GT7): 749761. To ma, F.T., 1972, The Behavior of Axially Loaded Dri
lled Shafts in Sand, Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Civil Enineerin, The
University of Texas at A stin, December. TxDOT, 1993, Standard Specifications f
or Constr ction of Hihways, Streets and Brides, Texas Department of Transporta
tion, A stin, March.
Pae 327
8 Desin of Laterally Loaded Piles
Manjriker G naratne CONTENTS 8.1 Introd ction 8.2 Lateral Load Capacity Based on
Strenth 8.2.1 Ultimate Lateral Resistance of Piles 8.2.1.1 Piles in Homoeneo
s Cohesive Soils 8.2.1.2 Piles in Cohesionless Soils 8.3 Lateral Load Capacity B
ased on Deflections 8.3.1 Linear Elastic Method 8.3.1.1 FreeHeaded Piles 8.3.1.
2 FixedHeaded Piles 8.3.2 Nonlinear Methods 8.3.2.1 Stiffness Matrix Analysis M
ethod 8.3.2.2 Lateral Press reDeflection (py) Method of Analysis 8.3.2.3 Synth
esis of py C rves Based on Pile Instr mentation 8.4 Lateral Load Capacity of Pi
le Gro ps 8.5 Load and Resistance Factor Desin for Laterally Loaded Piles 8.6 E
ffect of Pile Jettin on the Lateral Load Capacity 8.7 Effect of Prea erin on
the Lateral Load Capacity References 327 328 328 328 335 339 339 339 341 343 343
348 350 355 356 356 360 361
8.1 Introd ction
Sinle piles s ch as sinposts and lampposts and pile ro ps that s pport brid
e piers and offshore constr ction operations are constantly s bjected to sinif
icant nat ral lateral loads (s ch as wind loads and wave actions) (Fi re 8.1).
Lateral loads can be also introd ced on piles d e to artificial ca ses like ship
impacts. Therefore, the lateral load capacity is certainly a sinificant attrib
te in the desin of piles nder certain constr ction sit ations. Unlike in the
case of axial load capacity, the lateral load capacity m st be determined by con
siderin two different fail re mechanisms: (1) str ct ral fail re of the pile d
e to yieldin of pile material or shear fail re of the confinin soil d e to yie
ldin of soil, and (2) pile
becomin dysf nctional d e to excessive lateral deflections. Altho h passive fa

il re of the confinin soil is a potential fail re mode, s ch fail re occ rs onl
y at relatively lare deflections which enerally exceed the tolerable movements
.
Pae 328
FIGURE 8.1 Laterally loaded pile.
One realizes that short piles embedded in relatively stiffer ro nd wo ld possibly
fail d e to yieldin of the soil while lon piles embedded in relatively softer
ro nd wo ld prod ce excessive deflections. In view of the above conditions, this
chapter is oranized to analyze separately, the two distinct iss es presented a
bove. Hence the disc ssion will deal with two main iss es: (1) lateral pile capa
city from strenth considerations, and (2) lateral pile capacity based on deflec
tion limitations. On the other hand, piles s bjected to both axial and lateral l
oadin m st be desined for str ct ral resistance of the piles as beamcol mns.
8.2 Lateral Load Capacity Based on Strenth
8.2.1 Ultimate Lateral Resistance of Piles
Broms (1964a,b) prod ced simplified sol tions for the ltimate lateral load capa
city of piles by considerin both the ltimate strenth of the bearin ro nd an
d the yield stress of the pile material. For simplicity, the Broms (1964a,b) sol
tions are presented separately for different soil types, namely, cohesive soils
and cohesionless soils. 8.2.1.1 Piles in Homoeneo s Cohesive Soils When a pile
is fo nded in a predominantly finerained soil, the most critical desin case
is the case where soil is in an ndrained sit ation. The maxim m load that can b
e applied on the pile depends on the the followin factors: 1. Fixity conditions
at the top (i.e., free piles or fixed piles). Most sinle piles can be consider
ed as free piles nder lateral loadin whereas piles cl stered in a ro p by a p
ile cap m st be analyzed as fixed piles. 2. Relative stiffness of the pile compa
red to the s rro ndin soil. If the deformation conditions are s ch that the soi
l yields before the pile material then the pile is classified as a short pile. Sim
ilarly, if the pile material yields first, then the pile is considered a lon pile
. 8.2.1.1.1 Unrestrained or FreeHead Piles Fi re 8.2 and Fi re 8.3 ill strate
the respective fail re mechanisms that Broms (1964a,b) ass med for short and lon p
iles, respectively.
The ltimate lateral resistance P can be directly determined from Fi re 8.4(a
) and (b) based on the eometrical properties and the ndrained soil strenth. F
or short piles, Mmax, , P , and f can be determined from E
ations (8.1) to (8
.4).
Pae 329
FIGURE 8.2 Deflection, soil reaction, and bendin moment distrib tions for later
ally loaded short piles in cohesive soil. (From Broms, B., 1964a, J. Soil Mech.
Fo nd. Div., ASCE, 90(SM3):2756. With permission.)
Since the shear force is zero at the location of maxim m moment, from the area o
f the soil reaction plot (Fi re 8.2) one obtains (8.1) Similarly, by takin the
first moments of Fi re 8.2 abo t the yield point Mmax=2.25D2 c (8.2) Mmax=H
(e +1.5D+0.5f) (8.3) For the total lenth of the pile, L=+1.5D+f (8.4)
8.2.1.1.2 Restrained or FixedHead Piles Accordin to the Broms (1964a) form lat
ions, restrained piles can reach their ltimate capacity thro h three separate
mechanisms ivin rise to (1) short piles, (2) lon piles, and
(3) intermediate piles. These fail re mechanisms ass med by Broms (1964a) for re
strained piles are ill strated in Fi re 8.5(a)(c). The ass mption that leads to
the analytical sol tions is that the moment enerated on the pile top can be pro
vided by the pile cap to restrain the pile with the bo ndary condition at the to
p (i.e., no rotation).
Pae 330
FIGURE 8.3 Fail re mechanism for laterally loaded lon piles in cohesive soil. (
From Broms, B., 1964a, J. Soil Mech. Fo nd. Div., ASCE, 90(SM3):27 56. With permi
ssion.)
The ltimate lateral load, P , of short piles can be directly obtained from Fi
re 8.4(a). The reader wo ld notice that this condition is presented thro h a si
nle c rve in Fi re 8.4(a) d e to the insinificance of the e parameter. Mmax a
nd KP can also be determined sin the followin e
ations: P =9c D(L 1.5D) (8
.5) Mmax=P (0.5L+0.75D) (8.6) For lon piles, the ltimate lateral load, P , ca
n be fo nd from Fi re 8.4(b). Then, the followin e
ations can be sed to dete
rmine/and hence the location of pile yieldin: (8.7)
On the other hand, for intermediate piles where yieldin occ rs at the top (Fi re
8.5b), the basic shear moment and total lenth consideration in E
ations (8.1)
, (8.4), and (8.8) can be sed to obtain P :
Pae 331
FIGURE 8.4 Ultimate lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils: (a) short pil
es and (b) lon piles. (From Broms, B., 1964a, J. Soil Mech. Fo nd. Div., ASCE,
90(SM3):2756. With permission.)
Pae 332
FIGURE 8.5 Fail re mechanisms for laterally loaded restrained piles in cohesive
soils: (a) short piles, (b) intermediate piles and (c) lon piles. (From Broms,
B., 1964a, J. Soil Mech. Fo nd. Div., ASCE, 90(SM3):2756. With permission.)
Pae 333
(8.1) My =2.25c D 29c Df(1.5D+0.5f ) (8.8) L=+1.5D+f (8.4) Example 8.1 Estimate
the ltimate lateral load that can be applied on the steel H pile (HP 25062) sho
wn in Fi re 8.6 ass min that the pile cap can provide the moment re
ired at t
he pile top to keep it from rotatin. The yield strenth of steel is 300 MPa. Th
e CPT test res lts (
c ) for the site are also plotted in Fi re 8.6(a). The Att
erber limits for the clay are: LL=60 and PL=25 and the sat rated nit weiht of
clay is 17.5 kN/m3.
FIGURE 8.6 (a) Ill stration for Example 8.1. (b) HP section.
Pae 334 From steel section tables and Fi re 8.6(b)

S 3 3 xx =0.71110 m , d=256 3 My =Sxx =(0.711) (10 ) (300) MN m=213.3 kN m. y
From the qc profile in Figure 8.6(a), qc can be expreed a qc =4.7+0.04z MPa F
rom Roberton and Campanella (1983)
From Bowle (1996)
where PI i the platicity index of the oil. One obtain the following u profi
le for PI=35: Su=(1/13.16)[(4.7+0.04z)+0.001{(9.8z)(l 0.5) (17.59.8)z}] =0.357+0.0
028z MPa u range along the length of the pile from 357 to 385 kPa howing the
linear trend with depth that i typical for clay. Due to it relatively narrow
range, it can be reaonably averaged along the pile depth to be about 371 kPa c
u=371 Aume that the ground condition and the pile tiffne are uch that it
behave a a hort pile. Then from Figure 8.4(a) or Equation (8.5), for an embed
ment length of 10 m/0.256 m= 39, P u/cuD2 can be extrapolated a P u/cuD2=337 Bu
t cuD2=24.314 kN, and hence P u=8.22 MN. Thu, if the pile doe not yield, it ca
n take 8.22 MN before the oil fail. In order to check the maximum moment in th
e pile, Equation (8.6) can be applied. Mmax=Pu(0.5L+0.75D)=8.22(0.510+0.750.256) M
Nm=42.68 MNm But My=213.3 kN m. Hence the pile would yield long before the clay,
and the pile ha to be reanalyzed a a long pile.
From Figure 8.4(b),
Hence, the ultimate lateral load that can be applied on the given pile i about
600 kN.
Page 335 8.2.1.2 Pile in Coheionle Soil Baed on a number of aumption, B

rom (1964b) formulated analytical methodologie to determine the ultimate later
al load capacity of a pile in coheionle oil a well. The mot ignificant a
umption were: (1) negligible active earth preure on the back of the pile du
e to forward movement of the pile bottom, and (2) tripling of paive earth pre
ure along the top front of the pile. Hence (8.9) where i the effective vertica
l overburden preure and angle of internal friction (effective tre). 8.2.1.2
.1 FreeHead Pile By following terminology imilar to that in the cae of cohe
ive oil, the failure mechanim of hort and long pile are illutrated in Fig
ure 8.7 and Figure 8.8, repectively. The ultimate lateral load for hort pile
can be etimated from Figure 8.9(a) or the following equation. (8.10) Then, the
location of the maximum moment (f in Figure 8.7) can be determined by the follow
ing equation. (8.11) Finally, the maximum moment can be etimated by Equation (8
.12) (8.12) i the
FIGURE 8.7 Failure mechanim for laterally loaded hort pile in coheionle oi
l. (From Brom, B., 1964b, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 90(SM3):123156. With
permiion.)
Page 336
FIGURE 8.8 Failure mechanim for laterally loaded long pile in coheionle oi
l (From Brom, B., 1964b, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 90(SM3):123156. With p
ermiion.)
If the Mmax value computed from Equation (8.12) i larger than Myield for the pi
le material, then obviouly the pile behave a a long pile and the actual ultim
ate lateral load Pu can be computed from Equation (8.11) and (8.12) by etting
Mmax=Myield. On the other hand, Figure 8.9(b) enable one to determine the ultim
ate lateral load for long pile directly. 8.2.1.2.2 Retrained or FixedHead Pil
e For retrained hort pile, conideration of horizontal equilibrium in Figure
8.10(a) yield P u=1.5 L2 DKP (8.13) Hence P can be fo nd either from E
ation
(8.13) or Fi re 8.9(a). Also, from Fi re 8.10(a) it follows that (8.14) If Mma
x comp ted from E
ation (8.14) is larer that Myield for the pile material, the
n the fail re mechanism in Fi re 8.10(b) applies. For this case, the followin
expression can be written for the moment abo t the pile bottom from which the l
timate lateral load can be comp ted: (8.15) The above sol tion only applies if t
he moment Mmax at a depth of f comp ted
(8.11) is less than Myield for the pile material.
Pae 337
FIGURE 8.9 Ultimate lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils: (a) short
piles, (b) lon piles. (From Broms, B., 1964b, J. Soil Mech. Fo nd. Div., ASCE,
90(SM3):123156. With permission.)
Finally, if the above Mmax is larer than Myield, then the fail re mechanism in
Fi re 8.10(c) applies. Th s, the ltimate lateral load can be comp ted from the
followin e
ation or its nondimensional form in Fi re 8.9(b). (8.16)
Pae 338
FIGURE 8.10 Fail re mechanisms for restrained piles in cohesionless soils: (a) s
hort piles, (b) intermediate piles, and (c) lon piles. (From Broms, B., 1964b,
J. Soil Mech. Fo nd. Div., ASCE, 90(SM3): 123156. With permission.)
Pae 339
8.3 Lateral Load Capacity Based on Deflections
The maxim m permissible ro nd line deflection m st be compared with the lateral
deflection of a laterally loaded pile to f lfill one important criterion of the
desin proced re. A n mber of commonly adopted methods to determine the lateral
deflection are disc ssed in the ens in sections.
8.3.1 Linear Elastic Method
A laterally loaded pile can be idealized as an infinitely lon cylinder laterall
y deformin in an infinite elastic medi m (Pyke and Beikae, 1984) with the horiz
ontal deformation overned by the followin e
ation: P =k hy (8.17) B t, from d
istrib ted load vs. moment relations, (8.18) where B is the width of pile and E
PI is the pile stiffness. Then the e
ation overnin the lateral deformation ca
n be expressed by combinin (8.17) and (8.18) as (8.19) The characteristic coeff
icient of the sol tion to y is defined by (8.20) 1/ is also known as the nondime
nsional length, where k h is the coefficient of horizontal sugrade reaction. Br
oms (1964a,) showed that a laterally loaded pile ehaves as an infinitely stiff
memer when the coefficient is less than 2. Further, when L 4, it was shown to b
ehave as an infinitely long member in which failure occurs when the maximum bend
ing moment exceeds the yield resistance of the pile section. For the simple situ
ation where k h can be assumed constant along the pile depth, Hetenyi (1946) der
ived the following closedform solutions: 8.3.1.1 FreeHeaded iles 8.3.1.1.1 Ca
se (1): Lateral Deformation due to Load H
The following expressions can be used in conjunction with Figure 8.11, for a pil
e of width d. Horizontal displacement (8.21a)
age 340
FIGURE 8.11 Aid for using Table 8.1 for lateral load.
Slope (8.21b) Moment (8.21c) Shear force V= HKVH (8.21d) The influence factors K
H, K H, KMH, and KVH are iven in Table 8.1. 8.3.1.1.2 Case (2): Lateral Deformat
ion d e to Moment M The followin expressions can be sed with Fi re 8.12. Hori
zontal displacement (8.22a) Slope (8.22b) Moment
M=M0KMM (8.22c) Shear force V = 2M0/ K VM (8.22d) The influence factors K M , K M ,

KMM, and KVM are also iven in Table 8.1.
Pae 341
TABLE 8.1 Infl ence Factors for the Linear Sol tion
L Z/L
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0 0.125 0.25 0.375 0.5 0
.625 0.75 0.875 1 0.125 0.25 0.375 0.5 0.625 0.75 0.875 1 0 0.1250 0.2500 0.3750
0.5000 0.6250 0.7500 0.8750 1.0000 0 0.1250 0.2500 0.3750 0.5000 0.6250 0.7500
0.8750
K( H)
1.1376 0.8586 0.6015 0.3764 0.1838 0.0182 0.1288 0.2659 0.3999 0.6459 0.3515 0.1
444 0.0164 0.0529 0.0861 0.1021 0.113 1.0008 0.5323 0.1979 0.0140 0.0590 0.0687
0.0505 0.0239 0.0038 1.0003 0.4342 0.0901 0.0466 0.0671 0.0456 0.0197 0.0002
K( H)
1.1341 1.0828 0.9673 0.8333 0.7115 0.6192 0.5628 0.5389 0.5351 0.8919 0.6698 0.4
394 0.2528 0.1271 0.0584 0.0321 0.0282 1.0015 0.8247 0.5101 0.2403 0.0682 0.0176
0.0488 0.0552 0.0555 1.0003 0.7476 0.3628 0.1013 0.0157 0.0435 0.0369 0.0279
K(MH)
0 0.1848 0.262 0.2637 0.218 0.1491 0.0776 0.0222 0 0.2508 0.3184 0.285 0.2091 0.
1272 0.0594 0.0154 0 0 0.2907 0.3093 0.2226 0.1243 0.0529 0.0147 0.0014 0 0 0.31
31 0.2716 0.1461 0.0494 0.0026 0.0088 0.0044
K(VH)
1 0.5015 0.1377 0.1054 0.2442 0.2937 0.2654 0.1665 0 0.3829 0.0141 0.1664 0.222
0.2057 0.1519 0.0807 0 0.0000 0.2411 0.1108 0.2055 0.1758 0.1084 0.0475
0.0000 1.0000 0.1206 0.1817 0.1919 0.1133 0.0412 0.0008 0.0108
K( M)
1.0762 0.6579 0.2982 0.0376 0.1463 0.2767 0.3747 0.4572 0.5351 0.3854 0.0184 0.1
607 0.2162 0.2011 0.1524 0.0916 0.0282 0.0282 0.2409 0.1136 0.2118 0.1858 0.1200
0.0538 0.0033 0.0555 1.0003 0.1210 0.1818 0.1930 0.1163 0.0461 0.0055 0.0139
K( M)
1.0762 0.8314 0.6133 0.4366 0.3068 0.222 0.1757 0.1578 0.1551 0.6433 0.3493 0.14
29 0.0168 0.0489 0.0763 0.0839 0.0847 0.0847 0.5344 0.2010 0.0178 0.0558 0.0696
0.0616 0.0535 0.0517 1.0002 0.4343 0.0907 0.0455 0.0654 0.0444 0.0221 0.0110
K(MM)
1 0.9397 0.7959 0.6138 0.4262 0.2564 0.1208 0.0318 0 0.8913 0.6684 0.436 0.2458
0.1148 0.0396 0.0069 0 0.0000 0.8229 0.5082 0.2397 0.0720 0.0043 0.0206 0.0096 0
.0000 1.0000 0.7472 0.3620 0.1002 0.0161 0.0409 0.0276 0.0086
K(VM)
0 0.2214 0.3387 0.3788 0.3639 0.3101 0.2282 0.1241 0 0.2514 0.3202 0.2887 0.215
0.1353 0.0684 0.0225 0 0 0.2910 0.3090 0.2200 0.1176 0.0406 0.0025 0.0148 0 0 0.
3133 0.2720 0.1461 0.0482 0.0012 0.0159 0.0125
5.0
1.0000
0.0167
0.0259
0
0.0000
0.0259
0.0091
0.0000
0
8.3.1.2 FixedHeaded Piles D e to the elastic nat re of the sol tion, lateral de
formation of the fixedheaded piles can be handled by s perimposin the deformat
ions ca sed by: (1) the known deformin lateral force and the nknown restrainin
pile head moment, or (2) the known deformin moment and the nknown restrainin
pile head moment. Then, by settin the pile head rotation to zero (for fixed e
nd conditions), the nknown restrainin moment and hence the res ltant sol tion
can be determined. Example 8.2 The 300mm wide steel pile shown in Fi re 8.13 is
one member of a ro p held toether by a pile cap that exerts a lateral load of
8 kN on the iven pile and a certain manit de of a moment re
ired to restrain
the rotation at the top. It is iven that the coefficient of
Pae 342
FIGURE 8.12 Aid for sin Table 8.1 for moment.
Pae 343 horizontal s brade mod l s is 1000 kN/m3 and invariant with the depth.
Determine the lateral deflection and the restrainin moment at the top. Ass me
that the second moment of 6 area (I) of the steel section is 2.210 m 4 and the el
astic mod l s of steel to be 2.0 106kPa.
B t L=3.75 m, therefore, L=7 Then, determine the lateral displacement and the sl
ope due to a force 8 kN (Equation 8.21)
If the restraining moment needed at the top is M, then the lateral displacement
and the slope due to M are evaluated as follows (Equation 8.22):
For restrained rotation at the top, 0.056M+0.219=0; M= 3.93 kN m Then M=0.108m He
ne, the total lateral displaement is M + H=0.216 m.
8.3.2 Nonlinear Methods
Several nonlinear numerial methods have beome popular nowadays due to the avai
lability of superior omputational apabilities. Of them the most widely used on
es are the stiffness matrix method of analysis and the lateral foredefletion
(p y) approah. 8.3.2.1 Stiffness Matrix Analysis Method This method is also know
n as the finite element method due to the similarity in the basi formulation of
the onventional finite element method and the stiffness matrix analysis method
. First, the pile is disretized into a number of onedimensional (beam) element
s. Figure 8.14 shows a typial disretization of a pile in preparation for load
defletion analysis. The following notation applies to Figure 8.14: 1, 2,,N (in b
old)node number P i (i even)internal lateral fores on pile elements onentrated
(lumped) at the nodes
Page 344
FIGURE 8.14 Stiffness matrix method of analyzing laterally loaded piles.
P i (i odd)internal moments on pile elements onentrated (lumped) at the nodes X
i (i even)nodal defletion of eah pile element X i (i odd)nodal rotation of eah
pile element Kj lateral soil resistane represented by an equivalent spring stif
fness (kN/m) Based on slopedefletion relations in strutural analysis, the fol
lowing stiffness relation an be written for a free pile element (i.e., 1,2): (8
.23)
where EI is the stiffness of the pile and L is the length of eah pile element.
If the pile is assumed to be a beam on an elasti foundation, then the modulus o
f lateral subgrade reation kh at any depth an be related to the lateral pile d
efletion at that depth by the following expression: p=khy (8.24) Hene the spri
ng stiffness Kj an be expressed onveniently in terms of the modulus of lateral
subgrade reation kh as follows: For buried nodes:
Kj =LBk h (8.25)
Page 345 For surfae node: Kj =0.5LBk h (8.26) where B is the pile width (or the
diameter). 8.3.2.1.1 Estimation of the Modulus of Horizontal (Lateral) Subgrade
Reation kh Bowles (1996) suggests the use of the following relation to evaluat
e kh (at different nodes) orresponding to different depths. k h=A h+BhZn (8.27)
where A h and Bh are evaluated using the bearing apaity expressions as follow
s: Ah=Fw1 CmC(N +0.5 BN ) (8.28a) B h=F w2CmC N
(8.28b) where Z is the depth of
the eval ated location. The followin val es are s ested by Bowles (1996) for
the above constants: when sin nits of kN/m3, Cm=1.52.0, n=0.40.6, and F w1, Fw2
=1.0 for s
are and HP piles and in cohesive soils. Fw1 =1.31.7; Fw2 =2.0 4.4 for
ro nd piles. Th s, E
ations (8.25)(8.28) can be sed to eval ate kh and hence K
j at each relevant node. This is ill strated in the followin example. Example 8
.3 Eval ate the e
ivalent sprin stiffness at each node of the 300 mm300 mm s
a
re pile shown in Fi re 8.15. Ass me that the overb rden corrected averae SPT(N
) val e and the nit weiht of the sand layer is 15 and 16.5 kN/m3, respectively
. Sol tion For N=15, from E
ation (3.23), 34. Also from Table 3.1, N c=42, Nq=29
, and N =29. From E
ations (8.28) A h=F w1CmC(cNc +0.5 BN )=(1.0)(1.5)(40)(0.5)(16
.5)(0.3)(29)=4306.5 B h=F w2CmC N
=1.0(1.5)(40)(16.5)(29)=28,710 Applyin E
atio
n (8.27) kh=As+Bh Zn 4307+28710Z0.5 kN/m 3. Fi re 8.15 also shows the kh distrib
tion with the depth and the e
ivalent sprin stiffness correspondin to each n
ode. It m st be noted that E
ations (8.25) and (8.26) have been applied to dete
rmine the K val es. The element stiffness matrices iven by expressions s ch as
E
ation (8.23) can be assembled to prod ce the lobal stiffness matrix [K] sin
basic principles of str ct ral
analysis. D rin the assemblin process, the sprin stiffness Kj of each nderr
o nd node can be added to the correspondin diaonal element of [K] [P]=[K][X] (
8.29) Then, knowin the lobal force vector one can solve E
ation (8.29) to obt
ain the lobal deflection vector.
Pae 346
Example 8.4 The 300mm wide steel pile shown in Fi re 8.16 is one member of a r
o p held toether by a pile cap that exerts a lateral load of 8 kN on the iven
pile and a moment of certain manit de re
ired to restrain the rotation at the
top. It is iven that the coefficient of horizontal s brade mod l s is 1000 kN/
m3 and invariant with the depth. Determine the relevant force and deflection vec
tors ass min that the total n mber of nodes is 6. Also ill strate the sol tion
proced re to obtain the lateral deflection of the pile and the moment 6 re
ired
at the cap. Ass me that the second moment of area (I) of the steel section is 2
.210 m 4 and the elastic mod l s of steel is 2.0106 kPa. Sol tion The e
ivalent s
prin stiffness has been comp ted as in Example 8.3 and indicated in Fi re 8.16
. As shown in Fi re 8.16, the only external forces applied on the pile are the
ones applied by the pile cap and the soil reactions at the bottom that ass re fi
xity. It is also noted that the sprin associated with the bottommost node has
been added to the nknown force P 12. Hence, the external force vector is iven
by the followin e
ation: [P] =[ M1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M11 P12]T (8.30) On the o
ther hand, the deflection vector is iven by the followin e
ation [X] =[0 A 2 2
3 3 4 4 5 5 0 0] (8.31)
in whih it is assumed that the rotation at the top is restrained due to the pil
e ap (i.e., X 1 = 1=0) and the translation as well as the rotation at the bottom
are retrained by the ro nd fixity (i.e., X12 = . 6=0 and X11= 0 6=0 ). The requ
ired lateral defletion is
Page 347
The stiffness matries for the first four elements and the fifth element are exp
ressed by the following matries:
Hene, the assembled and modified (for springs) global stiffness matrix would be
(8.32)
If [K] in Equation (8.32) is rearranged and partitioned so that [P] 1=[K]11[X] 1
+[K]12[X] 2 (8.33a)
Page 348 and [P] 2=[K]21[X] 1+[K]22[X] 2 (8.33b) where [P] 1= [M1 M11 P 12] (8.3
4a) [P] 2=[8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0] T (8.34b)
(8.34) [X] 2=[ 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5] (8.34d) and [K] 11, [K]12, [K21] , and [K]22 are t
rresponding 33, 39, 93, and 99 par of [K] as illustrated below: (8.35)
From Equation (8.33b) [X] 2 an be expressed as (8.36) Substituting the above re
sult and Equation (8.34) in Equation (8.33a), (8.37)
Hene, the unknown external fores an be determined from Equation (8.37). Aor
dingly, from Equation (8.36), =0.304 m and M1=16 kN m. Then, by substitution in
Equation (8.36) the unknown defletions [X] 2 an be determined. Finally, the mo
ments and the shear fores along the pile length an be determined by substituti
ng the nodal defletions in the individual element equations suh as Equation (8
.23). 8.3.2.2 Lateral PressureDefletion (py) Method of Analysis The following
form of Equation (8.18) is employed in the py urve approah (Figure 8.17) dev
eloped by Reese (1977): (8.38) where p =soil reation per unit pile length.
Page 349
FIGURE 8.17 Set of p y urves. (Reese, L.C., 1977, J. Geoteh. Eng., ASCE, 103(GT
4):283305. With permission.)
It is observed that the differene between Equations (8.38) and (8.19) is that E
quation (8.38) aounts for the shear and moment effets indued by the axial fo
re P (z) due to the finite urvature of the pile produed by lateral loading (F
igure 8.18). Hene, the shear fore and the distributed soil reation on the pil
e at any depth an be expressed as (8.39)
(8.40) The finite differene (FD) form of the above equation is given as (Reese,
1977): (8.41) where R m=EmIm (8.42) is the stiffness of the mth mode, y m is th
e lateral defletion at the mth node, h is the finite differene step size (noda
l distane along the pile), Pz is the axial fore at the mth node (depth
z). The parameter km defined in Equation (8.43) an be evaluated for eah node m
by prediting the p y urve orresponding to the depth, of that node, z.
Page 350
FIGURE 8.18 Representation of the defleted pile. (From Reese, L.C., 1977, J. Ge
oteh. Eng., ASCE , 103(GT4):283305. With permission.)
p =kmy (8.43) Finally, using the following boundary onditions: 1. shear and mo
ment are zero at the bottom of the pile, 2. lateral load and the moment (or the
slope or the rotational restraint) at the pile top are known, the FD algorithm i
n Equation (8.41) an be solved and the lateral defletion, pile rotation, and m
oment and shear along the pile an be numerially determined at any loation. A
ording to Reese (1977), the p y methodology implies that the behavior of the soi
l at any depth is independent of its behavior at other loations, whih is stri
tly not true. However, experiments seem to indiate that the above impliation i
s justified under pratial irumstanes. 8.3.2.3 Synthesis of p y Curves Based
on Pile Instrumentation Strain gauge readings obtained along the length of a lat
erally tested pile an be employed to develop the lateral load transfer urves (
p y urves) at a finite number of points along the pile (Hameed, 1998). The valu
es of p (horizontally distributed load intensity) and y (lateral defletion) at
any pile loation at a given lateral loading stage an be determined using the f
ollowing analytial proedure. From the simple beam theory,
(8.44)
Page 351 where y is the lateral defletion, z is the vertial oordinate along t
he pile, h is the distane from the neutral axis of the pile rosssetion to th
e strain gauge loation, and is th strain gaug rading at z. Hnc, th latra
l dflction (y) can b xprssd as (8.45) Similarly, by using E
uations (8.19)
and (8.44), th distributd soil load (p) can b xprssd as (8.46) Thrfor,
it can b sn that both p and y valus can b found from a mathmatically appr
oximatd (fittd) curv to masurd flxural strains. This is usually achivd
ithr by fitting a cubic splin function btwn succssiv strain data points (
Li and Byrn, 1992) or by fitting a highr-ordr polynomial to all of th strain
data points (Ting, 1987). Th fitting procdur can b illustratd as follows.
Exampl 8.5 For th modl pil shown in Figur 8.19, assuming that th masurd
longitudinal strains ar givn by Figur 8.20, illustrat th fitting procdur
that can b usd to gnrat th py curves at specific depths. Solution The dista
nce z is measured from the pile tip which is located 1.0m below the ground surfa
ce. In order to closely trace all of the strain data, the following polynomial w
ith five coefficients (ai ) can be considered: y =a1z6+a2z7+a3Z8+a4Z9 +a5Z10 (8.
47)
age 352
FIGURE 8.20 The measured strains in Example 8.5 and the polynomial fit. (From Ha
meed, R.A., 1998, lateral Load Behavior of Jetted and reformed iles, h.D. dis
sertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. With permission.)
It can be seen that the terms up to z5 have been discarded from Equation (8.47)
since the pile deflection and all of its derivatives up to the fifth derivative
are generally considered zero at the pile tip ( z=0) (Ting, 1987). This is becau
se the deflection, slope, moment, shear, and the lateral pressure due to the app
lied lateral load are negligible at the pile tip. Thus, by combining Equations (
8.44) and (8.47), the strain at any location within the embedded part of the pil
e can be expressed by the following function with five unknown coefficients ai,
i= 15: (8.48) Then four pairs of strain gauge readings and the known soil pressur
e (p=0) at the soil surface (z=z 0=1.0 m) can be used to determine the unknown a
i (i=15). Furthermore, a thirddegree polynomial was employed for approximating t
he deflection (y) of the free portion of the pile (above the ground level). This
ensures that the p=0 condition is satisfied all over the free portion since the
fourth derivative of this polynomial ( p in Equation 8.18) automatically drops
out. Consequently, the deflection above the soil surface can be given by the fol
lowing function with four unknown coefficients bi , i= 03: y =b0+b1(z z0)+b2(z z0
)2+b3(z z0 )3 (8.49) Three of the above constants (bi, i=03) were determined by
matching the deflection, slope and moment of the free pile portion with the corr
esponding values of the embedded portion as determined by Equations (8.47) and (
8.48), at the soil surface (z =z0). The fourth bi constant can be determined by
setting the moment at the lateral loading level to zero. The distributions of de
flections and soil pressure computed using the above methodology are illustrated
in Figure 8.21 and Figure 8.22, respectively. In this case, the model pile is
assumed to be embedded in an unsaturated soil bed of unit weight 16.2 kN/m3. Fig
ure 8.23 shows the analytical predictions of the lateral load behavior of the pi
les at specified depth.
age 353
FIGURE 8.21 Computed lateral displacement vs. depth. (From Hameed, R.A., 1998, L
ateral Load Behavior of Jetted and reformed iles, h.D. dissertation, Universi
ty of South Florida, Tampa, FL. With permission.)
FIGURE 8.22 Computed soil pressure vs. depth. (From Hameed, R.A., 1998, Lateral
Load Behavior of Jetted and reformed iles, h.D. dissertation, University of S
outh Florida, Tampa, FL. With permission.)
FIGURE 8.23
Analytically predicted loaddisplacement behavior. (From Hameed, R.A., 1998, Lat

eral Load Behavior of Jetted and reformed iles, h.D. dissertation, University
of South Florida, Tampa, FL With permission.)
age 354 In order to eliminate the depth dependency, p y curves can be normalized
using a soil parameter which depicts the mean normal stress level. p/EsB is a s
uitable normalized parameter for this purpose since Emax (elastic modulus at ver
y low strains) used to compute p/EsB shows a strong mean normal stress dependenc
e(Li and Byrne, 1992). Hameed et al. (2000) determined E max from the measured c
oefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction, Kmax, using the following expression
s (Glick, 1948; Bowles, 1996): (8.50)
(8.51) where K s and E s have the same units (ka) and K s is the horizontal s
ubgrade modulus, Lp is the pile length, B is the pile width, and s, is Poissons
atio. Kmax at each depth can be obtained fom the initial stiffness of the expe
imentally detemined p y curves (Figure 8.23) (Hameed, 1998). Similarly, the ulti
mate soil pressures (pu) can be obtained from p y curves at each depth by fitting
the experimentally developed p y curve with a hyperbolic function of the form p=
y/(a+by) (Kondner, 1963; Georgiadis et al., 1991). The pu value for each fitted
curve is expressed by the curve parameter, 1/b, since pu=1/b when y . The variati
ons of Kmax and pu with depth are shown in Figure 8.24 and Figure 8.25, respecti
vely. Based on the foregoing discussion p y curve can be expressed as (Hameed, 19
98): (8.52) On the other hand, two other popular mathematical formats for p y cur
ves have been provided by Reese et al. (1974) and Murchison and ONeill (1984). Th
ese are illustrated in Figure 8.26 and Figure 8.27, respectively.
FIGURE 8.24 Variation of K max with depth. (From Hameed, R.A., Gunaratne, M, ut
cha, S., Kuo, C, and Johnson, S., 2000, ASTM Geotech. Testing J., 23(3). With pe
rmission.)
age 355
FIGURE 8.25 Variation of p u with the depth. (From Hameed, R.A., Gunaratne, M.,
utcha, S., Kuo, C., and Johnson, S., 2000, ASTM Geotech. Testing J., 23(3). Wit
h permission.)
8.4 Lateral Load Capacity of ile Groups
In most actual foundation applications, since piles installed as a cluster invok
e group action, it is important for the foundation designer to be knowledgeable
of the response of a group of piles to lateral loads. Ruesta and Townsend (1997)
performed a field test involving an isolated single pile and a largescale test
group of 16 prestressed concrete piles spaced three (3) diameters apart to stud
y how the lateral load characteristics of pile groups relate to those of individ
ual piles in the group. Of the many in situ testing methods used to predict the
p y curves, ST and pressuremeter test predictions were corroborated by the strai
n gage and inclinometer readings. Ruesta and Townsend (1997) concluded that an o
verall average p multiplier of 0.55 was needed for the individual p y curves to p
redict the overall lateral response of the pile group.
FIGURE 8.26 Analytically predicted loaddisplacement behavior. (From Reese, L.C.
, Cox, W.R., and Koop, F.D., 1974, Analysis of laterally loaded piles in sand,
roceedings of the 6th Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, paper OTC 208
0, pp. 473483. With permission.)
age 356
FIGURE 8.27 Analytically predicted loaddisplacement behavior. (From Murchison,
J.M. and ONeill, M.W., 1984, Evaluation of py relationship in cohesionless soils,
in Analysis and Design of ile Foundation, ASCE, New York, pp. 174191. With permi
ssion.)
8.5 Load and Resistance Factor Design for Laterally Loaded iles
Based on FHWA (1998) recommendations, design of laterally loaded piles involves
determining the maximum lateral ground line deflections at the service limit stat
e and the maximum moment at the strength limit state for an individual pile conside
ring the installation method for the selected pile section and comparing it with
the tolerable deformation and the maximum factored axial resistance of the pile
, respectively, in order not to exceed both limits. FHWA (1998) recommends that
the allowable stress design (ASD) methods used to estimate the lateral resistanc
e of a single pile or pile group can also be used for load and resistance factor
design (LFRD) with the pile or the pile group subjected to the factored lateral
loads, axial loads and moments, and the resulting factored axial and bending st
resses are compared with the factored axial and bending capacities of the pile.
8.6 Effect of ile Jetting on the Lateral Load Capacity
Water jetting can be utilized as an effective aid to impact pile driving when ha
rd strata are encountered above the designated pile tip elevation. During jettin
g, the immediate neighborhood of the pile is first liquefied due to high pore pr
essure induced by the water jet and subsequently densified with its dissipation.
In addition, the percolating water also creates a filtration zone further away
from the pile. Hence, jetting invariably causes substantial disturbance to the s
urrounding soil, which results in a notable change in the lateral load behavior.
Tsinker (1988) and Hameed et al. (2000) investigated the lateral load performan
ce of driven and jetteddriven model piles installed under the same in situ soil
conditions, by comparing the normalized p y curves of driven piles to those of j
etteddriven piles (Figure 8.28). They also explored the effect of jet water pre
ssure, soil unit weight, and groundwater conditions on the p y characteristics. B
ased on the above study, Hameed et al. (2000) developed approximate guidelines f
or predicting the lateral load behavior of jetted piles based on that of piles i
mpact driven under similar soil conditions.
age 357
FIGURE 8.28 Comparison of py curves of driven (UD1) and jetted (UJ2 ) piles. Hame
ed, R.A., 1998, Lateral Load Behavior of Jetted and reformed iles, h.D. disse
rtation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. With permission.)
In the Hameed et al. (2000) study, Kmax ratios (Kjet/Kdriven ) and pu ratios (pu
,jet/u,driven ) obtained from the model testing program were plotted against th
e nondimensional jetting pressure 2 ( ) (k=ermeability coefficient of the founda
tion soil) and are shown in Figure 8.29 3=P0/k and Fi re 8.30, respectively. Ea
ch data point represents the mean of five ratio val es. The Kratio and p ratio
can be related to nondimensional jettin press re by E
ations (8.53a) and (8.53
b). The fo ndation soil was a sand contaminated by bentonite clay.
FIGURE 8.29 Effect of pile jettin on K max. (From Hameed, R.A., G naratne, M.,
P tcha, S., K o, C, and Johnson, S., 2000, ASTM Geotech. Testin J., 23(3). With
permission.)
Pae 358
FIGURE 8.30 Effect of pile jettin on p . (From Hameed, R.A., G naratne, M., P
tcha, S., K o, C., and Johnson, S., 2000, ASTM Geotech. Testin J., 23(3). With
permission.)
(8.53a)
(8.53b) where, 1, 2, 1, and 2 are soil type dependent parameters which can e de
termined y the respective intercepts and slopes. Equations (8.53) and (8.54) pr
oduce on a log-log scale. The fitted values are shown in Tale 8.2(a) and ().
TABLE. 8.2 Parameters for Equations (8.53a) and (8.53)
Constant
(a) Equation (8.53a) 1 1 () Equation (8.53) 2 2
=16.2 kN/m3 Unsat rated
Sat rated
=14.8 kN/m3 Unsat rated
Sat rated
165.32 0.323
748.82 0.323
110.8 0.323
237.42 0.323
3509.67 0.4
797.02 0.4
Pae 359 The val es for 1 and 2 seem to e independent of the unit weight of the
foundation medium and the groundwater condition. On the other hand, the values
of 1 nd 2 seem to increse with the foundtion medium unit weight. Hence, one c
n ssume the vrition of 1 nd to be liner proportionl to the unit weight of
the foundtion medium. 2 Exmple 8.6 If field py curve of driven pile in
clyey snd similr to the soil tested by Hmeed et l. (2000) is vilble bs
ed on either (1) experimentl dt, (2) Reese et l. (1974) method (Figure 8.25)
, or (3) Murchison nd ONeills (1984) method (Figure 8.26), nd if one neglects th
e possible errors due to scle effects, then one cn generte the py chrcteri
stics for pile to be jetted in the sme soil type using the following procedur
e. Solution In order to illustrte this, ssume tht py curve bsed on Murchi
son nd ONeills (1984) 3 method is vilble for driven pile in clyey snd si
te (with k=1.59210 cm/sec nd 3 d=15.76 kN/m above the ro ndwater table) and that
the relevant M rchison and ONeill parameters at a 3D depth are Ad=1, p ,d=900.00
kPa, and K max,d=30000.00 kN/m3 (Fi re 8.27). The s bscript d indicates a driven
pile. Usin these val es, the correspondin py c rve can be plotted in Fi re
8.30. Also ass me that one is interested in synthesizin a py c rve at a depth
of 3 D for a field jettin press re of 861.88kPa (125 psi). The e
ivalent nondi
mensional jettin press res correspondin to the above soil properties m st be d
etermined by the nondimensional jettin press re, (P 0/k2 ) (Table 8.3). The cons
tants 1, 2, 1, and 2 can e otained y linear interpolation ased on the values
given in Tale 8.2(a) and (). Tale 8.3 shows the interpolated values for a 15
.76 kN/m 3 unit weight. It has een assumed that the range of values shown in Ta
le 8.2 is generally valid for any comination of unit weight and permeaility f
or soils similar to the one tested y Hameed et al. (2000). Using Equations (8.5
3a) and (8.53), and Tale 8.3, the K-ratio and pu-ratio can e determined as 0.
14 and 0.43, respectively. Thus, the corresponding p-y parameters at a 3D depth,
for the pile to e jetted at 861.88 kPa are, A j=1.0, Kmax,j=4200.00 kN/m3 , an
d pu,j =387 kPa. The corresponding p-y curve is also plotted in Figure 8.31. Thi
s example shows how one can use Equation (8.53) to generate p-y curves for a pil
e to e jetted at any desired pressure in the field. It must e noted that the s
ame procedure can e extended to p-y curves for driven piles also availale in t
erms of the Reese et al. (1974) method or experimental data.
TABLE 8.3 Interpolated Parameters for Use in Equations (8.53a) and (8.53)
Unit weight (kN/m 3)
15.76
P0 /k2
2.1110
9
1
147.90
2
2322.96
1
0.323
2
0.4
age 360
FIGURE 8.31 Synthesized py curve for the jetted pile. (From Hameed, R.A., Gunarat
ne, M., utcha, S., Kuo, C, and Johnson, S., 2000, ASTM Geotech. Testing J., 23(
3). With permission.)
8.7 Effect of reaugering on the Lateral Load Capacity
Hameed et al. (1998) developed similar relationships between the py curve paramet
ers of preaugered piles and driven piles as shown in the following equations (8.
54a)
(8.54b) where 3, 4, 3, and 4 are soil type dependent constants, which can e eva
luated from Tale 8.4.
TABLE. 8.4 Parameters for Equations (8.54a and 8.54)
=16.2 kN/m3 Constant

(a) E
ation (8.54a) 3 3 () Equation (8.54) 4 4 0.64 0.68 0.39 0.68 0.14 1.17
0.69 1.17
=14.8 kN/m 3 Unsat rated
0.38 1.17
Unsat rated
Sat rated
Sat rated
0.69 1.17
Pae 361
References
Bowles, J.E., 1996, Fo ndation Analysis and Desin, 5th edn, McGrawHill, New Yo
rk. Broms, B., 1964a, Lateral resistance of pile in cohesive soil, Jo rnal of So
il Mechanics Fo ndation Division, ASCE, 90(SM3):2756. Broms, B., 1964b, Lateral r
esistance of pile in cohesionless soil, Jo rnal of Soil Mechanics Fo ndation Div
ision, ASCE, 90(SM3): 123156. Federal Hihway Administration, 1998, Load and Resi
stance Factor Desin (LRFD) fo r Hihw ay Bri S bstr ct res, Federal Hihway Adm
inistration, Washinton, DC. Georiadis, S.M., Ananostopo los, C., and Safleko
, S., 1991, Centrif al testin of laterally loaded piles in sand, Canadian Geot
echnical Jo rnal, 27:208216. Glick, F.H., 1948, Infl ence of soft ro nd in the d
esin of lon piles, 2nd ICSMFE, Vol. 4, pp. 8488. Hameed, R.A., 1998, Lateral Lo
ad Behavior of Jetted and Preformed Piles, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of So
th Florida, USA. Hameed, R.A., G naratne, M., P tcha, S., K o, C., and Johnson,
S., 2000, Laterally loaded behavior of jetted piles, ASTM Geotechnical Testin J
o rnal, 23(3), 358368. Kondner, R.L., 1963, Hyperbolic stressstrain response: co
hesive soils, Jo rnal of Soil Mechanics Fo ndation Division, ASCE, 89(1):115143.
Li, . and Byrne, P.M., 1992, Lateral pile response to monotonic pile head loadin
, Canadian Geotechnical Jo rnal, 29:955970. M rchison, J.M. and ONeill, M.W., 198
4, Eval ation of py relationship in cohesionless soils, In Analysis and Desin
of Pile Fo ndation, ASCE, New York, pp. 174191. Pyke, R. and Beikae, M., 1984, A
new sol tion for the resistance of sinle piles to lateral loadin, Laterally Lo
aded Deep Fo ndation: Analysis and Performance, ASTM STP 835, pp. 320. Reese, L.C
., 1977, Laterally loaded piles: proram doc mentation, Jo rnal of Geotechnical
Enineerin, ASCE, 103(GT4):283305. Reese, L.C, Cox, W.R., and Koop, F.D., 1974,
Analysis of laterally loaded piles in sand, Proceedins of the 6th Offshore Tech
noloy Conference, Ho ston, TX, paper OTC 2080, pp. 473 483 Robertson, P.K. and
Campanella, R., 1983, Interpretation of cone penetration tests, Part I. Sand, Ca
nadian Geotechnical Jo rnal, 20(4):718733. R esta, P.F. and Townsend, F.C., 1997,
Eval ation of laterally loaded pile ro p at Roosevelt bride, Jo rnal of Geote
chnical and Geoenvironmental Enineerin, ASCE, 123(12):1 1531161. Tin, J.M., 19
87, F llscale dynamic lateral pile response, Jo rnal of Geotechnical Enineerin
, ASCE, 113(1):30 45. Tsinker, G.P., 1988, Pile jettin, Jo rnal of Geotechnica
l Enineerin, ASCE, 114(3):326334. Hetenyi, M., 1946, Beams on Elastic Fo ndatio
ns, University of Michian Press, Ann Arbor, Michian.
Pae 362
Pae 363
9 Constr ction Monitorin and Testin Methods of Driven Piles
Manjriker G naratne CONTENTS 9.1 Introd ction 9.2 Constr ction Techni
es Used i
n Pile Installation 9.2.1 Drivin 9.2.2 In Sit Castin 9.2.3 Jettin and Prea
erin 9.3 Verification of Pile Capacity 9.3.1 Use of PileDrivin E
ations 9.3.
2 Use of the Wave E
ation 9.4 PileDrivin Analyzer 9.4.1 Basic Concepts of Wav
e Mechanics 9.4.2 Interpretation of PileDrivin Analyzer Records 9.4.3 Analytic
al Determination of the Pile Capacity 9.4.4 Assessment of Pile Damae 364 365 36
5 367 367 367 367 368 372 374 375 378 380
9.5 Comparison of PileDrivin Form lae and WaveE
ation Analysis Usin the 384
PDA Method 9.6 Static Pile Load Tests 9.6.1 Advantaes of Load Tests 9.6.2 Limi
tations of Load Tests 9.6.3 Kentlede Load Test 9.6.4 Anchored Load Tests 9.7 Lo
ad Testin Usin the Osterber Cell 9.7.1 Bidirectional Static Load Test 9.8 Rap
id Load Test (Statnamic Pile Load Test) 9.8.1 Advantaes of Statnamic Test 9.8.2
Limitations of Statnamic Test 386 392 392 392 393 394 394 400 400 400
9.8.3 Proced re for Analysis of Statnamic Test Res lts 9.8.3.1 Unloadin Point M
ethod 9.8.3.2 Modified Unloadin Point Method 9.8.3.3 Semental Unloadin Point
Method 9.8.3.4 Calc lation of Semental Motion Parameters 9.8.3.5 Semental Stat
namic and Derived Static Forces 9.9 Lateral Load Testin of Piles 9.10 Finite El
ement Modelin of Pile Load Tests 9.11 Q ality Ass rance Test Methods 9.11.1 Pil
e Interity Tester 9.11.1.1 Limitations of PIT
401 402 405 405 406 407 408 411 413 413 414
Pae 364 9.11.2 Shaft Interity Test 9.11.3 Shaft Inspection Device 9.11.4 Cross
hole Sonic Loin 9.11.5 Postro t Test 9.11.6 Imp lse Response Method 9.12 Met
hods of Repairin Pile Fo ndations 9.12.1 Pile Jacket Repairs 9.13 Use of Piles
in Fo ndation Stabilization 9.13.1 Underpinnin of Fo ndations 9.13.2 Shorin of
Fo ndations References 414 416 417 417 418 420 420 422 422 423 424
9.1 Introd ction
Dependin on the stiffness of s bs rface soil and ro ndwater conditions, pile f
o ndations can be constr cted sin a variety of constr ction techni
es. The mo
st common techni
es are (1) drivin (Fi re 9.1), (2) in sit castin and prea
erin (Fi re 9.2), and (3) jettin (Fi re 9.3). D e to the extensive nat re o
f the s bs rface mass that it infl
FIGURE 9.1 Driven piles. (From www.v lcanhamrner.corn. Withpermission.)
Pae 365
FIGURE 9.2 Castin sit pilin. (From www.donalcom. With permission.)
ences, the deree of ncertainty reardin the act al workin capacity of a pile
fo ndation is enerally m ch hiher than that of a shallow footin. Hence, eot
echnical enineers constantly seek more and more effective techni
es of monitor
in pile constr ction to estimate as acc rately as possible the ltimate field c
apacity of piles. In addition, pile constr ction enineers and contractors are a
lso interested in innovative monitorin methods that wo ld reveal information le
adin to (1) onsite determination of pile capacity as drivin proceeds, (2) dis
trib tion of pile load between the shaft and the tip, (3) detection of possible
pile or drivin e
ipment damae, and (4) selection of effective drivin techni
es and e
ipment.
9.2 Constr ction Techni
es Used in Pile Installation
9.2.1 Drivin
The most common techni
e for installation of piles is drivin them into stron
bearin layers with an appropriate hammer (s ch as V lcan, Raymond) system. In o
rder for this techni
e to be effective, the hammer and the pile m st be able to
withstand the drivin stresses. Altho h drivin can be monitored sin the spe
cified penetration criteria (Section 9.3.1) to ass re safe conditions, nowadays
the techni
e of pile drivin is commonly accompanied by the piledrivin analysi
s method of monitorin (Section 9.4). Specific details of hammers and hammer rat
in is fo nd in Bowles (1995).
Pae 366
FIGURE 9.3 (a) Jetted piles.(From www.state.dot.nc. s.Withpermission.) (b) Prea
ared concrete pile. (From www.ice sa.com. With permission.)
Pae 367
9.2.2 In Sit Castin
When the s bs rface soil layers are relatively stron, it is common to install s
inificantly larediameter piles and sin borin techni
es. For caissons, thi
s is the only viable installation method (Chapter 7). Dependin on the collapsib
ility of the soils and availability of casins, in sit castin can be performed
with or witho t casins. In cases where casin is desired, drillin m d (s ch a
s bentonite) is an economic alternative. More constr ction details of castin si
t piles are fo nd in Bowles
9.2.3 Jettin and Prea erin
Altho h driven piles are installed in the ro nd mostly by impact drivin, jett
in or prea erin can be sed as aids when hard soil strata are enco ntered abo
ve the estimated tip elevation re
ired to obtain ade
ate bearin. However, the
final set is s ally achieved by impact drivin the last few meters, an exercis
e that somewhat restores the possible loss of axial load bearin capacity d e to
jettin or prea erin. Nonetheless, it has been reported (Tsinker, 1988) that
impactdriven piles have better load bearin characteristics than jetteddriven p
iles nder comparable soil conditions. This is possible d e to the soil in the i
mmediate neihborhood first li
efyin as a res lt of the excessive jet water ve
locity and s bse
ently remoldin with the dissipation of excess pore press re.
The oriinal in sit soil str ct re and the skinfriction characteristics are si
nificantly altered. D rin the jettin process, some water also infiltrates ont
o the neihborhood maintainin a hih pore press re there. Th s, the creation of
li
efaction and filtration zones, known as the zone of combined infl ence of j
ettin, is expected to res lt in a red ction of the lateral load capacity. Conse
ently, altho h pile jettin may be effective as a penetration aid to impact d

rivin in savin time and enery, the accompanyin red ction in the lateral load
capacity will be a sinificant limitation of the techni
e. Similar inferences
can be made reardin prea erin as well.
9.3 Verification of Pile Capacity
There are several methods available to determine the static capacity of piles. T
he commonly sed methods are (1) se of piledrivin form lae, (2) analysis sin
the wave e
ation, and (3) f llscale load tests. A brief description of the f
irst two methods will be provided in the next two s bsections.
9.3.1 Use of PileDrivin E
ations
In the case of driven piles, one of the very early methods available to determin
e the load capacity was the se of piledrivin e
ations. Hiley, D tch, Danish,
Janb , Gates, and modified Gates are some of piledrivin form lae available fo
r se. For more information on these, the reader is referred to Bowles (1995) an
d Das (2002). Of these e
ations, one of the form lae most pop lar ones is the e
nineerin news record (ENR) e
ation, that expresses the pile capacity as follo
ws: (9.1)
Pae 368 where n is the coefficient of restit tion between the hammer and the pi
le (<0.5 and >0.25), Wh is the weiht of the hammer, WP is the weiht of the pil
e, s is the pile set per blow (in inches), C is a constant (0.1 in.), Eh=Wh(h),
h is the hammer fall, and e h is the hammer efficiency ( s ally estimated by mon
itorin the free fall). It is seen how one can se E
ation (9.1) to comp te the
instant capacity developed at any iven stae of drivin by knowin the pile se
t (s), which is s ally comp ted by the reciprocal of the n mber of blows per in
ch of drivin. It m st be noted that when drivin has reached a stae where more
than ten blows are needed for penetration of 1 in. (s=0.1 or at ref sal), f rther
drivin is not recommended to avoid damae to the pile and the e
ipment. Examp
le 9.1 (This example is solved in British nits. Hence, please refer to Table 7.
9 for appropriate conversion to SI nits.) Develop a pile capacity vers s set cr
iterion for drivin a 30 ft concrete pile of 10 in. diameter sin a hammer with
a stroke of 1 ft and a ram weihin 30 kips (kilopo nds). The weiht of the con
crete pile= (10/12)2(30)(150)(0.001) kis=2.45 kis Assume the following aramete
rs: n=0.3 Hammer efficiency=50% Substituting in Equation (9.1),
9.3.2 Use of the Wave Equation
With the advent of modern comuters, the use of the waveequation method for il
e analysis, introduced by Smith (1960), became oular. Smiths idealization of a
driven ile is elaborated in Figure 9.4. The governing equation for wave roaga
tion can be written as follows: (9.2) where is the mass density of the pile, E i
s the elastic mod l s A P is the aea of coss section of the pile, is the pa
ticle displacement, t is the time, z is the coodinate axis along the pile and R
(z) is the esistance offeed by any pile slice, dz. The above eq ation can be t
ansfomed into the finite-diffeence fom to expess the displacement (D), the
foce (F), and the velocity ( ), espectively, of a pile element i at time t as f
ollows: D(i, t) =D(i, t t )+V (i, t t) (9.3)
F(i,t)=[D(i, t) D(i+ 1, t)]K (9.4) V(i, t)=V(i, t t )+[ tg/w(i)] [F (i 1, t) F (i, t)

R(i, t)] (9.5)
Page 369
FIGURE 9.4 Appliation of the wave equation.
where K=EAp/ z W=p zAp t=seleted time interval at whih omputations are made as
the solution progresses with time. z=seleted pile segment size at whih omputa
tion is performed along the pile length. Idealization of soil resistane. In Smi
ths (1960) model, the point resistane and the skin frition of the pile are assu
med to be visoelasti and perfetly plasti in nature. Therefore, the separate
resistane omponents an be expressed by the following equations: P P=PP D(1+JV
P) (9.6) and P s=P sD(1+J V P) (9.7) where PpD and PsD are stati resistanes
at a displaement of D, VP is the veloity of the pile, and J and J are damping
fators orresponding to the pile tip and the shaft. The assumed elasti, perfe
tly plasti harateristis of P pD and PsD are illustrated in Figure 9.5.
Page 370
FIGURE 9.5 Assumed visoelasti perfetly plasti behavior of soil resistane.
In implementing this method, the user must assume a magnitude for the total resi
stane (Pu), a suitable distribution (or ratio) of the resistane between the sk
in frition and point resistane (P pD and PsD), the quake (Q in Figure 9.5), an
d damping fators J and J . Then, by using Equations (9.3)(9.5), the pile set (s
) an be determined. By repeating this proedure for other trial values of P u,
a useful urve between Pu and s (suh as in Example 9.1), whih an be eventuall
y used to determine the resistane at any given set s, an be obtained. The abov
e system of equations ((9.3)(9.5)) an be easily solved using a simple worksheet
program, and the total stati resistane to the pile movement during driving an
be obtained. There are many ommerially available waveequation programs, suh
as GRLWEAP (Goble and Raushe, 1986), TTI and TNOWAVE, that are available for th
is purpose. However, the reliability of the above method depends on the estimati
on of soil damping onstant along the pile shaft (J ), soil damping onstant at
the pile toe (J), soil quake along the pile shaft (Qs ), soil quake at the pile
toe (Q p), and the proportion of the fore taken by pile toe ( ). Smit (1960) su
ggested tat 2.5mm (or 0.1 in.) is a reasonable assumption for te skin quake (Q
s) and later it was suggested to take tat te end quake at te pile bottom (Q
p) as B/120 were B is te pile diameter. Table 9.1 sows te range of te skin
damping constants used for different soil types. Eample 9.2 (Tis eample is so
lved in te Britis system of units. Hence, please refer to Table 7.9 for approp
riate conversion to SI units.) For simplicity, assume tat a model pile is drive
n into te ground using a 1000 Ib ammer dropping 1 ft, as sown in Figure 9.6.
Assuming te following data, predict te velocity and te displacement of te pi
le tip after tree time steps: J =0.0 sec/ft, J =0.0 sec/ft Q=0.1 in. =1/4000 se
R pu=Rsu=50 kips ( =0.5) 6 K=210 lb/in.
TABLE 9.1 Some Typical Damping Constants
Soil Type
Gravel Sand Silt Clay 0.30.4 0.40.5 0.50.7 0.71.0
Damping Factor
Page 371
As sown in Figure 9.6, assume te pile consists of two segments (i =2 and 3) an
d te time step to be 1/4000 sec. Ten te following initial and boundary condit
ions can be written:
After te first time step. From Equation (9.3), D(1, 1)=D(1, 0)+V(1, 0) t=1+96.6(
1/4000)=0.024 in. D(2,1)=D(3, 1)=0 From Equation (9.4), F (1, 1)=[0(1, 1) D(2, 1)
]k=(0.024 0)(2)(106) 48103 lb/in. F (2, 1)=F (3, 1)=0 From Equation (9.5), V (1, 1)
V (1, 0) + (1/4000)(388.8)(0 48,000)/1000=91.93 in./se V (2, 1)=0+(1/4000)(388.8
)[48.000 0 R (2, 1)]/400=11.664 in./se V (3, 1)=0.0
Page 372 After the seond time step. By repeating the above proedure, one obtai
ns the following results: D(1, 2) D(1, 1)+V(1, 1) t =0.024+91.93(1/4000)=0.047 in.
D(2, 2)=D(2, 1)+V(2, 1) t =0+11.664(1/400)=0.0029 in. D(3, 2)=0 F (1, 2)=[D(1, 2
) D(2, 2)](2)(106)=88,200 lb/in. F (2, 2)=[D(2, 2) D(3, 2)](2)(106)=5900 lb/in. F
(3, 2)=[D(3, 2) D(4, 2)](2)(106)=0 5 V (1, 2)=V (1, 1)+9.72(10 )[F(0, 2) F(1, 2)] 5
= 91.93+9.72(10 )(0 88,200)=83.35 in./se 5 V (2, 2)=V (2, 1)+24.3(10 )(88,200 590
0 1.450)=31.3in./se 5 V (3, 2)=0+9.72(10 )(5900 0 0)=0.56in./se After the third ti
me step. Again by repeating above steps, one obtains the following results: D(1,
3)=D(1, 2)+V(1, 2) t =0.047+83.35(1/4000)=0.0678 in. D(2, 3)=D(2, 2)+V(2, 2) t =0
.0029+31.3(1/400)=0.0078 in. D(3, 3)=0+0.56(1/4000) 0.00014 in. F (1, 3)=[D(1, 3)
D(2, 3)](2)(106)=120,000 lb/in. F (2, 3)=[D(2, 3) D(3, 3)](2)(106)=15,320 lb/in.
F (3, 3)=[D(3, 3) D(4, 3)](2)(106)=280 lb/in. 5 V (1, 3)=V (1, 2)+9.72(10 )[F(0, 3
) F(1, 3) R(1, 3)]=71.69 in./se 5 V (2, 3)=V (2, 2)+24.3(10 )(120,000 15,320 3.900)
=55.79 in./se 5 V (3, 3)=0.56+9.72(10 )(15,320 70 70)=2.04in./se The above omput
ational proedure must be repeated on the omputer until all of the pile segment
s ease to move during a given time step and their veloities approah zero. Phy
sially, this ondition is identified as the stage where the effet of the stres
s pulse has expired due to damping.
9.4 PileDriving Analyzer
During pile driving, the stresses and aelerations imparted to the pile an be
monitored and reorded to assess the quality of the installation. Although this
information is also used to asertain the loadarrying apaity of the pile, th
e quality assurane assoiated with type of equipment is perhaps its greatest o
ntribution. Therein, the tensile and ompressive stresses in piles an be monito
red via strain gage instrumentation to prevent unneessary damage while adjustin
g piledriving hammer energy to maximize prodution rates. The movement is also
monitored using integrated aelerometer data. Figure 9.7(a) shows the instrumen
tation and its position during pile driving. In fat, waveequation analysis of
pile apaity an be supplemented by fabriating a pile driven by an impat or v
ibratory hammer as shown in Figure 9.7(a) to obtain reords
Page 373
FIGURE 9.7 (a) Strain gages and aelerometers attahed to pile during pile driv
ing. (Courtesy of Applied Foundation Testing, In.) (b) Field data showing pile
driving performane (1 kip=4.45 kN, 1psi=6.9 kPa, 1 in.= 25.4 mm, 1ftkip=1.36 k
J, 1ft=0.305 m). (Courtesy of Applied Foundation Testing, In.)
of the partile veloity and the longitudinal fore at the pile top (Figure 9.7b
). This tehnique known as piledriving analysis has now gained worldwide popula
rity and appliation. When the above instrument reords are used in onjuntion
with waveequation analysis, one would be able to evaluate:
Page 374 1. The tip or end bearing resistane of the pile at a given stage of dr
iving 2. The skin or shaft frition of the pile at a given stage of driving 3. T
he stresses indued in the pile 4. The pile integrity The above evaluations are
illustrated in the following setions in terms of numerial examples formulated
based on the onepts of piledriving analyzer developed and published by Goble,
Raushe and Likins In. (Raushe et al., 1985; Goble and Raushe, 1986; Goble e
t al., 1970). The longitudinal wave propagation equation (Equation (9.2)) an be
rewritten as
or (9.8) in whih , the veloity of ompression waves in the pile medium, is ex
pressed as (9.9) and R (z) is the shaft resistane per unit mass of the pile. T
he omplimentary solution (without the shaft resistane term) to the above diffe
rential equation an be expressed as u=G(t+z)+H(t z) (9.10) where G and H are t
he displaement pulses that sum up to form the resultant wave given by Equation
(9.8). If one assumes the propagation of a ompression wave between the loation
s P(z=z) and Q(z=z+ z) within a time t , then for a given partile displaement p
ulse to move from P to Q or for the displaement pulse H to move from P to Q in
time t, then H(V t z)=H[V (t+ t) (z+ z)] (9.11) From Equation (9.11), it is seen t
hat t must be equal to z. In other words, the disturbane H travels between P a
nd Q (i.e., z) within a time t at a veloity of . The above result shows that H
is the inident (or downward) veloity pulse that propagates in the positive z
diretion. Similarly, it an be shown that G is the refleted (or upward) veloi
ty pulse.
9.4.1 Basi Conepts of Wave Mehanis
The following fats on wave mehanis are useful in interpreting piledriving re
ords:
1. In a ompression stress pulse or wave, the diretion of wave propagation and

the diretion of partile veloity are the same.
Page 375 2. In a tension stress pulse or wave, wave propagation ours in a dire
tion opposite to that of partile veloity. Based on the above fats, the follo
wing determinations an be made regarding wave propagation in a driven pile due
to a hammer blow whih indues a ompression wave: Case 1. If the pile tip enter
s a stiffer medium relative to the medium surrounding its shaft (Figure 9.8a), t
hen the pile an be regarded as a fixed ended one with the following veloity bo
undary ondition at the tip: V =0 (9.12) In order to ensure zero partile veloi
ty resultant at the tip, the wave refleted at the tip, whih travels in the dir
etion opposite to the inident ompression wave, must indue a veloity ompone
nt that is in the diretion of the refleted wave (Figure 9.8a). Hene, one an
determine that the refleted wave has to be a ompression wave thereby doubling
the ompressive stress at the tip. Case 2. If the pile tip enters a softer mediu
m relative to the medium surrounding its shaft (Figure 9.8b), then the pile an
be regarded as a freeended one with the following fore boundary ondition at t
he tip: F =0 (9.13) In order to ensure zero resultant stress at the tip, the wav
e refleted at the tip must indue a tensile stress omponent (Figure 9.8b). Hen
e, one an determine that the refleted wave has to be a tension wave thereby i
nduing a partile veloity at the tip in the downward diretion. Consequently,
one realizes that the tip veloity is doubled (Figure 9.8b).
9.4.2 Interpretation of PileDriving Analyzer Reords
Raushe et al. (1979) present the following theoretial onsiderations that enabl
e one to omprehend the piledriving analyzer. As shown in Figure 9.7(a), the to
p of the
FIGURE 9.8 Illustration of boundary onditions: (a) fixed end; (b) free end.
Page 376 monitored pile is instrumented with an aelerometer and a longitudinal

strain gage during piledriving analyzer monitoring. The aelerometer reord i
s onverted to obtain the partile veloity of the pile top, in the longitudinal
diretion, as (9.14) On the other hand, the axial fore on the pile top at a gi
ven instant in time an be obtained by the strain gage reading ( ) as F =EA (9.15)
Sinc both th forc and th vlocity rcords ar typically plottd on th sam
scal in PDA, th particl vlocity must b convrtd to an
uivalnt forc (F
*) by th following convrsion: (9.16) Th EA/c trm is dnotd as th pil imp
danc or Z. Hnc, it is ncssary to know th lastic modulus of th pil matr
ial, th comprssion wav vlocity in th pil matrial, and th cross-sctional
ara of th pil in ordr to plot th
uivalnt forc rcord. Eithr ths par
amtrs can b includd in th input data or th vlocity rcord can b calibrat
d a priori against th forc rcord to obtain th pil impdanc. If th pil i
s unrstraind or compltly fr of shaft friction and nd baring, using basic
mchanics it can b shown that (9.17) Thn it is undrstood that both th forc
( F) and th
uivalnt forc (F *) rcords du to a hammr blow would coincid
. It is th abov fact (E
uation (9.17)) that is usful in calibrating th V rc
ord du to a hammr blow to coincid with th corrsponding F rcord (and indica
t F *), bfor th pil is drivn in. Whn th pil is constraind particularly
at th tip, th impact wav (downward) and th rflctd wav (upward) togthr
produc a rsultant wav at a givn location on th pil. Hnc, what ar rcor
dd by th instrumntation ar in fact th rsultant forc and th vlocity at t
h top of th pil. Th rsultant longitudinal forc on any pil sction can b
dsynthsizd as follows to rval th rspctiv forc componnts du to th do
wnward (H) and upward (G) wavs: (9.18a)
and (9.18b) Similarly, th particl vlocitis inducd by th downward and th u
pward wavs can b xtractd from th PDA rcords as follows: (9.19a)
Pag 377 and (9.19b) Th following typical PDA rcords (Gobl t al., 1996) ar
prsntd to illustrat th basic intrprtations: Cas 1. Pil ntring a hard
stratumThis would b
uivalnt to Cas 1 in Sction 9.4.1 whr th pil tip nt
rs a rlativly stiffr stratum. Hnc, on would xpct an almost ngligibl t
ip vlocity and a rlativly high comprssiv forc on th tip in rspons to a
givn hammr blow. Howvr, if th pil lngth is L, sinc it taks a tim of L/
c for th strss puls inducd by th hammr to rach th tip and an additional
L/c tim intrval for th tip rspons to rturn to th top and gt rcordd by
th instrumnts, th abov rspons will b rflctd on th PDA monitoring aft
r a tim priod of 2L/c from th instant of hammr impact. This is illustratd i
n Figur 9.9. Cas 2. Pil ntring a soft stratum This would b
uivalnt to Ca
s 2 in Sction 9.4.1 whr th pil tip is in a rlativly softr stratum. Hnc
, on would xpct an almost ngligibl tip strss (forc) and a rlativly hig
h tip vlocity in rspons to a givn hammr blow. As xplaind abov, ths con
ditions will b rflctd in th PDA monitoring
uipmnt only aftr a tim pri
od of 2L/c from th instant of hammr impact. This is illustratd in Figur 9.10
. Cas 3. Condition of high shaft rsistancFigur 9.9 and Figur 9.10 also clar
ly illustrat that if th pil shaft is rlativly fr, i.., with a minimum sh
aft rsistanc, R(z) (in E
uation 9.2), thn both th forc and
uivalnt forc
(vlocity) rcords gradually attnuat showing th xpctd dcay of th hammr
puls at th pil top until th rflction of th tip condition rachs th top
at a tim of 2L/c. In fact, this can b sn numrically in Exampl 9.2 as wll
. On th othr hand, if th shaft rsistanc is significantly high, on would x
pct th forc puls to b constantly rplnishd by th rflctd forc pulss
from th shaft rsistanc R(z). Undr ths conditions, using basis mchanics, E
uation (9.17) can b modifid to:

FIGURE 9.9 Illustration of larg tip rsistanc condition.
Pag 378
FIGURE 9.10 Illustration of minimal tip rsistanc condition.
This is illustratd in Figur 9.11 whr th diffrnc btwn F and F* rcords
until a tim of 2L/c indicat th cumulativ shaft rsistanc R(z). A typical P
DA rcord indicating significantly high shaft rsistanc is shown in Figur 9.12
.
9.4.3 Analytical Dtrmination of th Pil Capacity
Gobl t al. (1988,1996) prsntd a simpl and approximat mthod of dtrminin
g th pil capacity basd on PDA rcords. This mthod is basd on valuating th
paramtrs RTL, RS1, RTL , and RS1 , which ar dfind as follows: Total rsist
anc (both static and dynamic componnts). Th total rsistanc (static and dyna
mic) can b obtaind from th following xprssion: (9.20a) Static rsistanc. T
h static rsistanc can b obtaind by subtracting th dynamic rsistanc compo
nnt from th total rsistanc as RS 1=(1+J)RTL J[F 1+ZV1] (9.20b) where ( F1, ZV
1) and (F 2, ZV2) are DA records at t =0 and t=2L/c, respectively (Figure 9.13)
, and J is an empirical coefficient designated as the Case damping constant that
accounts for damping action of soil both at the tip and the shaft. The total re
sistance and its static component can be also evaluated by extending the 2L/c ti
me window considered in Equation (9.20) to other times in the DA record as well
FIGURE 9.11
Wave effects of shaft friction and toe resistance.
age 379
FIGURE 9.12 Illustration of significant shaft resistance condition.
(9.21a) RS1 =(1+ J)RTL J [F1 +ZV1 ] (9.21b) where ( F1 , ZV1 ) and (F 2 , ZV2
) are DA records at t=t and t= t +2L/c, respectively, and t is a desired tim
e selected on the record (Figure 9.13) Typically, J is backcalculated based on
correlation of DA results with those of static load tests. Therefore, it must b
e noted that the Case damping constant cannot be considered as a soil property o
r a constant for a given soil. As seen in Table 9.2, it is seen to vary within a
significant range of values even for the same type of soil depending on testing
conditions. Finally, the maximum static resistance based on the entire record c
an be obtained as RMX =Max(RS1 ) (9.22)
FIGURE 9.13
Illustration of the desynthesizing of DA record.
age 380
FIGURE 9.14 Idealization of a damaged pile.
Determination of the above parameters from a given DA record will be illustrate
d in Example 9.3. RS1, RS 1 , and RMX parameters offer the pile construction eng
ineers with the facility of estimating the approximate static resistance onsite
without having to use the waveequation analysis.
9.4.4 Assessment of ile Damage
ile damage due to tension cracks can be idealized by two pile segments with dif
ferent cross sections (Figure 9.14). The crosssection reduction factor can e d
efined as follows: (9.23) Considering the vertical force equilirium and continu
ity of velocity continuity at the damaged section, the following expression can
e derived to otain (Figure 9.14): (9.24)
TABLE 9.2 Typical Values of Case Damping Constants (Raush et al., 1985)
Susurface Material
Clay Silty clay Sandy clay Clayey silt
J
0.61.1 0.40.7 0.40.7 0.40.7
Silt Sand
0.20.5 0.3 to 0.3
Page 381 where F H,t1 is the compression due to the downward wave at the top at
the instant of hammer low (t =t 1), Rx is the resistance effect indicated y th
e local peak compression pulse in the downward wave, and FG,t4 is the maximum te
nsion pulse at the pile top due to the upward wave that occurs after the local c
ompression (at t =t 4) (Figure 9.18). Raushe et al. (1985) propose the following
classification scale in Tale 9.3 to assess pile damage ased on the value. Exa
mple 9.3 Determine the static capacity of a pile driven in a silty soil, ased o
n the PDA records shown in Figure 9.15. The following values are otained from t
he aove records ased on a 2L/c interval eginning at t=0: F 1=9.1MN F2=1.8 MN
ZV1=9.1 MN ZV2=6.35 MN Also, ased on Tale 9.2 assume a damping coefficient of
0.3. Using Equation (9.20)
By repeated trials, if one selects the 2L/c window that maximizes the RS1 value
as shown in Figure 9.15 F 1 =3.91MN F 2 =0MN ZV1 =5.54 MN ZV2 = 3.75 MN
age 382
TABLE 9.3 Assessment of ile Damage
CrossSection Reduction Factor ( )
1.0 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.8 Below 0.6
ile Condition
Uniform Slightly damaged Damaged Broken
Using Equations (9.21),
Hence, the static pile capacity at the given instant can be predicted as 5.745 M
N. Example 9.4 Based on the DA records indicated in Figure 9.16, compute the ma
ximum tension force induced in the pile and its location. Assume that the pile l
ength is 10 m and the compression wave velocity is 3300m/sec. Using Equation (9.
18), the instant force records due to the upward and downward waves can be obtai
ned as shown in Figure 9.17. Based on Figure 9.17, it can be seen that the minim
um compression pulse of 1.433 MN due to the downward compression wave occurred o
n the top at a time of 1.5L/c . This compression pulse would move toward the pil
e tip at a velocity of c. Similarly, it can also be seen that a maximum tension
pulse of 2.225 MN reached the pile top at a time of 2 L/c traveling upwards at a
velocity of c. Hence, the two pulses (the minimum compression and the maximum t
ension) must have encountered each other at a time of T creating a net maximum t
ension of 2.225 1.433 or 0.792 MN.
age 383
FIGURE 9.17 Desynthesized force components.
If the location where the two pulses encountered each other is at a depth of Z f
rom the pile top, one can write the following expressions to compute Z: (T 1.5L/
c)=time taken for the minimum compression pulse to reach Z from the top (2L/c T)
=time taken for the maximum tension pulse to reach the top from Z c (T 1.5L/c)=c(
2L/c T)=Z By solving, T=1.75L/c and Z=0.25L. Thus, it can be concluded that a max
imum tension of 792kN occurred at a distance of 2.5 m at a time of 5.3 msec afte
r the input. Example 9.5 Based on the DA records indicated in Figure 9.18, asse
ss the extent of concrete pile damage and the location of damage. Assume that th
e pile is of length 80m. The wave velocity can be estimated by using Equation (9
.9) by knowing the elastic modulus of concrete as 27,600 Ma and the mass densit
y as 2400 kg/m3. Therefore, c =(27,600,000,000/2400)0.5=3391 m/sec L=80 m 2L/c =
47.2msec Therefore, the expected time of arrival of the return pulse=47.2msec. T
he time of occurrence of the tension pulse (identified by the sudden increase of
velocity)=15.7msec<<47.2msec. Hence, one can assume that the pile is damaged. I
f the effective length of the pile is L* (up to the damaged location), then 2L*/
c =15.7msec=0.0157sec Hence, L*=26.6m Using Equation (9.24) to determine the cro
sssection reduction factor ,
Page 384
Based on Tale 9.3, it can e deduced that the tested pile is roken at a depth
of 26.6 m. The allowale stresses for pile in common use are provided in Tale 9
.4. A more precise evaluation of the pile capacity can e performed in conjuncti
on with the wave-equation analysis. One of the popular methods currently used to
perform this type of analysis is the Case Pile Wave Analysis program (CAPWAP) c
omputational method (Gole and Raushe, 1986). Basically, in this technique one d
etermines the set of soil resistance parameters (ultimate resistance, the quake
and damping constants) that produces the est match etween the instrument recor
ded and the wave equation ased force and the velocity of the pile top. One of t
he two records (pile top velocity or force) is used as the top oundary conditio
n and the complimentary quantity is computed using an analytical procedure simil
ar to that presented in Section 9.3.2 and compared with the corresponding record
. Further details of this technique can e found in Gole and Raushe (1986).
9.5 Comparison of Pile-Driving Formulae and Wave-Equation Analysis Using the PDA
Method
Thilakasiri et al. (2002) report a case study in which the pile capacity predict
ed at the time of dynamic load testing of driven piles together with the measure
d sets were used to verify
Page 385
TABLE 9.4 Allowale Stresses in Piles (FHWA, 1998)
Pile Type
Steel Driving damage likely Driving damage unlikely Concrete-filled steel pipe P
restressed concrete Round timer Douglas fircoast Douglas firinterior Lodgepole pi
ne Red oak Southern pine Western hemlock
Maximum Allowale Stress, all, (kPa)
0.25 Fy 0.33 Fy
8.3 7.6 5.5 7.6 8.3 6.9
Source: Federal Highway Adminitration, 1998, Load and Reitance Factor Deign
(LRFD) for Highway Bridge Subtructure, Wahington, DC. With permiion.
the reliability of different dynamic prediction method. For thi purpoe, a er
ie of tet on driven catinplace concrete pile in reidual formation of we
athered rock were elected. Dynamic pile load teting wa carried out according
to ASTM D 4945. In dynamic pile load teting, uing the piledriving analyzer, a
weight wa dropped on to a pile intrumented with pair of accelerometer and
train tranducer. Variation of the acceleration and train, during the applica
tion of the hammer blow were obtained in the field uing the piledriving analyze
r. Subequently, the acquired data i proceed uing the CAPWAP to obtain the
tatic loadettlement curve from the meaured force and velocity data. Moreover
, the reulting penetration of the pile due to the hammer blow wa independently
meaured a one parameter for checking the accuracy of piledriving formulae. T
he data collected in the field during the dynamic pile load teting program con
ited of mobilized oil reitance, weight of the drop hammer, height of drop of
the hammer, and the penetration of the pile per blow. In addition, the actual e
nergy tranferred to the pile, maximum compreive tre, and the maximum teni
le tre developed during the hammer blow were alo etimated from the PDA mea
urement. The kin frictional reitance and the end bearing reitance mobilize
d during the hammer blow were eparated uing the CAPWAP analyi. The tet reu
lt howed that for driven concrete pile in many reidual formation, a ignifi
cant part of load i carried by kin reitance. Tet reult alo how that the
efficiency of the hammer ha varied between 15% and 60% for the pile teted. W
hen crawler crane were ued with fourrope arrangement, where the hammer fall
when the brake are releaed, the efficiency factor wa in the range of 60% to 4
0%. Similarly, when the hammer i raied and dropped uing a mobile crane with a
ixrope arrangement, where the hammer fall when the brake are releaed, the e
fficiency dropped to the range of 30 to 15%. The meaured efficiency factor are
much maller than the value quoted in literature. For example, Poulo
and Davi (1980) recommend an efficiency of 75% for the drop hammer actuated by
rope and friction winch. In the etimation of the mobilized reitance uing dif
ferent driving formulae, the efficiency factor etimated from the PDA are ued
with the driving formulae containing uch a factor. The mobilized reitance dur
ing the dynamic load teting wa independently etimated uing commonly ued dri
ving formulae and the meaured et. For comparion purpoe Engineering new reco
rd (ENR), Danih, Dutch, Hiley, Gate
Page 386 and modified Gate (Md Gate) driving formulae were conidered. In addi
tion, the waveequation method i alo ued to predict the mobilized reitance t
o the hammer blow. Driving formulae were ued to etimate the mobilized reitan
ce of the teted pile and the ratio between the etimated and the meaured rei
tance ( ) was calculated. The variation of for different methods is shown in Fi
ure 9.19, while Table 9.5 shows the mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimu
m of f or ten driven piles tested. Based on the pile test proram conducted in t
he Thilaksiri et al. (2002) study, it appears that predictions from Dutch, Hiley
, and Janbu methods have a hih scatter indicatin that they are not very reliab
le for estimation of carryin capacity of driven piles in residual formations an
d the drivin formulae, which are ood and comparable to the reliability of the
wave equation in residual formations, are ENR, Danish, Gates, and modified Gates
.
9.6 Static Pile Load Tests
The static pile load test is the most common method for testin the capacity of
a pile and it is also considered to be the best measure of foundation suitabilit
y to resist anticipated desin loads. Procedures for conductin axial compressiv
e load tests on piles are pre
FIGURE 9.19 Variation of for different dynamic formulae.
Pae 387
TABLE 9.5 Mean and Standard Deviation (STD) of for Driven Piles in Residual Forma
tions
Dynamic Formula
ENR Danish Dutch Hiley Janbu Gates Md Gates Wave equation
STD
0.50 0.56 2.84 0.98 1.46 0.48 0.51 0.67
Mean
1.62 1.29 5.18 1.82 3.12 1.49 1.16 1.14
Max
2.53 2.34 10.11 3.66 5.71 2.32 2.11 2.37
Min
0.85 0.61 1.61 0.69 1.22 0.71 0.55 0.34
sented in ASTM D 1143Standard Test Method for Piles under Axial Compressive Load.
The most common tests are the maintained load tests and quick load tests while
a third test, the constant rate of penetration test, is enerally performed only
on friction piles. These tests involve the application of a load capable of dis
placin the foundation and determinin its capacity from its response. Various a
pproaches have been devised to obtain this information. When comparin these app
roaches, they can be sorted from simplest to most complex in the followin order
: static load test, rapid load test, and the dynamic load test. These cateories
can be delineated by comparin the duration of the loadin event with respect t
o the axial natural period of the foundation (2L/C), where L represents the foun
dation lenth and C represents the strain wave velocity. Test durations loner t
han 1000L/C are considered static loadins and those shorter than 10 L/C are con
sidered dynamic (Janes et al., 2000; Kusakabe et al., 2000). Tests with duration
between 10L/C and 1000L/C are denoted as rapid load tests. The static and rapid
load tests will be discussed in Sections 9.6 and 9.8, respectively. The dynamic
load test was discussed in Section 9.4. Althouh there are a number of differen
t setups for this test, the basic principle is the same; a pile is loaded beyond
the desired strenth of the pile. There must be an anchored reaction system of
some sort that allows a hydraulic jack to apply a load to the pile to be tested.
Ideally, a test pile should be loaded to failure, so that the actual in situ lo
ad is known. The load is added to the pile incrementally over a lon period of t
ime (a few hours) and the deflection is measured usin a laser sihtin system.
The pile can be instrumented with load cells at varied depths alon the pile to
evaluate the pile performance at a specific location. Instrumentation of the pil
e load cells, strain aes, etc. can provide a reat deal of information. All th
e data includin time are collected by a dataacquisition unit for processin wit
h software (Fiure 9.20 and Fiure 9.21). It is clear from the discussion in Sec
tion 6.5 that if a load test is performed on a pile immediately after installati
on, irrespective of the surroundin soil type, such a test would underestimate t
he lonterm ultimate carryin capacity of the pile. Therefore, a sufficient tim
e period should be allowed before a load test is performed on a pile. Moreover,
the additional capacity due to the lonterm strenth ain allows the desiner t
o use a factor of safety on the lower side of the normal rane used. Establishin
a trend in the strenth ain of driven piles with time will boost the confiden
ce of the desiner to consider such an increase in the capacity durin desin an
d specifyin the wait period required from the time the pile is
installed before performin a pile load test. A comparison between the first two
methods is found in Table 9.6.
Pae 388
FIGURE 9.20 Schematic of pile load test setup.
FIGURE 9.21 Pile load testin. (From www.aecieo.com. With permission.) TABLE 9.
6 Comparison between Maintained Load and Quick Load Tests
Test Parameter
Test load
Maintained Load Test
200% of desin load
Quick Load Test
300% of desin load or up to failure 1015% of the desin load
Load increment 25% of the desin load Load duration Test duration
Up to a settlement rate of 0.001 ft/h or 2h, whichever 2.5 min occurs first 48 h
35 h
Pae 389 Althouh the above procedures are enerally applicable for pile tension
tests, additional loadin procedures are found in ASTM Standard D3689 (Standar
d Method of Testin Individual Piles Under Static Axial Tensile Load) for the pi
le tension test. Two methods of pile load test interpretation are discussed in t
his handbook. They are 1. Davissons (1972) offset limit method 2. De Beers (1971)
method In Davissons method, the failure load is identified as corresponding to th
e movement which exceeds the elastic compression of the pile, when considered as
a free column, by a value of 0.15 in. plus a factor depending on the diameter o
f the pile. This critical movement can be expressed as follows: for piles of 600
mm or less in diameter or width, Sf=S+(3.81+0.008D) (9.25) where S f is the mov
ement of the pile head (in mm), D is the pile diameter or width (in mm), and S i
s the elastic deformation of the total pile length (in mm). For piles greater th
an 600 mm or less in diameter or width, Sf=S+(0.033D) (9.26) In De Beers method,
the load and the movement are plotted on a double logarithmic scale, where the v
alues can be shown to fall on two distinct straight lines. The intersection of t
he lines corresponds to the failure load. As described in Section 6.6.2.3, the e
lastic displacement of a pile can be expressed as (9.27) where E p is the elasti
c modulus of the pile material and Ap is the crosssectional area of the pile. I
t is seen that the determination of elastic settlement can be cumbersome even if
one has the knowledge of the elastic properties of the subsurface soil. This is
because the actual axial load distribution mechanism or the load transfer mecha
nism is difficult to determine. Generally, one can instrument the pile with a nu
mber of strain gages to observe the variation of the axial load along the pile l
ength and hence determine the load transfer. If the reading on the ith strain ga
ge is i, thn th axial load at th strain gag location can b xprssd as Pi=
EpA i (9.28) This is illustratd in th load transfr curvs in Figur 9.22. Hnc
, th lastic displacmnt of th pil can b approximatd by
s = i( L) (9.29) where is the interval at whih the strain gages are installed. Exa
mple 9.6(a) A stati ompression load test was performed on a 450mm 2 prestresse
d onrete pile embedded 20 m below the ground surfae in a sand deposit. The te
st pile was equipped
Page 390
FIGURE 9.22 Load transfer urves based on strain gage data.
with two telltales (TT) extending to 0.3 m from the pile tip. The summary of dat
a from the load test is shown in Table 9.7. Determine the failure load and the
orresponding side frition and end bearing (Figure 9.23). Solution Based on Davi
ssons method (Figure 9.24), the failure load an be determined as 1.3MN. Based on
De Beers method (Figure 9.25), the failure load an be determined as 1.1 MN. Exa
mple 9.6(b) The stati pile test was performed on a pile in Sarasota, FL. The pi
le was atually a test pile and was loated in a parking lot near four other pil
es. The piles were auger ast piles, 13.85m
TABLE 9.7 Load Test Data for Example 9.6(a)
Time (h:min)
12.55 13.00 13.05 13.10 13.15 13.19 13.24 13.29 13.33 13.38 13.43 13.48 13.53 13
.57 14.02
Load (MN)
0.0 0.05798 0.082064 0.146288 0.22746 0.299712 0.379992 0.45938 0.543228 0.61904
8 0.698436 0.781392 0.86524 0.940168 1.015988
Top (mm)
0.0 0.1016 0.2032 0.3048 0.4572 0.635 0.8636 1.0668 1.3462 1.651 2.0066 2.413 2.
8448 3.4036 4.0132
TT (mm)
0.0 0.0508 0.1016 0.2032 0.3048 0.4064 0.5334 0.6604 0.762 0.9144 1.016 1.1684 1
.3208 1.4478 1.5748
Tip (mm)
0.0 0.0508 0.1016 0.1016 0.1524 0.2286 0.3302 0.4064 0.5842 0.7366 0.9906 1.2446
1.524 1.9558 2.4384
14.07 14.11 14.16 14.21 14.26 14.31 14.36

1.09716 1.184576 1.263964 1.340676 1.416496 1.491424 1.575272
4.8768 6.1214 7.8232 9.906 12.7254 16.6116 23.7236
1.7272 1.8796 1.9558 2.0828 2.2352 2.3622 2.4892
3.1496 4.2418 5.8674 7.8232 10.4902 14.2494 21.2344
Page 391
FIGURE 9.23 Pile load test results (Example 9.6a).
in length and were instrumented with gages at the top, middle, and bottom of the
pile to determine the various loads at these points. The four adjaent piles we
re used as a reation frame for the test pile. Two large steel beams were anhor
ed into the support piles to provide the reation frame. A large hydrauli jak
was plaed over the test pile and the test was started. The displaement was mea
sured using a laser. The test was to last all day long. Observations: It appears
that there was a strutural failure at an approximate load of 300 tons (2.66 MN
). The reason that it appeared to be a strutural failure opposed to a geotehni
al failure was that the pile tip never realized any of the applied load. The a
tual design load for the piles was 90 tons (0.8 MN) so this pile is probably str
uturally sound for the design load. However, if this was a strutural failure t
here is an indiation of poor onstrution, whih ould mean that a different pi
le may not have the same apaity. The apaity was determined using Davissons of
fset method, whih is too onservative
FIGURE 9.24 Determination of pile apaityDavissons method.
Page 392
FIGURE 9.25 Determination of pile apaityDe Beers method.
beause the loaddisplaement urve that was formed peaked at 300 tons (2.66 MN)
and dropped to about 225 tons (2 MN) for the offset value.
9.6.1 Advantages of Load Tests
This test provides very reliable data for pile apaity. The apaities are atu
al strutural or geotehnial apaities, not alulated from idealized data. Th
is an allow for a lower fator of safety in the design if the pile performs bet
ter than expeted (and vie versa).
9.6.2 Limitations of Load Tests
The stati load test an be very expensive to perform, espeially when large loa
ds are required beause some sort of reation frame must be onstruted. They ar
e often too expensive to perform if the struture to be built only requires a fe
w piles. It would be more eonomial to use a higher fator of safety. Stati lo
ad testing enompasses all test methods that systematially apply an inreasing
load to a foundation in multiple loading inrements at suh a rate so as to prod
ue no dynami movements as stated above. These tests inlude many appliations
(i.e., deep foundations or shallow foundations, tension or ompression loads) wi
th numerous loading onfigurations. With regard to fullsale in situ load tests
, several test proedures are very prominent: plate load test (ASTM D 1195), pil
e load test in ompression (ASTM D 1143), pile load test in tension (ASTM D 3689
), and the Osterberg load test.
9.6.3 Kentledge Load Test
The load from strutures to the foundations an be ompression (downward), tensi
on (upward), or lateral (sideways). The downward loadarrying resistane of a f
oundation
Page 393 enompasses most of the load onditions onsidered. In order to replia
te these often enormous loads, several methodologies have been devised. The simp
lest form of a load test is the dead load or Kentledge method. This requires tha
t the full test load be supplied in the form of dead weight staked above the fo
undation on some framework. The framework must be apable of supporting the enti
re load at a single loation where a hydrauli ram or jak an progressively tra
nsfer the load to the top of the foundation (Figure 9.26). This type of test a
urately predits the foundation response at full Kentledge load, but overestimat
es the stiffness of the foundation at lower loads due to the presene of the dea
d load overburden pressure applied to the ground surfae. The pratial upper li
mit of these tests is approximately 400 tons (3.56 MN) although physial site o
nstraints may extend or restrit this limit drastially. Further, these tests ar
e the most expensive and time onsuming to perform from the standpoint of setup
requirements. As with all stati load tests, these tests are typially run in o
mpliane with ASTM D1143 or similar standard.
9.6.4 Anhored Load Tests
Stati load tests with anhored reation systems are the most ommon of the stat
i load tests. These tests supply the full load to the foundation via a series o
f tension anhors (or adjaent deep foundations) in onjuntion with a beam or t
russ (Figure 9.27). The beam must resist the load applied to the foundation by t
ransferring it to the reation anhors whih are preferably no loser than five
diameters of the foundation (entertoenter spaing). The reation anhors mus
t not displae signifiantly while developing the required load. Exessive upwar
d movement from these anhors an alter the stress field surrounding the foundat
ion being tested and derease the resultant ultimate apaity. Due to the onstr
aints in designing suh a reation system, rarely does an anhored stati
FIGURE 9.26 Kentledge load test setup; 400 ton (35.6 MN). (Courtesy of Bermingha
m Constrution, Ltd.)
Page 394
FIGURE 9.27 Stati anhored load test (using eight, Htype reation piles; 1200
ton [10.68 MM]). (Courtesy of Bermingham Constrution, Ltd.)
load test exeed 1500 tons (13.34 MN). However, anhored tests as large as 3500
tons (31.14MN) are ommonplae in some parts of the world. The analysis of stati
load testing requires no more than plotting the loaddisplaement response. As
every foundation appliation an have a unique failure riterion, the design en
gineer must deide at what displaement the foundation apaity should be determ
ined. In some instanes this is based on a given fration of ultimate load. In o
ther ases, it may be based upon the some displaement offset method suh as Dav
issons method or the FHWA method. With load and resistane fator design type app
roahes, a fration of the ultimate apaity is ompared to the fatored design
load in a strength limit state, and displaement is onsidered separately in a s
ervie limit state. Figure 9.28 shows typial stati load test results and three
ommon approahes to determining apaity of (a) a maximum permissible displae
ment usually set by strutural sensitivity, (b) displaement offset method, and
() the load at whih additional displaement is obtained without an inrease in
load.
9.7 Load Testing Using the Osterberg Cell
9.7.1 Bidiretional Stati Load Test
The results of onventional stati loading tests are limited to produing the lo
addeformation harateristis for the pile top (Setion 9.6). However, designs
onerned with settlements of pile foundations, or problems arising from the sit
e onditions and onstrution proedures, require knowledge of the resistane di
stribution along the pile or at least the loaddeformation harateristis of th
e pile toe. One way to obtain this information is to instrument the pile at a nu
mber of loations with strain gages (Setion 6.4).
Page 395
FIGURE 9.28 Stati load test results showing three different failure riteria a
paities: (a) a 10mm permissible displaement, (b) offset method, and () ultima
te apaity. (Courtesy of Bermingham Constrution, Ltd.)
However, onduting a stati load test on an instrumented pile is muh more umb
ersome and errorprone than a regular load test. Osterberg (1998) developed a re
latively low ost testing method, Osterberg ell test, whih omprises a separat
ion of the shaft and toe behavior. The Osterberg Cell (Oell) test provides a si
mple, effiient, and eonomial method of performing a stati load test on a dee
p foundation. The Oell is a sarifiial jak that the engineer installs at the
bottom of a pile or drilled shaft. It provides a stati load and requires no ov
erhead load frame or other external reation system (Figure 9.29). The Oell is
easily installed in drilled shafts using ommon onstrution equipment and is a
ttahed to the tip of a driven pile before driving. Installation methods on a dr
illed shaft an vary, but the following proedures are typial. An Oell or O
ells are attahed to a top and bottom steel plate, whih is then plaed near or
at the bottom of a shaft as part of the reinforing age or arrying frame (Figu
re 9.30). Strain gage instruments are also attahed to the assembly and all wire
s are hanneled to the surfae via the age or beam. The omplete assembly is th
en lifted and set into the open shaft prior to the onreting proess. In the a
se of multilevel Oell assemblies, or plaement of the Oell off the bottom o
f the shaft, a tremie pipe is fed through a prefabriated hole in the steel plat
es to ensure proper ementation below the Oells. Figure 9.31 and Figure 9.32 i
llustrate the setting up of the Osterberg ell prior to the installation of a dr
illed shaft. One the onrete has reahed the required strength the Oell is p
ressurized. The Oell uses the soil system for reation, eliminating the need f
or overhead or external reation systems. The Oell is expanded until the expan
sion fore is some desired proof multiple of the design loading, or one of the t
wo omponents, side frition or end bearing, reahes some defined failure ondit
ion, or the ell reahes its maximum expansion. Depending on the shaft diameter,
Oells an be grouped together on a single plane to inrease the effetive loa
d. Testing is typially performed following the ASTM Quik Test Method D 1143 (A
STM, 1993). Instrumentation used to measure load and defletion is similar to in
strumentation used for onventional load tests. At the ompletion of the test
Page 396
FIGURE 9.29 Setional view of the bidiretional loading sheme of an Oell. (Co
urtesy of LoadTest, In.)
the ell an be filled with grout to reestablish its integrity and permit the te
st shaft or pile to beome a prodution shaft or pile. The Oell loads the test
pile in ompression similar to a onventional stati load test. Data from an O
ell test are therefore analyzed muh the same way as onventional stati test d
ata. The only signifiant differene is that the Oell provides two loadmoveme
nt urves, one for shaft resistane and one for toe resistane (Figure 9.33). Th
e failure load for eah omponent may be determined from these urves using a fa
ilure riteria similar to that reommended for onventional load tests. To deter
mine the shaft resistane apaity, the buoyant weight of the pile should be sub
trated from the upward Oell load. Analysis for the toe resistane need not in
lude additional elasti deformation sine the load is applied diretly. The eng
ineer may further utilize the omponent urves to onstrut an equivalent pile h
ead loaddefletion urve and investigate the overall pile apaity. If the pile
is then assumed rigid, the pile head and toe move together and have the same de
fletion at this load. By adding the shaft resistane to the mobilized toe resis
tane at the hosen defletion, a single point on the equivalent pile head load
urve is determined. Additional points may then be alulated to develop the ur
ve up to the maximum defletion (or maximum extrapolated defletion) of the omp
onent that did displaed the least. Points beyond the maximum defletion of the
least omponent may also be obtained by onservatively assuming that at greater
defletions display the maximum omponent load remains onstant.
Page 397
FIGURE 9.30 Oell and age lifted for installation. (Courtesy of LoadTest, In.
)
An Oell test an be performed on many types of shafts and piles, inluding pre
ast, augerast openended pipe piles, and mandrel driven piles, and has been us
ed on largediameter drilled shafts. Oells an be used to test deep foundations
over water or in onfined areas beause the Oell test does not require an ove
rhead reation system. An Oell test maybe applied in many situations due to the
systems flexibility, e.g., plaement of the Oell within the shaft may be alte
red, or additional layers of Oells may be used to isolate signifiant soil zon
es. Figure 9.34 shows the use of the Oell in the monitoring of pile setup.
FIGURE 9.31
Osterberg Oell. (Courtesy of LoadTest, In.)
Page 398
FIGURE 9.32 Osterberg ell being set up for load testing. (Courtesy of LoadTest,
In. www.loadtest.om.)
FIGURE 9.33 Typial output showing upward and downward foundation responses (1 i
n.=25.4 mm, 1 kip=4.45 (Courtesy of LoadTest, In.)
Page 399
FIGURE 9.34 Illustration of the use of Osterberg ell in measuring pile setup. (
From Titi et al., 1999. With permission.)
Example 9.7 (This example is solved in British units. Hene, please refer to Tab
le 7.9 for appropriate onversion to SI units.) Assume that the results shown in
Figure 9.33 were obtained during the Oell test of a 3ft diameter onrete sh
aft. If the Oell is in lose proximity to the shaft tip, whih is at an elevat
ion of 15 ft, estimate the shaft frition and tip bearing apaities assuming th
at the ground water table is at a depth of 5 ft. Sine the unit weight and elast
i modulus of onrete are 1501b/ft3 and 4,000,000 psi, respetively, the total
buoyant weight of the shaft=B(3)2[(5)(150)+(10)(150 62.4)]/ 1000 kips=45.97 kips.
From the upward loaddisplaement urve in Figure 9.33, the measured ultimate s
haft frition=7600 kips=buoyant weight of the pile+atual shaft frition mobiliz
ed in the downward diretion (sine the shaft is pushed upwards). Hene, the at
ual ultimate shaft frition=7550 kips. Further, the ultimate tip resistane is g
reater than 8000 kips as the downward loaddisplaement urve in Figure 9.33 show
s no definitive sign of peaking out until the unloading phase starts. It is also s
een that the displaement required for the mobilization of tip bearing is 0.2 in
. for this diameter of a shaft. On the other hand, the measured total displaeme
nt for the mobilization of ultimate shaft frition is about 1.00 in., whih also
inludes the elasti shortening of the pile. The elasti shortening of the pile
an be omputed using Equation (9.27) (9.27) For the urrent example, if one as
sumes a linear distribution of the axial fore along the It is seen that the ela
sti shortening does not ontribute signifiantly to the total defletion. In o
ntrast to this speifi ase, generally, it is observed that the displaement ne
eded for full mobilization of shaft frition is relatively small ompared to tha
t needed for the full mobilization of end bearing.
Page 400
9.8 Rapid Load Test (Statnami Pile Load Test)
The statnami pile load test ombines the advantages of both stati and dynami
load tests. It is performed to test a piles apaity and uses a rapid ompressive
loading method. The applied load, aeleration, and displaements are measured
using load ells, aelerometers, and displaement transduers with a stationary
laser referene. The statnami devie onsists of a large mass, ombustion ham
ber, and a ath system of some sort. The fore applied to the pile is produed
by aelerating a mass upward. This is done by firing a rapidburning propellant
fuel within the ombustion hamber, whih applies equal fore to the mass and t
o the pile. After the fuel is burned the gas port is opened, this allows the dur
ation of the load pulse to be long enough to keep the pile in ompression throug
hout the test (maintains rigid body). During the loading yle, whih is only a
fration of a seond, over 2000 readings are taken of the load and displaement
and the data are stored in a dataaquisition unit. The mass is aught as it fal
ls by a gravel ath or mehanial tooth ath before it impats the pile. The l
oaddisplaement urves generated are used to determine the equivalent stati fo
re from the measured statnami fore using the unloading point method.
9.8.1 Advantages of Statnami Test
Statnami load testing an apply muh larger loads than possible with stati loa
d testing. The apaity of largediameter foundations an be fully mobilized wit
hout risking damage. A ontrolled, predetermined load an be applied diretly to
the pile without introduing hightension fores. Setting up and dismantling a s
tatnami test an be done very quikly. Considerable osts are saved sine no re
ation system is required. The loaddisplaement urve an be viewed immediately
after test on a laptop, whih indiates the performane of the test.
9.8.2 Limitations of Statnami Test
This method is fairly new and the orresponding ASTM standard is still pending.
The unloading point method (as well as other methods) used to evaluate the pile
apaity is based on numerous idealized assumptions. These tests an be lass fi
eld tests. A smallsale demonstration was performed by the Dr. Gray Mullins outs
ide University of South Floridas Geotehnial laboratory. A pile in a pressurized
ell was loaded to about 10 tons. Only a small amount of fuel (a few pellets) w
as required to ahieve this loading. After the test, a mehanial ath aught t
he weights before they impated the pile. This mini system was instrumented with
an aelerometer and a load ell. The information was olleted in a MagaeDe u
nit and the data ould be viewed and interpreted using the SAWR4 program. This
test seems to be a quik and eonomial method for pile apaity evaluation. It
seems to be advantageous over other methods of pile apaity testing. The SAWR4
workbook is an exellent tool for regressing the data. Sine its ineption in 1
988, the inertia loading tehnology alled statnami testing has gained populari
ty with many designers largely due to its time effiieny, ost effetiveness, d
ata quality, and flexibility in testing existing foundations. Where largeapai
ty stati tests may take up to a week to set up and ondut, the largest of stat
nami tests (3500 tons or 31.14MN) typially takes no more than a few days. Furt
her, multiple smallerapaity tests (up to 2000 tons or 17.8 MN) an easily be
ompleted
within a day. The diret benefit of this time effiieny is the ost savings to
the lient and the ability to ondut more tests within a given budget.
Page 401 Additionally, this test method has boosted quality assurane by giving
the ontrator the ability to test foundations thought to have been ompromised
by onstrution diffiulties without signifiantly affeting prodution and with
out requiring previous planning for its testing. Statnami testing is designated
as a rapid load test that uses the inertia of a relatively small reation mass
instead of a reation struture to produe large fores. The duration of the sta
tnami test is typially 100 to 120 mse, but is dependent on the ratio of the a
pplied fore to the weight of the reation mass. Longerduration tests of up to
500 mse are possible but require more reation mass. The statnami fore is pro
dued by quikly formed highpressure gases that in turn launh a reation mass
upward at up to 20 times the aeleration of gravity. The equal and opposite for
e exerted on the foundation is simply the produt of the mass and aeleration
of the reation mass. It should be noted that the aeleration of the reation m
ass is not signifiant in the analysis of the foundation; it is simply a byprod
ut of the test. Seondly, the load produed is not an impat sine the mass is
in ontat prior to the test. Further, the test is over long before the masses r
eah the top of their flight. The parameters of interest are only those assoiat
ed with the movement of the foundation (i.e., fore, displaement, and aelerat
ion). Figure 9.35 shows the setup for both an axial ompression and lateral stat
nami test setup.
9.8.3 Proedure for Analysis of Statnami Test Results
Typial analysis of statnami data relies on measured values of fore, displaem
ent, and aeleration. A soil model is not required; hene, the results are not
highly user dependent. The statnami foring event indues foundation motion in
a relatively short period of time and hene aeleration and veloities will be
present. The aelerations are typially small (1 to 2g), however the enormous m
ass of the foundation when aelerated resists movement due to inertia and as su
h the fundamental equation of motion applies, F=ma+ +kx (9.3)
FIGURE 9.35 Axial statnamic test set p (left), lateal statnamic test in poges
s (ight). (Co tesy of Bemingham Const ction, Ltd.)
Page 402 whee F is the focing event, m is the mass of the fo ndation, a is the
acceleation of the displacing body, is the velocity of the displacing body, c
is the visco s damping coefficient, k is the sping constant of the displacing s
ystem, and x is the displacement of the body. The eq ation of motion is geneall
y descibed sing fo tems: focing, inetial, visco s damping, and stiffness
tems. The focing tem (F) denotes the load application that vaies with time a
nd is eq ated to the s m of emaining thee tems. The inetial tem (ma) is the
foce that is geneated fom the tendency of a body to esist motion, o to kee
p moving once it is set in motion (Yo ng, 1992). The visco s damping tem (c ) is
best descibed as the velocity-dependent esistance to movement. The final tem
(kx) epesents the classic system stiffness, which is the static soil esistan
ce. When this eq ation is applied to a pile o soil system the tems can be ede
fined to moe acc ately descibe the system. This is done by incl ding both mea
s ed and calc lated tems. The evised eq ation is displayed below: F tatnamic
=(ma)Fo ndation +(c )Fo ndation+F tatic (9.31) whee F tatnamic is the meas ed
tatnamic foce, m is the calc lated mass of the fo ndation, a is the meas ed
acceleation of the fo ndation, c is the visco s damping coefficient, is the cal
c lated velocity, and Ftatic is the deived pile o soil static esponse. Thee
ae two nknowns in the evised eq ation, F static and c; th s, the eq ation is
ndespecified. Fstatic is the desied val e, so the vaiable c m st be obtaine
d to solve the eq ation. Middendop (1992) pesented a method to calc late the d
amping coefficient efeed to as the nloading point method (UP). With the val
e of c known, the static foce can be calc lated. This foce, temed deived stat
ic, epesents an eq ivalent soil esponse simila to that pod ced by a taditio
nal static load test. 9.8.3.1 Unloading Point Method The UP is a simple method b
y which the damping coefficient can be detemined fom the meas ed statnamic da
ta. It ses a simple single degee of feedom model to epesent the fo ndationsoil system as a igid body s ppoted by a nonlinea sping and a linea dashpot
in paallel (see Fig e 9.36). The sping epesents the static soil esponse (
Fstatic), which incl des the elastic esponse of the fo ndation as well as the f
o ndation-soil inteface and s o nding soil esponse. The dashpot is sed to
epesent the dynamic esistance, which depends on the ate of pile penetation (
Nishim a, 1995). The UP makes two pimay ass mptions in its detemination of c.
The fist is the static capacity of the pile is constant when it pl nges as a i
gid body. The second is that the damping coefficient is constant tho gho t the
test. By doing so a time window is defined in which to calc late the damping coe
fficient as shown in Fig e 9.37. This fig e shows a typical statnamic load-dis
placement c ve which denotes points 1 and 2. The fist point of inteest (1) is
that of maxim m statnamic foce. At this point the static esistance is ass med
to have become steady state fo the p pose of calc lating c. Th s, any exta es
istance is attib ted to that of the dynamic foces (ma and c ). The next point o
f inteest (2) is that of zeo velocity, which has been temed the nloading poin
t. At this point the fo ndation is no longe moving and the esistance d e to dam
ping is zeo. The static esistance, sed to calc late c fom (1) to (2), can then
be calc lated by the following eq ation:
Page 403
FIGURE 9.36 ingle degee of feedom model.
F tatic UP=F tatnamic (ma) Foundation (9.32) where F Statnamic, m, and a are al
l known parameters; F Static U is the static force calculated at (2) and assume
d constant from (1) to (2). Next, the damping coefficient can be calculated thro
ughout this range, from maximum force (1) to zero velocity (2). The following eq
uation is used to calculate c: (9.33) Damping values over this range should be f
airly constant. Often the average value is taken as the damping constant, but if
a constant value occurs over a long period of time it should be used (Figure 9.
38).
FIGURE 9.37 U time window for determination of c.
age 404
FIGURE 9.38 Variation in c between times (1) and (2).
Note that as appoaches zeo at point (2), val es of c can be diffeent fom tha
t of the most epesentative val e and theefoe the entie tend sho ld be evi
ewed. Finally, the deived static esponse can be calc lated as follows: F tati
c=Ftatnamic (ma) Foundation (c )Fo ndation (9.34) C ently, softwae is availabl
e to the p blic that can be sed in conj nction with statnamic test data to calc
late the deived static pile capacity sing the UP method (Gabin, 1999). This
softwae was developed by the Univesity of o th Floida and the Fedeal Highwa
y Administation and can be downloaded fom www.eng. sf.ed /~gm llins nde the
tatnamic Analysis Wokbook (AW) heading. The UP has poven to be a val able to
ol in pedicting damping val es when the fo ndation acts as a igid body. Howeve
, as the pile length inceases an appeciable delay can be intod ced between t
he movement of the pile top and toe, hence negating the igid body ass mption. T
his occ ence also becomes pevalent when an end beaing condition exists; in t
his case the lowe potion of the fo ndation is pevented fom moving jointly wi
th the top of the fo ndation. Middendop (1995) defines the wave n mbe (Nw) to q
antify the applicability of the UP. The wave n mbe is calc lated by dividing th
e wave length (D) by the fo ndation depth (L). D is obtained by m ltiplying the
wave speed c in length pe second by the load d ation (T) in seconds. Th s, the
wave n mbe is calc lated by the following eq ation: (9.35) Tho gh empiical s
t dies Middendop detemined that the UP wo ld pedict acc ately the static cap
acity fom statnamic data, if the wave n mbe was geate than 12. Nishim a (19
95) established a simila theshold at a wave n mbe of 10. Using wave speeds of
5000 and 4000m/sec fo steel and concete, espectively, and a typical statnami
c load d ation, the UP is limited to piles shote than 50m (steel) and 40m (co
ncete). Wave n mbe analysis can
be sed to detemine if stess waves will develop in the pile. Howeve, this doe
s not necessaily satisfy the igid body eq iement of the UP. tatnamic tests
cannot always pod ce wave n mbes geate than 10, and as s ch thee have been
seveal methods s ggested to accommodate stess wave phenomena in
Page 405 statnamically tested long piles (Middendop, 1995). D e to space limita
tions these methods ae not pesented hee. 9.8.3.2 Modified Unloading Point Met
hod Given the limitations of the UP, ses of statnamic testing have developed a
emedy fo the poblematic condition that aises most commonly. The scenaio in
volves elatively shot piles (Nw>10) that do not exhibit igid body motion, b t
athe elastically shoten within the same magnit de as the pemanent set. This
is typical of ock-socketed dilled shafts o piles diven to dense beaing st
ata that ae not f lly mobilized d ing testing. The conseq ence is that the top
of pile esponse (i.e., acceleation, velocity, and displacement) is significan
tly diffeent fom that of the toe. The most dastic s bset of these test es lt
s show zeo movement at the toe while the top of pile elastically displaces in e
xcess of the s ficial yield limit (e.g., pwads of 25mm). Wheeas with pl ngin
g piles (igid body motion) the diffeence in movement (top to toe) is minimal a
nd the aveage acceleation is essentially the same as the top of pile acceleat
ion; tip-estained piles will exhibit an inetial tem that is twice as lage w
hen sing top of pile movement meas ements to epesent the entie pile. The mo
dified nloading point method (MUP), developed by J stason (1997), makes se of
an additional toe acceleomete that meas es the toe esponse. The entie pile
is still ass med to be a single mass, m, b t the acceleation of the mass is now
defined by the aveage of the top and toe movements. A standad UP is then cond
cted sing the applied top of pile statnamic foce and the aveage acceleation
s and velocities. The deived static foce is then plotted ves s the top of pil
e displacement as befoe. This simple extension of the UP has s ccessf lly ovec
ome most poblematic data sets. Pl nging piles inst mented with both top and to
e acceleometes have shown little analytical diffeence between the UP and the
MUP. Howeve, MUP analyses ae now ecommended wheneve both top and toe infoma
tion is available. Altho gh the MUP povided a moe efined appoach to some of
the poblems associated with UP conditions, thee still exists a scenaio whee
it is diffic lt to intepet statnamic data with pesent methods. This is when t
he wave n mbe is less than 10 (elatively long piles). In these cases the pile
may still only expeience compession (no tension waves) b t the delay between t
op and toe movements ca ses a phase lag. Hence, an aveage of top and toe moveme
nts does not adeq ately epesent the pile. 9.8.3.3 egmental Unloading Point Me
thod The f ndamental concept of the segmental nloading point (UP) method is th
at the acceleation, velocity, displacement, and foce fom each segment of a pi
le can be detemined sing stain gage meas ements along the length of the pile
(M llins et al., 2003). Individ al pile segment displacements ae detemined s
ing the elative displacement as calc lated fom stain gage meas ements and an
ppe o lowe meas ed displacement. The velocity and acceleation of each seg
ment ae then detemined by n meically diffeentiating displacement and then ve
locity with espect to time. The segmental foces ae detemined by calc lating
the diffeence in foce fom two stain gage levels. Typically, the maxim m n mb
e of segments is dependent on the available n mbe of stain gage layes. Howev
e, stain gage placement does not necessitate assignment of segmental bo ndaie
s; as long as the wave n mbe of a given segment is geate than 10, the segment
can incl de seveal stain gage levels within its bo ndaies. The n mbe and th
e elevation of stain gage levels ae s ally detemined based on soil statific
ation; as s ch, it
can be sef l to cond ct an individ al segmental analysis to pod ce the shea s

tength paametes fo each soil stata. A easonable ppe limit on the n mbe
of
Page 406 segments sho ld be adopted beca se of the lage n mbe of mathematical
comp tations eq ied to complete each analysis. Fig e 9.39 is a sketch of the
UP pile discetization. The notation sed fo the geneal UP case defines the
pile as having m levels of stain gages and m+1 segments. tain gage locations
ae labeled sing positive integes stating fom 1 and contin ing tho gh m. Th
e fist gage level below the top of the fo ndation is denoted as GL1 whee the s
pescipt defines the gage level. Altho gh thee ae no stain gages at the top
of fo ndation, this elevation is denoted as GL0. egments ae n mbeed sing po
sitive integes fom 1 to m+1, whee segment 1 is bo nded by the top of fo ndati
on (GL0) 1 and GL1 . Any geneal segment is denoted as segment n and lies betwee
n GLn and GLn. Finally, the bottom segment is denoted as segment m+1 and lies bet
ween GLm and the foundation toe. 9.8.3.4 Calculation of Segmental Motion aramet
ers The SU analysis defines average acceleration, velocity, and displacement tr
aces that are specific to each segment. In doing so, strain measurements from th
e top and bottom of each segment and a boundary displacement are required. Bound
ary displacement may come from the statnamic laser reference system (top), top o
f pile acceleration data, or from embedded toe accelerometer data. The displacem
ent is calculated at each gage level using the change in recorded strain with re
spect to an initial time zero using Equation (9.36). Because a linearly varying
strain distribution is assumed between gage levels, the average strain is used t
o calculate the elastic shortening in each segment. Level displacements x n=xn 1 a
verage seg n L seg n (9.36) where xn is the displacement at the nth gage level,
avrag sg n is th avrag chang in strain in sgmnt n, and Lsg n is th l
ngth of th nth sgmnt. To prform an unloading point analysis, only th top-of
-sgmnt motion nds to b dfind. Howvr, th MUP analysis, which is now rc
ommndd, r
uirs both top and bottom paramtrs. Th SUP lnds itslf naturall
y to providing this information. Thr-for, th avrag sgmnt movmnt is us
d rathr than th top-of-sgmnt; hnc, th SUP actually prforms multipl MUP
analyss rathr than standard UP. Th sgmntal
FIGURE 9.39
Sgmntal fr body diagram.
Pag 407 displacmnt is thn dtrmind using th avrag of th gag lvl dis
placmnts from ach nd of th sgmnt as shown in th following
uation: (9.3
7) whr xsg n is th avrag displacmnt consistnt with that of th sgmnt
cntroid. Th vlocity and acclration, as r
uird for MUP, ar thn dtrmin
d from th avrag displacmnt trac through numrical diffrntiation using E
uations (9.38) and (9.39), rspctivly: (9.38)

(9.39) whr t is the time n is the velocity of segment n, an is the acceleatio
n of segment n, and step from time t to t+1. It should be noted that all measure
d values of laser displaement, strain, and fore are timedependent parameters t
hat are field reorded using highspeed dataaquisition omputers. Hene the ti
me step, t, used to alulate veloity and aeleration is a uniform value that
an be as small as 0.0002 se. Therefore, some onsideration should be given whe
n seleting the time step to be used for numerial differentiation. The average
motion parameters ( x, , and a) fo segment m+1 cannot be ascetained fom meas
ed data, b t the displacement at GLm can be diffeentiated diectly poviding t
he velocity and acceleation. Theefoe, the toe segment is eval ated sing the
standad UP. These segments typically ae extemely shot (1 to 2m) pod cing li
ttle to no diffeential movement along its length. 9.8.3.5 egmental tatnamic a
nd Deived tatic Foces Each segment in the shaft is s bjected to a focing eve
nt that ca ses movement and eaction foces. This segmental foce is calc lated
by s btacting the foce at the top of the segment fom the foce at the bottom.
The diffeence is d e to side fiction, inetia, and damping fo all segments e
xcept the bottom segment. This segment has only one focing f nction fom GL m a
nd the side fiction is co pled with the tip beaing component. The foce on seg
ment n is defined as n=A (n An En 1) E( n 1) (n 1) n (9.40) where Sn is the applied
segment force from strain measurements, En is the composite elastic modulus at l
evel n, An is the crosssectional area at level n, n is th masurd strain at l
vl n. Onc th motion and forcs ar dfind along th lngth of th pil, an
unloading point analysis on ach sgmnt is conductd. Th sgmnt forc dfind
abov is now usd in plac
of th statnamic forc in E

uation (9.31). E
uation (9.41) rdfins th fundam
ntal
uation of motion for a sgmnt analysis: Sn=mnan+c n n+n tatic (9.41) wh
ee n tatic is the deived static esponse of segment n, mn is the calc lated
mass of segment n, and cn is the damping constant of segment n. The damping cons
tant (in Eq ation (9.42)) and the deived static esponse (Eq ation (9.43)) of t
he segment ae comp ted consistent with standad UP analyses:
Page 408
(9.42) n tatic =n mn an cn n (9.43) Finally the top-of-fo ndation deived stati
c esponse can be calc lated by s mming the deived static esponse of the indiv
id al segments as displayed in the following eq ation: (9.44) oftwae capable o
f pefoming UP analyses (UPERAW) has been developed at the Univesity of o
th Floida in coopeation with the Fedeal Highway Administation (Wintes, 2002
). It can be downloaded fom www.eng. sf.ed /~gm llins nde the tatnamic Analy
sis oftwae heading. Example 9.8 Fig e 9.40 contains data fom a statnamic ap
id load test on a pecast concete pile with mass of 9111kg. Typical meas ed te
st val es incl de acceleation, displacement, and applied load. The velocity sho
wn can be calc lated by n meically integating the acceleation tace o by dif
feentiating the displacement tace (poced e not shown heein). The nloading
point method is applied to obtain the nknown damping coefficient, C, as disc ss
ed pevio sly sing the val es maked fom point (2) in Fig e 9.40. At the nlo
ading point (Point [2] whee V =0), the eq ation of motion can be solved fo F
tatic. F tatic(2)=F TN(2) ma(2) = 2950 kN (9111 kg)(243 m/sec2)= 5164 kN Using tha
t value of FStatic , the damping coefficient, C, can be determined for all times
between points (1) and (2), maximum load and unloading point, respectively Ci =
(FSTNi ma i F Static(2))/Vi This gives a range of values between points (1) and (2
) as shown in Figure 9.41. A median value is then selected from these values and
used to determine the derived static capacity for the entire test duration (Fig
ure 9.42). This information is far more pertinent when expressed as a function o
f displacement to assure service limits are not being exceeded at a particular l
oad (Figure 9.43).
9.9 Lateral Load Testing of iles
The standard method of testing piles under lateral loads is found in ASTM Design
ation D 3966 (Standard method of Testing piles Under Lateral Loads). Typically,
piles are tested up to 200% of the design lateral load with load increments of 1
2.5% of the test load for standard loading schedule (or 25% of the test load for
cyclic loading schedule) for a loading duration of 30 min. Although ASTM standa
rd emphasizes the determination of the lateral capacity of a
pile, the routine practice is to evaluate the response of the pile to lateral lo
ads in terms of lateral pressure versus lateral deflection (p y) behavior (Figure
9.44).
age 409
FIGURE 9.40 Raw data from statnamic rapid load test.
FIGURE 9.41 Damping coefficient calculated between points (1) and (2).
age 410
FIGURE 9.42 Derived static capacity expressed as a function of displacement.
FIGURE 9.43 Derived static capacity as a function of time.
FIGURE 9.44 Typical Y curves for a laterally loaded pile at different depths. (
From Hameed, 1998. University of South Florida. With permission.)
age 411
9.10 Finite Element Modeling of ile Load Tests
As mentioned in Section 1.7, powerful numerical simulation tools such as the fin
ite element method can be used to know more of the behavior of foundations under
complex loading and geometric conditions, which would be extremely difficult to
perceive under model or actual field experimental conditions. In this regard, e
ngineers have been successful in modeling the behavior of pile foundations as we
ll using the finite element method. Titi and Wathugala (1999) presented a fully
rational approach where the complete life history of the pile: (1) pile installa
tion, (2) subsequent consolidation, and (3) axial loading is simulated using a t
wodimensional finite element procedure based on the fully coupled formulation (
extended Biots) for porous media. The aim of this study was to predict the variat
ion over time of the pile capacity at different degrees of consolidation after i
nstallation. The reader is referred to Section 1.7 for the technical details of
the analytical concepts used in finite element modeling. Titi et al. (1999) used
the coupled theory of nonlinear porous media to determine the effective stresse
s and pore water pressures in the surrounding soil at the end of pile installati
on. Some of the basic concepts of flow in porous media are discussed briefly in
Chapter 13. The variables obtained from this step simultaneously satisfy the equ
ilibrium equations, strain compatibility, constitutive equations, and boundary c
onditions. The soil was assumed to remain under undrained conditions during the
analysis involved in this step. ile load tests are simulated in Titi et al. (19
99) by applying an incremental displacement at the pilesoil interface nodes for
the pile segment models used in the verification. For the piles used in the num
erical experiments, an incremental load or displacement is applied to the pile h
ead until failure. The failure load for each pile load test represents the pile
capacity corresponding to the degree of consolidation at which the load test is
simulated. The stressstrain relationships used by Titi et al. (1999) were based
on the nonassociative anisotropic model (Wathugala et al., 1994), which characte
rizes soil behavior at the pilesoil interface as well as at the far field. For
comparison, the reader is referred to Section 1.8.1.3, where an alternative but
simpler stressstrain relationship of modified Camclay model is described which
is based on the assumptions of isotropy and an associative flow rule. Titi et a
l. (1999) used the coupled theory of nonlinear porous media through the generalp
urpose finite element program ABAQUS (HKS, Inc., 1995) to simulate the subsequen
t consolidation phase and the pile load tests. This formulation allows for (1) a
dvanced constitutive models to characterize the deformation of the soil skeleton
due to effective stresses, (2) Darcys law to govern the movement of water throug
h the porous medium, (3) linear elastic material model for the deformation of so
il solids and water. In this respect, the reader would be able to visualize this
analytical formulation by comparing it with Equation (1.38) of Section 1.7.3. T
iti et al. (1999) also compared the finite element model predictions with field
measurements using pile segment models and pile load tests. The results of these
comparisons, shown in Figure 9.45Figure 9.47, seem to authenticate the innovat
ive pile load test modeling techniques developed by Titi et al. (1999).
age 412
FIGURE 9.45 Comparison of measured and predicted radial effective stress with ti
me. (From Titi et al., 1999. With permission.)
FIGURE 9.46 Comparison of measured and predicted pile setup. (From Titi et al.,
1999. With permission.)
FIGURE 9.47 Comparison of measured and predicted response in pile load test #3.
(From Titi et al., 1999. With permission.)
age 413
9.11 Quality Assurance Test Methods
The construction of a foundation is plagued with unknowns associated with the in
tegrity of the asbuilt structure. This is particularly problematic with deep fo
undations that are installed without visual certainty of the actual conditions o
r configuration. This section will discuss several methods used to raise the con
fidence of the design with regard to concrete quality or capacity verification.
9.11.1 ile Integrity Tester
The pile integrity tester (IT) (Figure 9.48) is less sophisticated and informat
ive than the DA (Section 9.4) in that the required instrumentation only consist
s of a sensitive accelerometer and the amount of information obtained is also li
mited. In this nondestructive test, the accelerometer is attached to the top of
the pile to be tested and a low strain hammer impact is imparted on the pile (Fi
gure 9.49). The velocity records of the low strain compressive waves generated b
y the impact and their reflection from the pile toe or any other discontinuities
are conditioned, processed, and finally graphically displayed. However, the int
erpretation of IT results is similar to that employed in pile integrity testing
using the DA (Section 9.4). When the pile is undamaged throughout its entire l
ength, the compressive pulse induced by the hammer blow is reflected back by the
toe resistance at a time tTR equal to t TR=2L/c (9.45)
FIGURE 9.48
Dynamic testing of both the new and the existing timber piles conducted with DA
. (Courtesy of ile Dynamic Inc.)
age 414
FIGURE 9.49 ile integrity testing. (Courtesy of ile Dynamic Inc.)
where L is the length of the pile and c is the velocity of compression waves in
the pile material. Similarly, reflected pulses also return to the pile top due t
o the soil resistance on the pile shaft, reduction in pile cross section due to
damage, and change in the material characteristics (downgrading of the quality o
f concrete). Since it is known that the returning pulses due to shaft resistance
and those due to crosssectional reductions are of opposite signs (compression
and tension, respectively), a tension pulse with an early return time, i.e., t<t
TR indicates damage at a distance given by either one of the following expressio
ns: (9.46)
(9.47)
9.11.1.1 Limitations of IT The following limitations affect the use of IT in d
amage testing of piles: 1. Because of the attenuation of compression waves by sk
in friction, pile toe reflections can be generally identified only when the embe
dment length is less than 30 pile diameters. 2. In piles and caissons with highl
y varying cross sections, it is difficult to distinguish between pile defects an
d construction anomalies. 3. Mechanical splices would generally appear as gaps.
These limitations can be overcome in the case of a pile group where truly damage
d piles can be distinguished based on their abnormal response to pile integrity
testing with respect to the group.
9.11.2 Shaft Integrity Test
The shaft or pile integrity test (SIT) is an impact echo test that uses the refl
ections of anomalous crosssectional shaft or pile dimensions to determine the q
uality of a drilled
age 415
FIGURE 9.50 Equipment used for sonic echo test (left), impact hammer struck on s
haft head (right). (Courtesy of Applied Foundation Testing, Inc.)
shaft, augercastin situ, or driven pile. The reflected sound waves from within
the concrete are plotted as a function of arrival times which can then be corre
lated to the depth from which the reflection emanated. Figure 9.50 and Figure 9.
51 show the equipment used to conduct the test as well as the output results.
FIGURE 9.51 Sonic echoes from three consecutive hammer impacts. (Courtesy of App
lied Foundation Testing, Inc.)
age 416 This test is well suited for determining the depth of the foundation as
well as the depth to anomalous features. However, it cannot determine the magni
tude of anomalous features, as it requires access to the pile top to minimize co
nfounding signals, and it is generally limited to depths on the order of 50 time
s the pile diameter.
9.11.3 Shaft Inspection Device
The inspection device (Figure 9.52) is a visual inspection system for evaluating
bottom cleanliness of drilled shaft excavations. A special video camera contain
ed in a weighted, trappedair bell housing is lowered into the shaft excavation
prior to concreting to record the condition of the bottom. This is particularly
helpful in slurry excavations where quality assurance is difficult to maintain.
The bell housing is outfitted with gages in clear sight of the video camera that
are capable of registering the thickness of accumulated debris or sediment at t
he shaft excavation. The system is capable of testing shafts with depths in exce
ss of 200 ft (61 m). Several generations of this device exist that range in size
from less than a foot in diameter to over 3 ft (0.9 m) in diameter. The inspect
ion is viewed in real time on a color video monitor and recorded on a standard V
HS tape. Voice annotations are recorded simultaneously during the inspection pro
cess similar to standard camcorders.
FIGURE 9.52 Miniature shaft inspection device. (Courtesy of Applied Foundation T
esting, Inc.)
age 417 9.11.4 Crosshole Sonic Logging Crosshole sonic logging is a geophysical
test method used to determine the compression wave velocity between two paralle
l, waterfilled tubes or slurry filled boreholes. By using two geophones (one em
itting and one receiving) the sound wave arrival times can be logged at various
depths within the tubes. From this information the in situ properties of the mat
erials between the tubes can be inferred, thus identifying various strata. More
recently, this test has become a nondestructive method for evaluating the qualit
y of newly placed drilled shaft concrete. Therein, the arrival times are measure
d between logging tubes attached peripherally to the reinforcing cage allowing c
oncrete quality between the tubes to be assessed. As only the concrete in a dire
ct line between the tubes can be tested, multiple access tubes can be installed.
Typically, one tube for every foot of diameter is required to satisfactorily su
rvey a representative portion of the shaft concrete. Data are viewed in the fiel
d on a special dataacquisition system (Figure 9.53). 9.11.5 ostgrout Test The p
ostgrout test is a byproduct of an end bearing enhancement technique used durin
g the construction of drilled shafts. This test is relatively simple in concept
yet confirms the performance of every grouted shaft up to a lower limit of shaft
capacity. During the process of tip grouting, the upward displacement, grout pr
essure, and grout volume are recorded. This information provides the design engi
neer the response of the shaft to loading. Therein, the side shear and the end b
earing of the shaft are verified up to the level of the applied grout pressure.
The product of the grout pressure and tip area produces the tip load; this prelo
ading is afforded by an equivalent reaction from the side shear component. There
fore, the proven capacity of the shaft is established as twice the tip load. The
upper limit of capacity can be shown to be on the order of two to three times t
he proven capacity when verified by downward load testing. The design of
FIGURE 9.53 Crosshole sonic logging of 4 ft diameter shaft. (Courtesy of Applied
Foundation Testing, Inc.)
age 418
FIGURE 9.54 Field data used to confirm shaft performance.
postgrouted shafts is discussed in Chapter 7. Figure 9.54 shows the standard fie
ld data obtained from every grouted shaft. Figure 9.55 shows the performance for
each of 76 shafts grouted on a bridge project in West alm Beach, Florida. (Uni
t conversion: 1 ton= 8.9 kN, 1 in=2.54 mm, 1 cu.ft=0.0283 m3.)
9.11.6 Impulse Response Method
In this relatively novel technique, a lowfrequency compression wave is generate
d at the top of a pile or a drilled shaft by a hammer impact and the reflected w
ave is recorded at the top (Gassman, 1997). Subsequent analysis of the frequency
content of the reflected response can identify changes in the impedance of the
deep foundation due to structural and material anomalies. The velocity and force
records of the reflected pulse are analyzed using a fast Fourier transform. The
resulting velocity spectrum divided by the force spectrum is defined as the mob
ility. The average mobility N c is defined as the geometric mean of the resonant
peaks identified in the mobility curve. Therefore, if and Q are the local max
imum and minimum resonant peaks respectively, Nc can be expressed as (Figure 9.5
6): (9.48) On the other hand, the theoretical mobility is defined as (Stain, 198
2) (9.49) where is the density of the pile mateial, V is the compession wave v
elocity in the pile mateial, and Ap is the coss-sectional aea of the pile.
Page 419
FIGURE 9.55 The displacement obseved fo evey shaft on a poject at design pe
ss e.
If Nc N T, a defect likely exists d e to an nexpectedly smalle coss section o
s bq ality mateial within the pile (low o low V). In addition, if the feq e
ncy change between peaks ( f) is measured from the mobility urve (Figure 9.56),
the distane from the pile top (loation of the monitoring devie) to
FIGURE 9.56 Typial mobility urve. (From Baxter, S.C., Islam, M.O., and Gassman
, S.L., 2004, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering . With permission.)
Page 420 the soure of refletion (pilesoil interfae or a strutural defet)

an be determined from the following expression: (9.50)
9.12 Methods of Repairing Pile Foundations
Pile or shaft foundations ould lose their funtionality due to two main reasons
: 1. The pile or the shaft an lose its strutural integrity 2. The ground (or s
oil) support is inadequate ausing exessive settlement problems In the ase of
strutural damage the pile an be repaired by a variety of methods of whih one
popular tehnique is illustrated below.
9.12.1 Pile Jaket Repairs
Reinfored onrete pilings loated in or near sea water are prone to orrosion
of the steel reinforement. The most severe orrosion rate ours in the splash
zone, whih is loated immediately above the sea level and hene is subjeted to
alternating wet and dry yles. Above the splash zone and toward the pile ap m
oderate orrosion rates an be expeted. On the other hand, low orrosion rates
are enountered in the submerged zone. Conrete pilings in hot tropial marine e
nvironments are espeially disposed to deterioration as orrosion rates are grea
tly influened by humidity, temperature, and resistivity. It is generally found
that in a majority of pile damage ases due to orrosion the damage is loated a
bove the low tide level and extends upwards to inlude the splash zone. One popu
lar and effetive remedy for this defiieny is pile jaket repairs. Pile jaket
ing is a repair tehnique that usually onsists of a stayinplae form (Figure
9.57), whih is filled with a ementitious or polymer material. Preparations for
the repair onsist of the removal of deteriorated onrete, the leaning of the
steel and the bonding interfae, and the installation of the form. A seal is pr
ovided at the bottom of the form. Water within the form is either pumped out or
displaed by the plaement of the grout deposited in the bottom of the form. A p
opular form type is a twopart fiberglass form that is plaed around a damaged a
rea and sealed along the onneting seams. Zippered nylon and 55 gallon drums ha
ve also been used as pile jaket forms. Strength onsiderations for onrete pil
e repairs are generally seondary to servieability issues. Perhaps the most pro
nouned onern on the strength side of a orroded pile involves lateral loading
as in a vessel impat senario. Repairs performed on saled models are generall
y seen to restore a signifiant portion of the lateral apaity lost to the effe
ts of orrosion. Under axial loading, repaired piles are seen to behave omposi
tely until the bond is ompromised. Attempts to improve this bond with powder a
tuated nails have proved to be futile, presumably due to damage indued on the p
arent onrete. The use of epoxied dowel bars viewed as less invasive have enhan
ed the
Page 421
FIGURE 9.57 Installation sequene of pile jaket form. (Courtesy of Alltrista Co
.)
ultimate apaity despite having no apparent effet on the interfae bond betwee
n the younger and the senior onrete. Preserving the ross setion of the paren
t onrete is the most ritial onern on the strength side. Removal of onret
e should be onentrated on the ends of the intended repair loation to enhane
load transfer into the repair area by end bearing as opposed to shear (Fisher et
al., 2000). Lately, it is the servieability onsideration that has reeived re
latively signifiant attention. The presene of onventional jakets have preven
ted bridge inspetors from observing stains indued by orrosion ativity and lo
alized raking normally observed in an unrepaired pile. Although some suh on
erns have been alleviated by the development of transluent jaket materials, o
ther onerns still remain. In another study in Florida (Mannatee County), the u
se of onventional pile jakets for orrosion ontrol was reommended to be dis
ontinued. This study revealed that the appliation of pile jakets on orrosion
damaged piles reated orrosion ells, whih, in effet, make the parent materia
l even more suseptible to orrosion damage. The general trend in Florida is the
replaement of onventional pile jakets with an integral pile jaket, whih in
orporates athodi protetion using sarifiial anodes. Fiber reinfored polyme
rs and other materials are likely to gain popularity as suitable produts in pil
e repair using jakets (Figure 9.58).
FIGURE 9.58 Replaement onventional pile jakets with lifejakets on Anna Maria
Island Bridge. (Courtesy of Manattee County, Florida.)
Page 422
FIGURE 9.59 Illustration of underpinning. (a) Underpinning with minipiles. (b)
preparation of foundation for underpinning. (From www.saberpiering.om. With per
mission.)
9.13 Use of Piles in Foundation Stabilization
9.13.1 Underpinning of Foundations
When the soil on whih an existing spread footing, raft footing, pile group, or
a shaft is founded shows signs of exessive deformation during the normal funti
oning of the foundation or during the initial load testing, the foundation an b
e repaired and stabilized by underpinning. Another situation in whih underpinni
ng may be required to stabilize the foundation is if a building is built on a la
nd that is subjeted to severe erosion. Underpinning (Figure 9.59 and Figure 9.6
0) is a means of transferring foundation loads to deeper and more stable soils o
r bedrok by modifying an existing foundation system. It is used to provide vert
ial support, prevent the underpinned area from settling, and inrease loadarr
ying apaity of the existing foundation.
FIGURE 9.60 Preparation of a foundation for underpinning. (a) Underpinning with
resistane piers. (b) underpinning with helial piers. (From www.judyompany.om
. With permission.)
Page 423 The ommon tehniques utilized in underpinning are ompation grouting,
rok bolt and anhorage system, drilling and grouting, strutural fills, soil n
ailing, onstrution of footings, stem walls, and driven pilings in the ase of
drilled piers and shafts. In seleting the most appropriate method one has to st
udy the subsurfae profile of the partiular site and the properties of the subs
urfae soil types present at the site. Then, one an reah aurate geotehnial
onlusions and make reommendations for seleting the optimum underpinning met
hod. Cases of hillside strutures with undesirable foundation soils present two
problems suh as the need for providing vertial foundation support and at the s
ame time preventing lateral movement as the soil surrounding the struture moves
downward to oupy the loosened area below the foundation (www.saberpiering.om
). In suh ases one an improve strutural stability by underpinning with resis
tane piers and helial piers (Figures 9.61a and b). Resistane piers are instal
led on a strong loadbearing stratum while the foundation is supported temporari
ly. After seating of the resistane piers, the foundation is lifted bak into pl
ae (Figure 9.61a). Then, at eah loation of resistane pier plaement, a heli
al pier is turned into the hill, deep through the slipping top soil (Figure 9.61
b). In the ase of heavier strutures, onrete underpinning is used for stabili
zation. In this method, a hollow aisson is driven into the ground and filled wi
th onrete to support the struture providing more strength than in the ase of
helial underpinning. Conrete underpinning, however, does not offer the abilit
y to lift the struture in anyway. Permeation grouting is another popular underp
inning method where a speially designed grout is injeted into the soil without
disturbing its original struture. This tehnique is used for enhaned foundati
on bearing, stabilization of exavations in freefalling sands, and redution of
liquefation potential in fine saturated sands. Grouts are typially waterbase
d slurries of ement, fly ash, lime, or other finely ground solids that undergo
a hardening proess with time. For the stabilization to be effetive, it is reo
mmended that the effetive partile diameter of the grout suspension is less tha
n five times the mean effetive pore size of the foundation soil.
9.13.2 Shoring of Foundations
Shoring also an be utilized to provide a support system for foundations. It is
used when the loation or depth of a ut makes the sloping of the bakfill exee
d the maximum allowable slope and hene beomes impratial. There are many type
s of shores suh as Influene Fators for the Linear Solution L
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Z/L
0 0.125 0.25 0.375 0.5 0.625 0.75 0.875
K( H)
1.1376 0.8586 0.6015 0.3764 0.1838 0.0182 0.1288 0.2659
K( H)
1.1341 1.0828 0.9673 0.8333 0.7115 0.6192 0.5628 0.5389
K(MH)
0 0.1848 0.262 0.2637 0.218 0.1491 0.0776 0.0222
K(VH)
1 0.5015 0.1377 0.1054 0.2442 0.2937 0.2654 0.1665
K( M)
1.0762 0.6579 0.2982 0.0376 0.1463 0.2767 0.3747 0.4572
K( M)
1.0762 0.8314 0.6133 0.4366 0.3068 0.222 0.1757 0.1578
K(MM)
1 0.9397 0.7959 0.6138 0.4262 0.2564 0.1208 0.0318

K(VM)
0 0.2214 0.3387 0.3788 0.3639 0.3101 0.2282 0.1241
2.0 3.0
1 0.125
0.3999 0.6459
0.5351 0.8919
0 0.2508
0 0.3829
0.5351 0.3854
0.1551 0.6433
0 0.8913
0 0.2514
Pae 424
0.0184 0.1607 0.2162 0.2011 0.1524 0.0916 0.0282 0.0282 0.2409 0.1136 0.2118 0.1
858 0.1200 0.0538 0.0033 0.0555 1.0003 0.1210 0.1818
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
0.25 0.375 0.5 0.625 0.75 0.875 1 0 0.1250 0.2500 0.3750 0.5000 0.6250 0.7500 0.
8750 1.0000 0 0.1250 0.2500
0.3515 0.1444 0.0164 0.0529 0.0861 0.1021 0.113 1.0008 0.5323 0.1979 0.0140 0.05
90 0.0687 0.0505 0.0239 0.0038 1.0003 0.4342 0.0901
0.6698 0.4394 0.2528 0.1271 0.0584 0.0321 0.0282 1.0015 0.8247 0.5101 0.2403 0.0
682 0.0176 0.0488 0.0552 0.0555 1.0003 0.7476 0.3628
0.3184 0.285 0.2091 0.1272 0.0594 0.0154 0 0 0.2907 0.3093 0.2226 0.1243 0.0529
0.0147 0.0014 0 0 0.3131 0.2716
0.0141 0.1664 0.2223 0.2057 0.1519 0.0807 0 0.0000 0.2411 0.1108 0.2055 0.1
.1084 0.0475 0.0101 0.0000 1.0000 0.1206 0.1817
0.3493 0.1429 0.0168 0.0489 0.0763 0.0839 0.0847 0.0847 0.5344 0.2010 0.0178 0.0
558 0.0696 0.0616 0.0535 0.0517 1.0002 0.4343 0.0907
0.6684 0.436 0.2458 0.1148 0.0396 0.0069 0 0.0000 0.8229 0.5082 0.2397 0.0720 0.
0043 0.0206 0.0096 0.0000 1.0000 0.7472 0.3620
0.3202 0.2887 0.215 0.1353 0.0684 0.0225 0 0 0.2910 0.3090 0.2200 0.1176 0.0406
0.0025 0.0148 0 0 0.3133 0.2720
rin beams, str ts, and sheetin and pilin. The se of pilin is often the most
cost and time efficient method for stabilizin excavations. Some common shorin
systems that se pilin are shown in Fi re 9.62. As seen in Fi re 9.62, the f
ixity condition of a pilebased shorin system can vary from restrained to flexi
ble.
References
Baxter, S.C., Islam, M.O., and Gassman, S.L., 2004, Imp lse response eval ation
of drilled shafts with pile caps, modelin and experiment, Canadian Jo rnal of C
ivil Enineerin., 31(2):169177. Berminham, P. and White, J., 1995, Pyrotechnics
and the acc rate of prediction of statnamic peak loadin and f el chare size,
First International Statnamic Seminar, Vanco ver, British Col mbia, Canada. Bowl
es, J.E., 1995, Fo ndation Analysis and Desin, McGrawHill, New York. Californi
a Trenchin and Shorin Man al, http://www.oshaslc.ov Das, B.M., 2002, Princip
les of Fo ndation Enineerin, PWS P blishin, Boston, MA. Davisson, M.T., 1972,
Hih capacity piles, Proceedins of the lect re series on Innovation in Fo ndat
ion Constr ction, ASCE, NY, 81112 pp. De Beer, E., 1971, Methodes de ded ction de
la capacite portante d n pie a partir des res ltants des essays de penetration,
Annals de Trava x P bli
es de Beli
e, No. 4, Br xelles, 191268 pp. Desai, C.S
, Wath ala, G.W., and Matlock, H., Constit tive model for cyclic behavior of cl
ay II: applications, Jo rnal of Geotechnical Enineerin, ASCE, 119(4):730748. ET
C, 1986, Pile Sement TestsSabine Pass: Some Aspects of the F ndamental Behavio
r of Axially Loaded Piles in Clay Soils, Earth Technoloy Corporation, ETC Repor
t No. 85007, Ho ston, TX.
Fellini s, B.H., 2001, The Ocellan innovative enineerin tool, Geotechnical New
s Maazine, 19(2), 3233 pp. Fischer, J., M llins, G., Sen, R., and Issa, M., 2000
, Ultimate Strenth of Repaired Piles, Final Report to FDOT, March. Gassman, S.L
., 1997, Imp lse Response Eval ation of Inaccessible Fo ndations, Ph.D. Disserta
tion, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Pae 425
Goble, G.G. and Likins, G.E., 1996, On the Application of PDA Dynamic Pile Testi
n, STRESSWAVE 96 Conference: Orlando, FL, 263273 pp. Goble, G.G., Ra sche, F., an
d Likins, G.E., 1988, The analysis of pile drivinA stateoftheart, Third Inter
national Conference on the Application of StressWave Theory to Piles: Ottawa, C
anada; 131161 pp. Goble, G.G., Ra sche, F., and Moses, F., 1970, Dynamic St dies
on the Bearin Capacity of Piles Phase III, Final report to the Ohio Department o
f Hihways, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, A st. Goble, G.G
. and Ra she, F., 1986, Wave E
ation Analysis of Pile DrivinWEAP86 Proram, Vol
s. IIV, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Hihway Administration, Impl
ementation Division, McLean, VA. Goodman, R.E., 1989, Rock Mechanics, 2nd edn, J
ohn Wiley, New York. Hameed, R.A., 1998, Lateral Load Behavior of Jetted and Pre
formed Piles, Ph.D. dissertation, University of So th Florida, USA. Hameed, R.A.
, G naratne, M., P tcha, S., K o, C., and Johnson, S., 2000, Lateral load behavi
or of jetted piles, ASTM Geotechnical Testin Jo rnal. Hartt, W. and Rapa, M., 1
998, Condition Assessment of Jackets Upon Pilins for Florida Bride S bstr ct r
es, Final Report to FDOT, April. HKS, Inc., 1995, ABAQUS/Standard Users Man al, V
ols. III, Version 5.4, Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., Pawt cket, RI. Janes
, M.C., J stason, M.D., and Brown, D.A., 2000, Lon period dynamic load testin
ASTM standard draft, Proceedins of the Second International Statnamic Seminar,
Tokyo, October, 1998, pp. 199218. J stason, M.D., 1997, Report of Load Testin at
the Taipei M nicipal Incinerator Expansion Project, Taipei City, Taipei. K saka
be O., K wabara F, and Mats moto T, 2000, Statnamic load test, Draft of Method fo
r Rapid Load Test of Sinle Piles (JGS 18152000), Proceedins of the Second Intern
ational Statnamic Seminar, Tokyo, October 1998, pp. 237242. Middendorp, P. and Bi
elefeld, M.W., 1995, Statnamic load testin and the infl ence of stress wave phe
nomena, Proceedins of the First International Statnamic Seminar, Vanco ver, Can
ada, pp. 207220. Middendorp, P., Berminham, P., and K iper, B., 1992, Statnamic
load testin of fo ndation pile, Proceedins of the 4th International Conference
on Application of StressWave Theory to Piles, The Ha e, pp. 581588. M llins, G
., Lewis, C., and J stason, M., 2002, Advancements in Statnamic data reression
techni
es, Deep Fo ndations 2002: An International Perspective on Theory, Desi
n, Constr ction, and Performance, ASCE Geo Instit te, GSP No. 116, Vol. II, pp.
915930. M llins, G., Fischer, J., Sen, R., and Issa, M., 2003, Improvin interfac
e bond in pile repair, In: SystemBased Vision for Strateic and Creative Desin
, Franco Bontempi, ed., Proceedins of the Second International Conference on St
r ct ral and Constr ction Enineerin, September 2326, Rome, Italy, Vol. 2, pp. 1
4671472, AA. Balkema P blishers, Lisse, The Netherlands. M rchison, J.M. and ONeil
l, M.W., 1984, Eval ation of PY relationship in cohesionless soils, In: Analysi
s and Desin of Pile Fo ndation, ASCE, New York, pp. 174191. Nishim ra, S. and Ma
ts moto, T., 1995, Wave propaation analysis d rin Statnamic loadin of a steel
pipe pile, Proceedins of the First International Statnamic Seminar, Vanco ver,
Canada, September. Osterber, J.O., 1994, Recent Advances in Load Testin Drive
n Piles and Drilled Shafts sin the Osterber Load Cell Method. Geotechnical Le
ct re Series, Geotechnical Division of the Illinois Section, ASCE, Chicao, IL.
Osterber, J.O, 1998, The Osterber load test method for bored and driven piles,
the first ten years, Proceedins of the Seventeenth International Conference on
Pilin and Deep Fo ndations, Vienna, A stria, J ne. Po los, H.G. and Davis, E.H
., 1980, Pile Fo ndation Analysis and Desin, John Wiley, New York.
Reese, L.C, Cox, W.R., and Koop, F.D., 1974, Analysis of laterally loaded piles
in sand, Proceedins of the 6th Offshore Technoloy Conference, Ho ston, Texas,
paper OTC 2080, pp. 473483.
Pae 426
Ra sche, F., Goble, G.G., and Likins, G., 1985, Dynamic determination of pile ca
pacity, Jo rnal of the Geotechnical Division, ASCE. 111(3):367383. Ra sche, F., M
oses, F., and Goble, G.G., 1979, Soil resistance predictions from pile dynamics,
Jo rnal of the Soil Mechanics and Fo ndation Division, ASCE, 98(SM9):917937. Smi
th, A.E.L., 1960, Pile drivin analysis by wave e
ation, Jo rnal of SMFD, ASCE,
86(4):3561. Stain, R.T., 1982, Interity Testin, Civil Enineerin, London, Apr
il and May, pp. 5559 and 7173. Tsinker, G.P., 1988, Pile jettin, Jo rnal of Geote
chnical Enineerin, ASCE, 114(3):326 334. Thilakasiri, H.S., Abeyasinhe, R.K.,
and Tennekoon, B.L., 2002, A st dy of ltimate carryin capacity estimation of d
riven piles sin pile drivin e
ations and the wave e
ation method, Ann al Tr
ansactions of the Instit tion of Enineers, Sri Lanka. Thilakasiri, H.S., Abeysi
nhe, R.M., and Tennakoon, B.L., 2003, A st dy of static capacity estimation met
hods for bored piles on resid al soils, Presented at the Ann al Sessions of the
Sri Lanka Association for Advancement of Science (SLAAS). Titi, H.H. and Wath a
la, G.W., 1999, N merical Proced re for Predictin Pile CapacitySet p/ Freeze, Jo
rnal of the Transportation Research Board, TRR 1663, Transportation Research Bo
ard, National Research Co ncil, National Academy Press, Washinton, DC, pp. 2532.
Winters, D., 2002, SUPERSAW Statnamic Analysis Software, Masters Thesis, Univers
ity of So th Florida, Tampa, FL, May. Wath ala, G.W., Desai, C.S., and Matlock,
H., 1994, Field verification of pile load tests by n merical methods with a en
eral constit tive model, Proceedins of the XIII International Conference on So
il Mechanics and Fo ndation Enineerin, Vol. 1, New Delhi, India, Jan ary, pp.
433436. Yo n, H.D., 1992, University Physics, 8ht edn, Addison Wesley, Readin,
MA. http://www.handyeotech.com/main.html
Websites
http://www.saberpierin.com/ http://www.efo ndationrepairs.com/ nderpinnin.htm
l http://www.j dycompany.com/ nderpinnin.htm
Pae 427
10 Retainin Walls: Analysis and Desin
Alaa Ashmawy CONTENTS 10.1 Introd ction 10.2 Lateral Earth Press re 10.3 Basic D
esin Principles 10.3.1 Effect of Water Table 10.3.2 Effect of Compaction on Non
yieldin Walls 10.4 Gravity Walls 10.5 Cantilever Walls 10.6 MSE Walls 10.6.1 In
ternal Stability Analysis and Desin 10.6.2 Reinforced Earth Walls 10.6.3 Geori
dReinforced Walls 10.6.4 GeotextileReinforced Walls 10.7 SheetPile and TieBa
ck Anchored Walls 10.7.1 Cantilever Sheet Piles 10.7.2 Anchored Sheet Piles 10.7
.2.1 Red ndancy in Desin 10.7.3 Braced Excavations 10.7.4 TieBack Anchored Wal
ls 10.8 Soil Nail Systems 10.9 Drainae Considerations 10.10 Deformation Analysi
s 10.11 Performance nder Seismic Loads 10.12 Additional Examples Glossary Refer
ences
427 429 436 438 439 439 446 449 450 452 454 454 455 455 458 460 460 461 462 463
464 465 466 482 482
10.1 Introd ction
Retainin walls are soilstr ct re systems intended to s pport earth backfills.

Constr ction of retainin walls is typically motivated by the need to eliminate
slopes in road widenin projects, to s pport brides and similar overpass and n
derpass elements, or to provide a level ro nd for shallow fo ndations. Retainin
walls belon to a broader class of civil enineerin str ct res, earth retaini
n str ct res, which also encompass temporary s pport elements s ch as sheetpil
e walls, concrete sl rry walls, and soil nails. Evidence
Pae 428
FIGURE 10.1 Conventional types of retainin walls: (a) ravity, (b) cantilever.
of stone blocks and rockfill retainin walls is fo nd at archeoloical sites aro
nd the world. The western (wailin) wall in Jer salem was b ilt by Kin Herod a
s a retainin wall for the city, and the hanin ardens of Babylon are believed
to have been stepped terraces s pported by brick and stone walls. Retainin wal
ls have traditionally been constr cted with plain or reinforced concrete, with t
he p rpose of s stainin the soil press re arisin from the backfill. From an an
alysis and desin standpoint, classical references cateorize s ch walls into tw
o types: ravity walls and cantilever walls (Fi re 10.1). The basic difference
lies in the mechanisms and forces contrib tin to the wall stability; ravity wa
lls rely on their own weiht to provide static e
ilibri m while cantilever wall
s derive a portion of their stabilizin forces and moments from the backfill soi
l above the heel. From a constr ction standpoint, ravity walls are typically ma
de of plain ( nreinforced) concrete or stone blocks, whereas cantilever walls re
ire the se of steel reinforcement to resist the lare moments and shear stres
ses. With the advent of reinforced earth technoloies in the 1960s and eosynthe
tic materials in the 1980s, ravity and cantilever walls are becomin larely ob
solete. New technoloies s ch as mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls and s
oil nailin are becomin increasinly pop lar d e to their hih efficiency, adap
tability, and low cost. Fi re 10.2 shows typical cross sections in s ch earth r
etainin str ct res. Where larer and deeper excavations are needed, sheet piles
and tieback anchored walls (Fi re 10.3) are the str ct res of choice. Altho
h s ch interated soilincl sion systems have only be n to be sed in conventio
nal civil enineerin projects in recent years, the concept of soil
FIGURE 10.2 Cross section in (a) mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall and (b
) soilnailed wall.
Pae 429
FIGURE 10.3 Alternative earth retainin systems: (a) sheet pile with a tieback
anchor, (b) tieback anchored retainin wall.
reinforcement has s rprisinly been aro nd for tho sands of years. The zi rats b
ilt by the Babylonians, in what is modern day Ira
, were constr cted from an o
ter wall of fired brick, with the inside filled with clay reinforced with cedar
beams. Despite the low d rability of the bricks and clay, archeoloical remains
of many of the zi rats are still in existence today, which reflects the hih s
trenth and d rability of s ch systems. The miration to MSE systems was initiat
ed by the introd ction of Reinforced Earth, a proprietary technoloy that relies
on reinforcin the backfill with alvanized steel strips. Since then, a broad ra
ne of similar technoloies have emered, relyin on the same reinforcement mech
anisms while tilizin other types of materials. The basic idea is to reinforce
the soil with horizontal incl sions that extend back into the earth fill to form
a monolithic mass that acts as a selfcontained earth s pport system. Today, re
inforcement elements incl de prod cts ranin from nat ral fibers (e.., coir an
d bamboo) to eosynthetics (e.., eorids and eotextiles). With proress made
over the past decades in polymer science and enineerin, new species of polymer
s have become available that exhibit relatively hih strenth and mod l s, and e
xcellent d rability. As a res lt, MSE walls, specifically those reinforced with
eosynthetics, have become increasinly pop lar in transportation and eotechnic
al earthworks s ch as slope stabilization, hihway expansion, and, more recently
, bride ab tments. S ch bride ab tments can s pport hiher s rchares, and loa
ds concentrated near the facin of the wall.
10.2 Lateral Earth Press re
In order to desin earth retainin str ct res, it is necessary to have a thoro
h nderstandin of lateral earth press re concepts and theory. Altho h a compre
hensive review of lateral earth press re theories is beyond the scope of this ch
apter, we will present an overview of the classical and commonly accepted theori
es. Beca se soils possess shear strenth, the manit de of stress actin at a po
int may be different dependin on the direction. For instance, the horizontal pr
ess re at a point within a soil mass is typically different from the vertical pr
ess re. This is nlike fl ids, where the press re at a point is independent of d
irection (Fi re 10.4). The ratio between horizontal effective stress, and the v
ertical effective stress, is known as the coefficient of lateral earth press re,
K.
Pae 430
FIGURE 10.4 Ill stration of the concept of lateral earth press re. The diaram t
o the left shows a difference between vertical and horizontal earth press res ( v
h) . The diagram to the right illutrate an equal fluid preure in all directi
on.
(10.1) Typically, vertical tree in a oil ma can be reliably calculated by
multiplying the unit weight of the oil by the depth. In contrat, the horizont
al tree cannot be accurately predicted. The magnitude of the coefficient of
lateral earth preure depend not only on the oil phyical propertie, but al
o on contruction or depoition procee, tre hitory, and time among other
. For a given vertical tre value, the ability of a oil to reit hear tre
e reult in a range of poible horizontal tree (range of K value) where
the oil remain table. From a retaining earth tructure deign perpective,
two limit or condition exit where the oil fail: active and paive . The co
rreponding coefficient of lateral earth preure are denoted Ka and Kp, repec
tively. Under natural in itu condition, the actual value of the lateral earth pr
eure coefficient i known a the coefficient of lateral earth preure at ret
, K0. According to Rankines theory, an active lateral earth pressure condition oc
curs when the horizontal stress, decreases to the minimum possible value require
d for soil stability. In contrast, a passive condition takes place when increase
s to a point where the soil fails due to excessive lateral compression. Figure 1
0.5 shows practical situations where active and passive failures may occur. To f
urther illustrate the relationship between the coefficient of lateral earth pres
sure and the soils shear strength, we consider the retaining wall shown in Figure
10.6. Assuming the friction between the soil and the
FIGURE 10.5
Idealized lateral earth pressure conditions leading to failure due to (a) active
and (b) passive earth pressure.
age 431
FIGURE 10.6 Schematic illustration of the relationship between lateral earth pre
ssure and shear strength.
wall to be negligible, the vertical effective stress, at a depth z behind the wa
ll is equal to z. It follows that the horizontal effective stress is e
al to (E
ation 10.1). Under atrest conditions, the soil is far from fail re, and the s
tress condition is represented in Mohrs stress space by circle A . Here, the coef
ficient of earth press re at rest, K0, is e
al to the ratio between and . Next,
we ass me that the wall deforms or moves away from the backfill, thereby rad all
y red cin the horizontal press re. Thro ho t this process, the vertical press
re remains constant since no chanes are made in vertical loadin conditions. Th
e horizontal stress may be red ced p to the point where the stress conditions c
orrespond to circle B in Mohr space. At this point, the soil will have failed n
der active conditions. The correspondin coefficient of lateral earth press re,
Ka , is related to the soils anle of internal friction, , through the ollowing
equation: (10.2) The angle o the shear plane with respect to horizontal is (45+
/2), measured rom the heel o the wall. Now, let us consider the opposite scena
rio where, starting rom at-rest conditions, the wall moves toward the backill.
While the vertical stress remains constant, the horizontal stress will graduall
y increase, until it reaches a value o at which the soil ails under passive co
nditions. The corresponding stresses are represented by Mohr circle C, and the c
oeicient o lateral earth pressure, Kp, is equal to the inverse o Ka : (10.3)
In this case, the angle o the shearing plane measured rom the heel with respe
ct to horizontal is (45 /2). The illustrative example given above is a very power
ul tool in understanding the concepts o lateral earth pressure. In conjunction,
a number o important observations are noted: 1. The mobilized angle o interna
l riction at rest, 0, is related to the in situ horizontal and vertical stresse
s, and thus is a unction o the coeicient o earth pressure at rest:
Page 432
(10.4) 2. Although the soil remains within the ailure limits between active and
passive conditions, deormation does occur in conjunction with any changes in l
oading conditions. 3. Because active ailure is reached through a shorter stress p
ath compared to a passive condition, smaller deormations are associated with ac
tive ailure. 4. When transitioning rom active to passive and vice versa, a K=1
condition must occur where the horizontal and vertical stresses are equal, and
Mohr circle collapses into a point. At that instance, the soil is at its most st
able condition. It is very diicult to determine the in situ coeicient o lat
eral earth pressure at rest through measurement. Thereore, it is not uncommon t
o rely on typical values and empirical ormulas or that purpose. A commonly use
d empirical ormula or expressing K0 in uncemented sands and normally consolida
ted clays as a unction o was developed by Jky (1948): K0=1 sin (10.5) Equation (
10.5) was modiied by Schmidt (1966) to include the eect o overconsolidation
as ollows: K0=(1 sin )OCRsin (10.6) where OCR is the overconsolidation ratio. Th
e coeicient o lateral earth pressure at rest, K0, has also been correlated wi
th the liquidity index o clays (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990), the dilatometer horiz
ontal stress index (Marchetti, 1980; Lacasse and Lunne, 1988), and the Standard
Penetration Test N-value (Kulhawy et al., 1989). Table 10.1 lists typical values
o K0 or various soils. For design purposes, two classical lateral earth press
ure theories are commonly used to estimate active and passive earth pressures. R
ankines theory was described above, and relies on calculating the earth pressure
coeicients based on the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength o the backill soil. Alth
ough approximate solutions have been proposed in the literature or inclined bac
kill, they violate the rictionless wall-soil interace assumption and are ther
eore not presented here.
TABLE 10.1 Deormation ( x) Corresponding to Ative and Passive Earth Pressure, a
s a Funtion of Wall Height, H
x /H Soil Type
Dense sand
Ative
0.001
Passive
0.01
Mediumdense sand Loose sand Compated silt Compated lay

0.002 0.004 0.002 0.01
0.02 0.04 0.02 0.05
Page 433 Coulombs theory, on the other hand, dates bak to the 18th entury (Coul
omb, 1776) and onsiders the stability of a soil wedge behind a retaining wall (
Figure 10.7). In the original theory, line AB is arbitrarily seleted, and the w
eight of the wedge, W, is alulated knowing the unit weight of the soil. The di
retions of the soil resistane, R, and the wall reation, P A, are determined b
ased on the soils internal frition angle, , and the soil-wall interace angle, .
The stability of the wege ABC is satisfie by rawing the free-boy iagram, a
n the magnitues of R an P A are etermine accoringly. In orer to etermine
the most critical conition, the irection of line AB is varie until a maximum
value of PA is obtaine. The theory only gives the total magnitue of the resul
tant force on the wall, but the lateral earth pressure may be assume to increas
e linearly from the top to the bottom of the wall. Therefore, it becomes possibl
e to calculate an equivalent coefficient of lateral earth pressure for such con
itions as follows: (10.7) where is the nit weiht of the backfill soil, H is th
e wall heiht, and KA is Co lombs active earth press re coefficient. For simple
eometries, s ch as the one shown in Fi re 10.7, the inclination anle res ltin
in the maxim m val e of P A nder active conditions can be determined analytica
lly, and the coefficient of active earth press re may be calc lated from the fol
lowin expression: (10.8)
Similarly, Co lombs coefficient of passive earth press re, KP, is expressed as: (
10.9)
FIGURE 10.7
Co lombs active earth press re determination from the stability wede.
Pae 434 For horizontal backfills ( =0), vertical walls ( =90), nd smooth soilw
ll interfce ( =0), Coulombs earth pressure coefficients, as expresse by Equatio
ns (10.8) an (10.9), reuce to their corresponing Rankine equivalents (Equatio
ns 10.2 an 10.3). In fine-graine soils, the lateral earth pressure is affecte
by the soils cohesive strength component. Uner active conitions, the lateral e
arth pressure ecreases ue to the ability of the soil to withstan shear stress
es without confinement. The horizontal stress at epth z is, therefore, calculat
e from (10.10) A critical epth, zc, can be calculate from the groun surface,
where the horizontal stress is equal to zero (10.11) Above this epth, an beca
use of the soils inability to resist tension, no horizontal stresses evelop. It
has often been argue that tension cracks evelop in the groun an may be even
fille with water, which as to the lateral pressure on the wall. However, it i
s now wiely accepte that no such tension cracks evelop ue to the soils abilit
y to swell. Uner passive conitions, cohesive soils impose relatively high late
ral earth pressures ue to the soils ability to resist shearing. The horizontal e
arth pressure is calculate from Equation 10.12 (10.12) Figure 10.8 illustrates
the active an passive lateral earth pressure istributions in cohesive soils.
FIGURE 10.8 Lateral earth pressure istribution in cohesive soils: (a) active ca
se; (b) passive case.
Page 435 Example 10.1 Calculate the lateral earth pressure against the retaining
wall shown in Figure 10.9 uner both active an passive conitions. The backfil
l consists of coarse san with a unit weight of 17.5 kN/m 3 an an internal fric
tion angle of 30. The angle of interface friction, , between the wall an the soi
l is 15. Solution Since the wall-soil interface is rough, Coulombs theory must be
use since Rankines solution is limite to smooth interfaces. We first calculate
Coulombs coefficients of active an passive earth pressure from Equations (10.8)
an (10.9), respectively:
Page 436 Next, we calculate the vertical effective stress at points A an B. Her
e, since there is no water table behin the wall, the total an effective stress
es are equal. At the top of the wall, since there is no surcharge, the vertical
stress is equal to zero. At point B, the vertical stress is calculate by multip
lying the unit weight of the soil by the height of the wall ( v)A=0 ( H=17.57=122.5
kPa v)B= M ltiplyin the vertical stress by the correspondin coefficient of lat
eral earth press re, we obtain the active and passive lateral earth press re ( h,
active)A=( h,paive)A=0 ( h,active)B =( v)AK A=122.50.343=42 kPa ( ) =( h,paive B
)AKP=122.58.14=997 kPa Becaue of the friction that develop between the wall and
the oil, the active and paive preure act at downward and upward 15 angle,
repectively, meaured from horizontal. The preure increae linearly with dep
th. Accordingly, the reultant force act at a ditance of H/3 from the bottom o
f the wall. The reultant force per unit width of the wall can be calculated by
computing the area of the triangular preure ditribution
10.3 Baic Deign Principle
In reiting lateral earth preure, a variety of mechanim may act independent
ly or in combination to provide the tability of the earth retaining tructure.
Gravity and cantilever wall (Figure 10.10) rely on their own weight for tabili
ty, with the elfweight of the tructure counteracting the external force acti
ng on the wall urface (Figure 10.10a). Tieback anchorage, developing along the
grouted portion of the anchor, provide the bulk of the reitance in wall and
heet pile, a illutrated in Figure 10.10(b). MSE wall are monolithic interna
lly table reinforced earth tructure that derive their trength from the teni
le force mobilized along the reinforcement trip (Figure 10.10c). It i import
ant to tre that for MSE wall, the role of the facing unit i mainly aethet
ic, with econdary function uch a eroion control. Mot deign method are ba
ed on limiting equilibrium conideration, with little or no conideration give
n to the deformation of the ytem. Mot commonly ued i the allowable tre d
eign (ASD) method, in which the force acting on or within the ytem are analy
zed at equilibrium. A global factor of afety, FS, i typically calculated baed
on the generic equation: (10.13)
Page 437
FIGURE 10.10 Stability analyi of retaining wall: (a) gravity wall, (b) tieb
ack anchored wall, and (c) MSE wall.
The global factor of afety eentially lump all deign uncertaintie into a i
ngle quantity, with no conideration to the relative uncertainty of each of the
parameter. More recently, load and reitance factor deign (LRFD) ha been int
roduced a an alternative to account for uch difference (Withiam et al., 1998)
. The main concept behind LRFD i that different level of uncertainty are aoc
iated with different load and reitance component within a given ytem. For i
ntance, conider the gravity retaining wall hown in Figure 10.10(a). Each of t
he load component, uch a active earth preure and urface load, i multipli
ed by a pecific load factor, which i greater than 1.0, in order to amplify the
ditre and account for uncertaintie in load. Similarly, the reiting force
are multiplied each by a reduction factor maller than 1.0 to account for oil
and geometric variability. The main difference between ASD and LRFD i that the
latter deign take into conideration the different level of uncertainty in e
ach component, a oppoed to lumping all the ytem uncertaintie into a ingle
parameter. For intance, the reitance factor aociated with the elfweight o
f the wall, a highly reliable quantity, may be cloe to unity. In contrat, a la
rger reduction factor may be impoed on the paive earth preure component if
eroion of the toe oil i to be expected. The goal in LRFD i to achieve a comb
ined factored reitance that i greater than the combined factored load: R n iQ
i (10.14) In Equation (10.14), is a statistically based resistance factor associ
ated wit te nominal resistance of te system, Rn, and i is the oad factor ass
ociated with oad Q i. Because of the reativey recent introduction of LRFD, no
t much data exist with respect to the recommended or accepted vaues of and i .
It is aso important to note that, in the vast majority of references, the symbo
s and i are sed to denote the resistance and load factors, respectively. Howeve
r, the terms and i have been adopted here to avoid confusion with other conventi
ona geotechnica parameters. Whie LRFD offers a sound and rationa approach fo
r designing geotechnica structures by ta ing into account the difference in re
iabiity between different oading components, the resistance factors are umped
in a singe quantity, namey . In order to assess te redundancy in an eisting
design, or to analyze a system under new loading conditions, te available resi
stance is simply compared to te factored loads (rigt-and term in Equation 10.
14). Te values are ten compared, and te greater te difference te greater t
e design redundancy.
LRFD procedures in geotecnical design are still in te development pase, and a
ppropriate resistance and load factors are not yet available to te
Page 438 geotecnical engineer. ASD is still widely accepted among te geotecni
cal community, and is te specified metod in most current design codes. Terefo
re, in tis capter, we will focus te attention on te ASD metod in solving e
ample problems.
10.3.1 Effect of Water Table
In many instances, te soil beind an eart retaining structure is submerged. E
amples include seawalls, seet-pile walls in dewatering projects, and offsore s
tructures. Anoter reason for saturation of backfill material is poor drainage,
wic leads to an undesirable buildup of water pressure beind te retaining wal
l. Drainage failure often results in subsequent failure and collapse of te eart
retaining structure. In cases were te design considers te presence of a wat
er table, te lateral eart pressure is calculated from te effective soil stres
s. Oddly enoug, tis leads to a reduction in effective orizontal eart pressur
e since te effective stresses are lower tan teir total counterpart. However,
te total stresses on te wall increase due to te presence of te ydrostatic w
ater pressure. In oter words, wile te effective orizontal stress decreases,
te total orizontal stress increases. Te net eample illustrates tis concept
. Eample 10.2 Due to clogging of te drainage system, te water table as built
up to a dept of 4 m below te ground surface beind te retaining wall sown i
n Figure 10.11. Te soil above te water table is partially saturated and as a
unit weigt of 17 kN/m3. Below te water table, te soil is saturated and as a
unit weigt of 19 kN/m3. Calculate te total and effective vertical and orizont
al stresses at point A under active conditions. Solution First, we calculate te
total and effective vertical stress at point A
Net, we calculate te coefficient of lateral eart pressure using Equation (10.
2)
Page 439 We ten calculate te effective orizontal stress using Equation (10.1)
Te total orizontal stress is calculated by adding te pore water pressure to t
e effective orizontal stress
It is important to note tat te total orizontal stress cannot be correctly cal
culated by multiplying te total vertical stress by te coefficient of lateral e
art pressure ( Ka ( h)A v)A Such calculation will reult in ignificant underetim
ation of the horizontal tree acting on a retaining tructure under active co
ndition.
10.3.2 Effect of Compaction on Nonyielding Wall
In the cae of rigid (nonyielding) wall, atret condition are conidered in t
he tructural deign. In addition, lockedin paive earth preure can develop
near the top of the wall if heavy compaction equipment i ued. The paive con
dition, caued by a line load P from the roller, develop from the ground urfac
e up to a depth of zp and remain contant to a depth of zr where:
Below a depth of zr, atret earth preure condition prevail. In the cae of f
lexible wall, uch condition are not believed to occur due to wall diplacemen
t. Intead, active condition are aumed. In addition, light compaction equipme
nt i typically ued to compact the backfill behind mot retaining wall in orde
r to reduce the lateral earth preure. A a reult, the additional earth pre
ure due to compaction may not need to be conidered, depending on the contructi
on method.
10.4 Gravity Wall
In the pat, gravity and cantilever wall contituted the vat majority of earth
retaining tructure. However, in recent year, thee tructure have given way
to MSE wall, which are more economical, eaier to contruct, and better perfor
ming. A mall number of project, however, till rely on gravity wall and their
cloely related upport ytem of modular block wall. Traditionally, gravity w
all are cat in place of plain or reinforced concrete tructure that rely on t
heir own weight for tability. They may be contructed in a wide range of geomet
rie, ome of which are illutrated in Figure 10.12. Modular block wall, on the
other hand, are contructed by tacking row of interlocking block and compact
ing the oil in ucceive layer. Maonry or cinder block can alo be ued in
conjunction with mortar binding to form limited height wall, typically no
Page 440
FIGURE 10.12 Typical geometrie of gravity retaining wall.
taller than 2 m. Interlocking block are available commercially in a wide variet
y of hape and material, ome of which are proprietary. They provide a greater
level of tability than maonry wall and are ometime manufactured o that th
e reulting facing i battered (ee Figure 10.13). In deigning gravity wall, e
xternal tability, which i the equilibrium of all external force, i more crit
ical than the internal tructural tability of the wall. Thi i motly due to t
he maive nature of the tructure, which uually reult in conervative deign
for internal tability. In analyzing or deigning for external tability, all
the force acting on the tructure are conidered. Thee force include lateral
earth preure, the elfweight of the tructure, and the reaction from the fou
ndation oil. The tability of the wall i then evaluated by conidering the rel
evant force for each potential failure mechanim. The four potential failure me
chanim typically conidered in deign or analyi are hown in Figure 10.14 an
d are ummarized next:
FIGURE 10.13 Modular block wall with battered facing.
Page 441
FIGURE 10.14 Potential failure mode due to external intability of gravity wall
.
1. Sliding reitance. The net horizontal force mut be uch that the wall i p
revented from liding along it foundation. The factor of afety againt liding
i calculated from:
(10.15) The minimum acceptable limit for FSliding i 1.5. The mot ignificant
liding force component uually come from the lateral earth preure acting on
the active (backfill) ide of the wall. Such force may be intenified by the pre
ence of vertical or horizontal load on the backfill urface. In the unlikely e
vent where a water table i preent within the backfill, the water preure may
reduce the lateral earth preure due to the reduction in effective tree, bu
t greater lateral force are generated on the wall from the hydrotatic preure
of the water itelf. The main component reiting the liding i the friction a
long the wall bae. Due to the potential for eroion, the paive earth preure
in front of the toe of the wall i conervatively ignored in deign. If uch pa
ive earth preure i included, then the minimum acceptable limit for FSlidin
g increae to 2.0.
Page 442 2. Overturning reitance. The righting moment mut be greater than th
e overturning moment to prevent rotation of the wall around it toe. The righti
ng moment reult mainly from the elfweight of the tructure, wherea the main
ource of overturning moment i the active earth preure. The factor of afet
y againt overturning i calculated from:
(10.16) The factor of afety againt overturning mut be equal to or greater tha
n 1.5. 3. Bearing capacity. The bearing capacity of the foundation oil mut be
large enough to reit the tree acting along the bae of the tructure. The
factor of afety againt bearing capacity failure, FS BC, i calculated from:
(10.17) where qult i the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation oil, and
qmax i the maximum contact preure at the interface between the wall tructure
and the foundation oil. The minimum acceptable value for FS BC i 3.0. In addi
tion to traditional bearing capacity conideration, the movement of the wall due
to exceive ettlement of the underlying oil mut alo be limited. The compone
nt of the foundation ettlement include immediate, conolidation, and creep et
tlement, depending on oil type. 4. Global tability. Overall tability of the w
all ytem within the context of lope tability mut alo be aeed to enure
that no failure occur either in the backfill or the native oil. A uch, a e
parate analyi for lope tability mut be performed on the zone in the vicinit
y of the wall uing conventional limit equilibrium lope tability method. When
conidering the active and paive earth preure on either ide of the wall f
or liding and overturning calculation, caution mut be exercied. The wall mov
ement needed to fully mobilize an active condition on one ide of the wall i mu
ch maller than that needed to mobilize the paive preure on the other ide.
For and, a horizontal deformation of approximately 0.0025 to 0.0075 of the wal
l height i required to reach the minimum earth preure on the active ide, wit
h lower diplacement correponding to tiff (dene) and. The horizontal diplac
ement needed to develop the full paive reitance i approximately 10 time th
at amount, which raie the iue of diplacement compatibility. Even though the
oil on the paive ide i typically looer due to the lack of overburden conf
inement, a fully paive condition rarely develop within typical acceptable di
placement range in retaining wall. Thi lack of diplacement compatibility may
even be more ignificant if the rotation mechanim of the wall i conidered. I
t i, therefore, advied to neglect the paive earth preure in wall tability
calculation. If a deign prove to be inadequate, remedial action mut be take
n to increae the correponding factor of afety (ee Figure 10.15). In the cae
of potential liding failure, additional oil may be compacted in front of the
wall toe, but proviion are needed to enure that uch oil doe not erode with
time. Another olution i the incluion of a
Page 443
FIGURE 10.15 Typical proviion to increae the tability of gravity wall.
key acro the bae of the wall. In the cae of overturning, the weight of the tr
ucture can be increaed, the bae widened, or the center of gravity moved furthe
r back from the wall face. Bearing capacity and global tability concern may be
addreed through conventional olution for uch problem, uch a geometric mo
dification, oil improvement, or choice of a deep foundation alternative. Exampl
e 10.3 Calculate the factor of afety againt liding, overturning, and bearing
capacity failure for the retaining wall hown in Figure 10.16. The ultimate bear
ing capacity of the foundation oil i 500 kPa and the coefficient of bae frict
ion, =0.3. Assume that the wall is smooth, and include the passive earth pressur
e at the toe when applicable.
Pae 444 Solution Based on the conditions shown in Fiure 10.16, active and pass
ive earth pressures act on the riht and left side of the wall, respectively. Ac
cordinly, we calculate the coefficients of active earth pressure for the sand a
nd the sandy ravel layers, and passive earth pressure for the clay layer:
We then calculate the vertical and horizontal stresses at points A throuh F. Wi
thin each soil layer, the horizontal stresses increase linearly since the soil i
s uniform and homoeneous. It is also important to note that the horizontal stre
ss at point B is different from point C since there is an abrupt chane in the coe
fficient of lateral earth pressure at that location. It is also noted that the p
assive pressure at points E and F is calculated from Equation (10.12) due to the
presence of cohesion in the clay. Point
A B C D E F 60 60+183=114 114 114+194=190 0 161=16
K
0.333 0.333 0.208 0.208 1.42 1.42 600.333=20 1140.333=38 1140.208=23.7 1900.208=39.5
250(1.42)0.5=119.2 119+161.42=141.7
The next step is to calculate the resultant vertical and horizontal forces by su
bdividin the lateral earth pressure diaram and the wall cross section into rec
tanles and trianles. The earth pressure forces are calculatin from the area o
f the diaram, while the weihts of the concrete wall are calculated by multiply
in the area by the unit weiht of concrete (23.5 kN/m 3). It is also prudent at
this stae to compute the moment arm associated with each force (measured from
the wall toe F) in anticipation of the overturnin stability calculations. Force
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 W1 W2 W3 1723.5=164.5 3123.5=70.5 119.21=119.2 23.74=94.8 203=60
Manitude (kN/m)
Moment Arm (m)
4+3/2=5.5 4+3/3=5 4/2=2 4/3=1.33 1/2=0.5 1/3=0.33 3/2=1.5 0.5+1.52/3=1.5 2.5
Fb
Wi =(70.5+105.8+164.5)0.3=102.2
0
Pae 445 The factor of safety aainst slidin is calculated from Equation (10.15
):
The factor of safety aainst overturnin is calculated from Equation (10.16):
In calculatin the resistin moments, the passive earth pressure at the toe of t
he wall was included in this example. This should only be done in cases where it
is uaranteed that such soil will not erode. Otherwise, the moments resultin f
rom the passive earth pressure at the toe of the wall should be inored. In orde
r to calculate the factor of safety aainst bearin capacity failure, it is nece
ssary to determine the maximum and minimum base contact pressures. Due to the ec
centricity enerated by the moment, the maximum pressure will typically occur at
the toe of the wall (point G) while the minimum will occur at the heel (point J
). The total vertical force, V= W, and the moment, Mc, abo t the cente of the ba
se ae eq ivalent to a vetical foce V acting at an eccentic distance e fom t
he cente of the base. An easy method fo calc lating e elies on the ighting a
nd ovet ning moments abo t the toe, which ae available fom the F ovet nin
g calc lations:
whee b is the width of the base, MR and MO ae the ighting and ovet ning mom
ents, espectively, and V= W is the s mmation of the vetical foces. Theefoe,
The maxim m and minim m pess es ae then calc lated fom basic mechanics of ma
teials concepts:
As s ch,
The facto of safety against beaing capacity fail e is calc lated fom Eq atio
n (10.17):
It is evident in this poblem that the wall is maginally safe, since the facto
s of safety against sliding, ovet ning, and beaing capacity ae slightly abov
e 1.0. Howeve, these val es ae m ch lowe than the ecommended val es of 2.0,
1.5, and 3.0, espectively. Theefoe, the
design modifications sho ld be intod ced to incease the factos of safety to t

hei minim m acceptable limits.
Page 446
10.5 Cantileve Walls
Like gavity walls, cantileve etaining walls have also become lagely obsolete
, b t ae const cted in cases whee ME walls ae not feasible. They also ely
on thei self-weight to esist sliding and ovet ning, b t deive pat of thei
stability fom the weight of the backfill above the heel of the wall. Cantileve
walls ae made of einfoced concete, and come in diffeent geometies. They
ae often easie to eect than gavity wall, since they can be pefabicated in
sections and tanspoted diectly to the site. Fig e 10.17 shows isometic view
s of simple cantileve walls and co ntefot walls. In addition to the extenal
stability, cantileve walls m st also satisfy intenal st ct al stability eq
iements. As shown in Fig e 10.18, the wall section sho ld be able to withstand
the shea stesses and bending moments es lting fom the lateal eath pess
e as well as the diffeence in pess e between the top and bottom faces of the
base. To this end, steel einfocement is placed as shown in the fig e. The siz
e and density of the einfocement ae decided by the st ct al enginee, based
on the st ct al design of the coss section. Co ntefots ae sed to ed ced
shea foces and bending moments at the citical section whee highe walls ae
needed. When consideing the extenal stability of the wall, the backfill secti
on above the cantileve wall heel is ass med to be pat of the wall, with Rankin
e o Co lomb conditions acting along the vetical line oiginating at the heel (
line AB in Fig e 10.19). This ass mption is lagely acc ate, povided that the
width of the heel is lage than [H tan(45 /2)], which is typically true except
or tall walls. The weight o the soil block above the heel is then added to the
weight o the reinorced concrete wall in all stability calculations. All proced
ures or stability checks are identical to those described or gravity walls. Ex
ample 10.4 For the cantilever retaining wall shown in Figure 10.20, calculate th
e width o the heel, b, required to ensure stability o the wall against overtur
ning. In addition, determine the angle, , of the potential active shear plane wi
th respect to horizontal.
FIGURE 10.17 General view of (a) cantilever retainin wall and (b) co nterfort w
all.
Pae 447
FIGURE 10.18 Schematic of shear and bendin moment diarams of cantilever wall.
Sol tion In order to facilitate the calc lation process, we divide the cantileve
r wall into sections. We then calc late the weiht per nit width (Wi) and momen
t arm (xi) for each block: W1=23.50.50.7=8.23 kN (per meter) W2=23.550.5=58.75 kN W3
=23.50.5 b=11.75b kN W4=(172.5 +192)b=80.5b kN
FIGURE 10.19 Riid soil block ass mption for desin of cantilever retainin wall
.
Pae 448
x 1=0.35 m x 2=0.95 m x 3=1.20+b/2 x 4=1.20+b/2 We then calc late the active ear
th press re and the water press re on the wall. For lateral earth press re calc
lations, we se Ka=tan 2(4535/2)=0.271
The correspondin forces (per meter), P 1 to P 4, toether with their moment arm
s, y1 to y4, are calc lated as follows:
Pae 449 P 1=0.511.522.5=14.4 kN P 2=17.752.5=44.38 kN P 3=0.5(17.75 11.52)2.5=7.79 kN

P 4=0.524.52.5=30.63 kN y 1=2.5+2.5/3=3.33 m y 2=2.5/2=1.25 m y 3=y4=2.5/3=0.83 m
The factor of safety aainst overt rnin is calc lated from
In order to ens re stability, the factor of safety m st be at least e
al to 1.5
. Accordinly, we solve the e
ation above for b and obtain: b=1 m The anle, ,
that the potential active fail re s rface makes with respect to horizontal is si
mply e
al to 45+ /2=45+35/2=62.5.
10.6 MSE Walls
The design procedures or soils reinorced with horizontal metal strips originat
ed in the mid1960s in France (Vidal, 1966). The patented process, dubbed reinorc
ed earth, gave way to subsequent developments in soil reinorcement, especially w
ith the advent o new reinorcement materials such as geosynthetics in the 1970s
and the 1980s. By the mid-1990s, almost all newly constructed bridge abutment a
nd retaining walls in the United States consisted o MSE structures. Compared to
conventional gravity and cantilever retaining walls, MSE walls are more economi
cal, easier to erect, and much more stable. Their perormance under seismic cond
itions has also proven to be much more reliable due to their inherent ductility.
MSE walls are constructed by compacting the soil in layers separated by reinor
cement strips or sheets (Figure 10.21). Typically, strip reinorcement consists
o high-strength galvanized steel, while sheet reinorcement consists o geogrid
s or geotextiles, which are polymeric materials known as geosynthetics. Reinorc
ement strips are attached to acing units, and extend ar enough into the backi
ll to ensure adequate pullout resistance. Although the acing units represent th
e inished wall surace, they actually have no structural unction with respect
to wall stability. Instead, MSE walls derive their stability rom the internal s
tresses developing at the interace between the soil and the reinorcement eleme
nts. As such, MSE walls remain perectly stable in the absence o acing units.
The role o the acing units is to improve esthetics, protect the wall against v
andalism, prevent local ailure and erosion near the acing, and protect against
ultraviolet degradation in the case o geosynthetic reinorcement.
Page 450
FIGURE 10.21 General view o MSE wall.
Originally, all external stability requirements (sliding, overturning, bearing c
apacity, and global stability) needed to be checked or MSE wall design. However
, it has been ound that, due to their monolithic nature, MSE walls are not pron
e to overturning. In addition, MSE walls must be designed to ensure internal sta
bility, which includes checks against yielding and pullout o reinorcement. The
design must also ensure adequate connection strength between reinorcement and
acing in the case o timber or concrete panels.
10.6.1 Internal Stability Analysis and Design
The internal stability requirements or MSE walls dictate the extent o the rein
orcement elements into the backill, as well as their vertical and (i strips a
re used) horizontal spacing. Figure 10.22 represents a generic cross section o
an MSE wall. Based on the existing or assumed vertical spacing, the vertical str
esses are calculated at each reinorcement depth (z). The corresponding horizont
al stress, h,z, i then computed accordingly, auming active earth preure con
dition. The horizontal earth preure at depth z i calculated from: h,z=K a v,z
(10.18) In the abence of any urcharge loading, the vertical tre i equal t
o the unit weight of the oil time the depth. Additional tree reulting fro
m urcharge at the urface may be calculated from a variety of method uch a
elatic olution and chart when applicable. The maximum tenile force in the r
einforcement layer i calculated by multiplying the horizontal tre by the cro
ectional area of influence of the reinforcement element. In the cae of reinfo
rcement trip, the area of influence i equal to vh, where v and h are the v
ertical and horizontal pacing between the reinforcement trip, repectively. I
n the cae of geogrid and geotextile reinforcement, a unit width of the reinforc
ement i conidered in lieu of the horizontal pacing, h. In thi cae, the cal
culation output i a force per unit length. The factor of afety againt yieldin
g of the reinforcement i then calculated for each layer by dividing the yield
trength of the reinforcement material by the maximum tenile trength: (10.19)
Page 451
FIGURE 10.22 Cro ection of MSE wall.
where F max i the maximum deign tenile reitance of the reinforcement elemen
t. In the cae of galvanized teel, the yield trength may be ued. However, in
the cae of geoynthetic reinforcement, the yield trength mut be multiplied by
a number of reduction factor to account for environmental condition. A uch,
the maximum deign trength of geoynthetic reinforcement i calculated from: F
max=F yieldRFCRRFID RFCDRF BD (10.20) where RFCR, RFID, RFCD, and RFBD are reductio
n factor for creep deformation, intallation damage, chemical degradation, and
biological degradation, repectively. Thee value depend on the propertie of t
he geoynthetic a well a the environmental condition during operation and can
vary within a very ignificant range. It i not uncommon for thee factor to a
mount to an overall reduction factor of 10 or 20. The econd component of intern
al tability i the reitance to pullout, which dictate the extent of the rein
forcement into the backfill. For deign purpoe, a potential Rankinetype failu
re wedge ( =45+ /2) is considered to originate at the toe o the wall (Figure 10.
22). The length o reinorcement within the Rankine wedge, LR, is calculated ro
m LR=(H z)tan(45 /2) (10.21) Experimental evidence has shown that a Rankine wedge
may not be representative o the actual potential ailure surace, so more soph
isticated design procedures may consider more realistic suraces, such as curved
or bilinear ailure wedges. Since the ailure wedge is assumed to be rigid, no
internal deormations develop, and the length o reinorcement within this zone
(L R) does not contribute to resisting pullout. Instead, the eective length o
reinorcement (Le ) is measured rom the back end o the Rankine wedge. The ac
tor o saety
against pullout resistance is calculated by dividing the available pullout resis

tance by the maximum tensile orce in the reinorcement or each reinorcement l
ayer: (10.22)
Page 452 where w is the width o the reinorcement element and i is the interac
e riction angle between the soil and the reinorcement. It is noted that a mult
iplier o 2 is included in the numerator to account or rictional stresses deve
loping on both top and bottom aces o the embedded reinorcement. The total len
gth, LT, o the reinorcement or each layer is then calculated by adding the Ra
nkine length, LR, to the eective length, Le. For reinorcement elements distri
buted at uniorm spacing, it is inevitable that design calculations will result
in dierent required yield strength and length or each layer o reinorcement.
However, rom a constructability perspective, it is imperative to speciy a con
stant set o values, corresponding to the most critical layer. As a result, the
inished design ends up being overly conservative and extremely redundant in sa
ety. In large projects where tall MSE walls are constructed, and when strict qua
lity control measures are implemented in the ield, it is possible to speciy mu
ltiple sets o parameters over certain heights o the wall. For instance, it is
not uncommon to use tighter vertical reinorcement spacing within the bottom hal
o a wall, where tensile orces are highest.
10.6.2 Reinorced Earth Walls
Reinorced earth walls are earth retaining structures that consist o steel stri
ps connected to uniquely shaped concrete or metal acing panels. The most common
acing design is the preabricated concrete panel system shown in Figure 10.23,
although other designs have also been used. Reinorcement elements consist o g
alvanized steel strips, approximately 0.1 m wide and 5 mm thick, with a patterne
d surace to enhance rictional interaction with the soil. Four strips are conne
cted to each acing unit. Among the most critical issues concerning the response
o these walls is corrosion o the steel strips, especially in marine environme
nts. In such cases, the use o geosynthetic reinorcement may be warranted.
FIGURE 10.23 Reinorced earth wall acing panel system.
Page 453 Design o reinorced earth walls and similar MSE systems starts by dete
rmining the reinorcement vertical and horizontal spacing. These values are typi
cally predetermined rom the geometry o the preabricated concrete acing panel
s. Typical values o vertical and horizontal spacing are 0.75 and 0.5 m, respect
ively. A suitable reinorcement material is then chosen based on Equation (10.19
), and the reinorcement length is determined. In addition, the connection at th
e acing must be able to sustain the maximum tensile orces in the reinorcement
, although, in reality, the orces at the connection are much smaller. Example 1
0.5 An MSE wall is reinorced with galvanized steel strips, spaced at 0.75 m ver
tically and 0.5 m horizontally. The strips are 0.10 m wide, and the yield streng
th o the galvanized steel is 240 MPa. The wall height is 9 m, and the backill
consists o select granular material with =35 and =18 kN/m3. The soilsteel inter
face friction anle is 25. A s rchare of 200 kPa is applied at the top of the wa
ll. Calc late the minim m re
ired thickness of the steel strips and the total e
mbedment lenth. Sol tion Since the wall heiht is 9 m, and the vertical spacin
between the reinforcement layers is 0.75 m, the total n mber of reinforcement l
ayers is 12, with the first layer embedded at 0.375 m from the top. Typically, i
t is advisable to perform all calc lations in a tab lated (spreadsheet) format,
with each row correspondin to a soil layer. In this partic lar example, beca se
a niform s rchare is applied at the top, the maxim m horizontal stresses will
develop at the bottom layer, where z=8.625 m
From E
ation (10.19) and ass min FS yieldin=1.5, we determine Fmax F max=1.596
.30.750.5=54.2 kN The thickness of the steel strip is determined from the width an
d yield strenth of the steel strips:
A minim m of 2 mm is typically added as a sacrificial thickness since corrosion
is all b t certain. Therefore, the total thickness is e
al to 4.3 mm, which is
ro nded to the nearest practical thickness of 5 mm. The effective lenth of rein
forcement, Le, is calc lated from E
ation (10.22), by ass min a factor of safe
ty of 1.5. Since the ratio between h, z and v,z i equal to Ka , the value of L
e i independent of depth, and i calculated from
The maximum value of LR (Rankine length) will occur at the top layer, where z=0.
375. From Equation (10.21), LR =(9 0.375)tan(45 35/2)=4.49 m. The total length, L
T, i equal to LT=Le+LR=1.63+4.49=6.12 m
The value of LT i rounded to the nearet practical length of 6.25 m.
Page 454
10.6.3 GeogridReinforced Wall
With the increaed availability of hightrength geogrid material in the 1990,
geogridreinforced wall were introduced a an alternative to metallic trip rei
nforcement. They provide increaed interface area (ince the coverage area can b
e continuou), better interlocking with the backfill (due to the geometry of the
opening), reitance to corroive environment, and lower cot. The mot commo
n type of geogrid ued in earth reinforcement i the uniaxial type, owing to it
high trength and tiffne in the main direction. Facing panel unit may be c
onnected to the geogrid uing a teel bar interwoven into the grid (known a a B
odkin connector) or, more recently, through pecial platic clamp that tie into
a geogrid ection embedded in the concrete panel. Among the concern aociated
with the ue of geogrid in heavily loaded wall (uch a bridge abutment) are
the timedependent tre relaxation (creep deformation), intallation damage,
and chemical degradation. It i, therefore, crucial to determine the deign tre
ngth of the geogrid conidering the variou reduction factor decribed in Equat
ion (10.20). In addition, it i extremely important to enure that the geogrid i
fully tretched during intallation and compaction of the ubequent oil laye
r. Otherwie, ignificant deformation i needed before tenile tree and inte
rface friction i mobilized. A cloely related problem that ha been identified
i the difficulty in keeping the facing element plumb during intallation, epe
cially when cloe tolerance i needed in tall wall. Deign and contruction pro
cedure for geogridreinforced wall are almot identical to reinforced earth wa
ll. One ditinct exception i that the trength of the geogrid i expreed in
term of force per unit length, and the aociated horizontal pacing, h, i ta
ken a the unit length in all calculation. Another difference i that, becaue
of the effective interlocking of the oil particle within the geogrid opening,
the interface friction angle i uually equal to the internal friction angle of
the oil.
10.6.4 GeotextileReinforced Wall
Unlike metallic and geogrid reinforcement, typical geotextilereinforced wall de
ign do not require facing element. Intead, the geotextile layer i wrapped a
round the compacted oil at the front to form the facing (Figure 10.24). The fin
ihed wall mut be covered with hotcrete, bitumen, or Gunite to prevent ultravi
olet radiation from reaching and damaging the geotextile. Such wall are uually
contructed a temporary tructure, or where aethetic are not of prime impor
tance. However, it i poible to cover the wall with a permanent faux finih that
blend with the urrounding environment.
FIGURE 10.24
Geotextilereinforced wall with wrappedaround facing.
Page 455 The deign procedure for geotextilereinforced wall are alo identica
l to thoe decribed earlier for teel and geogrid reinforcement. The interface
friction angle between the oil and the geotextile heet i typically equal to (
1/2)to (2/3) . In addition, the overlap length, Lo must be determined rom the ol
lowing equation: (10.23) The minimum acceptable overlap length is 1 m.
10.7 Sheet-Pile and Tie-Back Anchored Walls
Sheet-pile walls provide temporary or permanent support when excavations are to
be carried out. They consist o steel, concrete, and sometimes timber sections,
typically driven in the ground using percussion, vibration, or jetting. More rec
ently, iber-reinorced polymers (FRPs) have been used successully in a number
o projects where the sheet piles are driven to shallow depths. FRPs have the ad
vantage o resisting a wide range o chemically aggressive environments. Typical
cross sections o sheet piles (in plan view) are shown in Figure 10.25. Once dr
iven in the ground, excavation proceeds on one side, with the sheet pile providi
ng the necessary earth support. For shallow depths (less than 6 m), cantilever-t
ype sheet piles are adequate (Figure 10.26). In this case, the embedment depth o
the sheet pile below the excavation level can deliver the moment required to r
esist the lateral earth pressure on the active side. For larger excavation depth
s, it becomes necessary to supplement the embedment resistance with a tie-rod an
chor at a shallow depth. Such tie-rod anchors are oten installed by excavating
and re-compacting the soil. I multiple rows o anchors are required, a tie-back
anchored retaining wall is constructed by driving the anchors and grouting them
in place.
10.7.1 Cantilever Sheet Piles
A conceptual representation o the lateral earth pressure acting on a cantilever
sheet pile is shown in Figure 10.27. Only active pressure is present on Side A,
rom the ground surace to the depth o excavation. Below the excavation depth,
passive conditions are assumed to act on Side B o the sheet pile, while active
conditions persist on Side A, up to point O, where a reversal o conditions occ
urs. Point O can be viewed roughly as the point o rotation o the sheet pile in
the ground. Such rotation is necessary in order to achieve static equilibrium o
the system. Below point O, active conditions develop on Side B while passive e
arth pressures are present on Side A.
FIGURE 10.25 Typical cross sections o sheet-pile materials: (a) steel, and (b)
concrete.
Page 456
FIGURE 10.26 Typical sheet-pile support mechanisms: (a) cantilever sheet pile, (
b) tie-rod anchored sheet pile, and (c) tie-back anchored wall.
Cantilever sheet-pile design typically involves the determination o the embedme
nt depth, D, given other geometric constraints o the problem as well as soil pr
operties. Thereore, the irst step is to calculate the magnitude o the horizon
tal stresses A, B , and C. The value of A i readily calculated a the active ea
rth preure acting at depth H. The magnitude of O and B mut be calculated a
a function of the embedment depth, D, and the depth to the rotation point, D1, b
oth of which are unknown. The value of O i calculated auming paive conditio
n on Side B and active condition on Side A. Similarly, B i calculated with pa
ive earth preure on Side A and active earth preure on Side B. Two equilibr
ium condition are to be atified: the um of the horizontal force and the um
of the moment in the ytem mut be equal to zero. By olving both equilibrium
equation, the two unknown, D and D1, can be determined. A force and moment c
alculation become complex, it i often convenient to determine the value of C,
which i the hypothetical lateral earth preure at depth D that correpond to
paive earth preure on Side B and active earth preure on Side A. A will be
hown in the Example 10.6, the force and their line of action are found eaier
through thi procedure.
FIGURE 10.27 Conceptual repreentation of lateral earth preure on a cantilever
heetpile wall.
Page 457 Example 10.6 For the heetpile wall hown in Figure 10.28, determine t
he minimum depth of excavation required to achieve equilibrium. Solution For the
clay layer, Ka (from Equation 10.2) i equal to 0.406. The depth horizontal tr
e at point A i determined from Equation (10.10) and the critical depth zc fro
m Equation (10.11):
The coefficient of active and paive lateral earth preure, Ka and Kp, for th
e and layer are equal to 0.333 and 3.0, repectively. The horizontal tre at
the top of the and layer (point B) i thu equal to B =0.333165=26.7 kPa The hori
zontal tre at point F i equal to the difference between paive preure to
the left ide of the heet pile and active preure to the right: 0.333(165+17D)=45
.34D 26.7 kPa F =317D Similarly, the lateral earth preure at G i equal to the di
fference between paive condition on the right ide of the heet pile and acti
ve condition on the left: 0.33317 D=45.34D+240 kPa G =3(165+17D) It i poible to d
termine the lateral force in the heet pile by calculating the area of triang
le RNA, BRC, CEM, and MGQ. However, uch calculation become cumberome due to
the fact that depth D and D1 are unknown. Intead, it i poible to conider a
n equivalent et of force, P1 to P4, uch that the net earth preure i the a
me: 1. P 1 i equal to the area of triangle RNA. 2. P 2 i equal to the area of
rectangle RBJQ.
FIGURE 10.28 Illutration for Example 10.6.
Page 458 3. P 3 i equal to the area of triangle BJF. 4. P 4 i equal to the are
a of triangle EFG. We then calculate the force, Pi , and their correponding mo
ment arm, y i, from point R P 1=(1/2)(5.0 3.92)(7.0)=3.78 kN P 2=(D)(26.7)=26.7D
P 3= (1/2) (D)(26.7+45.34D 26.7)= 22.67D2 P 4=(1/2)(D1)(45.34D 26.7+45.34D+240)= (D
1)(45.34D+106.7)
The next tep i to atify the equation of equilibrium, in term of horizontal
force and moment about point R
Solving the two equation above imultaneouly, we obtain: D=2.1 m (and D1=0.2 m
) The actual embedment depth i calculated by multiplying the theoretical depth
by a factor of afety of 1.2. Therefore, the actual embedment depth i equal to
1.2 D=2.5 m.
10.7.2 Anchored Sheet Pile
For large excavation depth the incluion of an anchor tie rod i neceary in o
rder to reduce the moment on the heetpile wall. Otherwie, unreaonably large
cro ection may be needed in order to reit the moment. Anchored heet pile
may be analyzed uing either the freeearth upport or the fixedearth upport
method. Under freeearth upport condition, the tip of the heet pile (Figure 1
0.29) i aumed to be free to diplace and rotate in the ground. Only active ea
rth preure develop on the tieback ide, while paive preure act on the o
ther ide. No tre reveral of rotation point exit down the embedded depth o
f the heet pile. In contrat, the tip of fixedearth upport heet pile i a
umed to be retricted from rotation. Stre reveral occur down the embedded de
pth, and the heet pile i analyzed a a tatically indeterminate tructure. To
deign freeearth upport heet pile, typically the depth of the anchor tie rod
need to be known. Equilibrium condition are checked in term of horizontal fo
rce and moment, and the force in the tie rod a well a the depth of embedment
are calculated accordingly. Alternatively, the maximum allowable force in the t
ie rod may be given, with
Page 459
FIGURE 10.29 Conceptual repreentation of lateral earth preure on tierod anch
ored heetpile wall: (a) freeearth upport, and (b) fixedearth upport.
the depth of the tie rod and the embedment depth of the heet pile a unknown.
It i uually convenient to um the ytem moment about the connection of the t
ie rod with the heet pile to eliminate the tenile force in the tie rod from th
e equation. The neceary anchor reitance in the tie rod i upplied through a
n anchor plate or deadman located at the far end of the tie rod (Figure 10.29a).
In order to enure tability, the anchor plate mut be located outide the acti
ve wedge behind the heet pile, which i delineated by line AB from the tip. In
addition, thi active wedge mut not interfere with the paive wedge through wh
ich the tenion in the tie rod i mobilized, which i bounded by the ground urf
ace and line BC. Therefore, the length of the tie rod, Lt i calculated from Lt=
(H+D) tan(45 /2)+ Dt tan(45+ /2) (10.24) Example 10.7 For the sheet-pile wall shown
in Figure 10.29(a), determine the depth o embedment, D, and the orce in the ti
e rod. The soil on both sides o the sheet pile is well-graded sand,
Page 460 with a unit weight =19 kN/m3 and an internal friction anle of 34. The t
ie rods are spaced at 3 m horizontally, and are embedded at a depth H1=1 m. The
heiht of the excavation H=15 m. Sol tion The active force, P a, on the riht si
de is calc lated from P a=(1/2)Ka (H+D)=(1/2)0.28319(15+D)=40.328+2.689D The passiv
e force, Pp, on the riht side is calc lated from P p=(l/2)Kp D=(1/2)3.53719D=33.60D
The s m of the moments abo t point O is
Solvin for D, we obtain: D=0.77 m The tension in the tie rods per meter width o
f the sheetpile wall is then calc lated from the e
ilibri m of the horizontal
forces: T (per meter)=(40.328+2.6890.77) (33.600.77)=16.53 kN/m The force in each t
ie rod is calc lated by m ltiplyin the res lt by the horizontal spacin: T=316.5
3=50 kN The theoretical depth, D, is m ltiplied by a safety factor of 1.2, there
by ivin a total embedment depth of 0.92 m, which is ro nded to 1.0 m. 10.7.2.1
Red ndancy in Desin It is important to note that, when the theoretical depth o
f embedment of the sheet pile is m ltiplied by a safety factor of 1.2, the res l
tin depth does not satisfy e
ilibri m conditions. In reality, when the depth o
f embedment is extended, f ll passive conditions do not develop. Therefore, if a
n analysis of the stability of an existin sheet pile is carried o t, it wo ld b
e incorrect to consider the earth press re diarams sed in desin. Instead, it
is common practice to redesin the sheetpile str ct re and then check the red n
dancy by calc latin the factor of safety as (10.25)
10.7.3 Braced Excavations
Excavations in rban environments are constrained by the lack of adjacent space
for installin tie rods or ro nd anchors. Where cantilever sheet piles are impr
actical, it becomes imperative to provide s pport to the sheet piles thro h int
ernal bracin and str ts. Examples
of typical braced excavations are shown in Fi re 10.30. It is important to ens

re that the bracin system is stiff eno h to prevent or minimize adjacent ro n
d
Pae 461
FIGURE 10.30 Examples of braced excavations.
movement, and stron eno h to resist the earth press re associated with s ch re
stricted deformations. Constr ction is s ally initiated by drivin the sheet pi
les or lateral s pport system, then excavatin rad ally from the ro nd level d
own. Rows of bracin or lateral s pport are installed as the excavation proress
es down. The earth press re developin in the case of braced excavations is diff
erent from the theoretical linear increase with depth described earlier for conv
entional retainin walls. In braced excavations, the lateral earth press re is d
ictated by the se
ence of excavation, soil type, stiffness of the wall and str
ts, and movement allowed prior to installin the str ts. Altho h acc rate deter
mination of the distrib tion of earth press re in braced c ts is almost impossib
le, Terzahi et al. (1996) provide approximate methods based on act al observati
ons for se in str t desin (Fi re 10.31). In the case of sands, the envelope o
f the apparent earth press re is constant and e
al to 0.65K a H, where H is the
depth of the excavation. In the case of soft/medi m clays, and stiff fiss red cl
ays, the diarams shown in Fi re 10.31 (b) and (c) are sed, respectively. It i
s imperative, however, to monitor the development of forces in the str ts and de
formations alon the depth of the braced c t d rin constr ction. Forces in the
str ts and deformations m st be contin o sly adj sted to comply with desin spec
ifications.
10.7.4 TieBack Anchored Walls
In cases where ade
ate land adjacent to an excavated site is available, the se
of tieback anchors is preferred over braced c ts. Tieback anchors do not inte
rfere with the space available for constr ction e
ipment mobilization in the ex
cavation, and can be sed as
FIGURE 10.31 Approximate earth press re diarams for se in desinin braced exc
avations: (a) sand, (b) soft to medi m clay, and (c) stiff fiss red clay.
Pae 462 permanent earth retainin systems. Constr ction proceeds by first drivi
n soldier piles into the ro nd. Soldier piles are individ al sections, typical
ly steel Ibeams that are driven in the ro nd at close spacin (1 or 2 m). Exca
vation is then carried o t in staes, 1 to 2 m deep at a time, with timber lai
n placed in between the soldier piles to prevent soil collapse. Tieback anchor
s are s bse
ently installed at different levels, and locked in place to s pport
the retainin str ct re (Fi re 10.31c). The installation proced re consists of
directionally drillin in the soil, typically at a 15 anle, then slidin a PVC
or metal perforated casin into the hole. A steel anchor cable or rod is then in
serted into the casin, and ro t is injected to fill the casin aro nd the cabl
e and permeate thro h the casin perforations into the s rro ndin soil. The r
o ted zone m st be f lly located o tside the active wede (45+ /2) measured rom t
he bottom o the excavation. The tension at each level can be adjusted by tighte
ning or loosening a lock nut at the connection between the tie-back anchor and t
he wall. Walls very large in height can be constructed using this technique. An
alternative procedure or building tie-back anchored walls involves the construc
tion o a concrete wall by slurry replacement, ollowed by a similar excavation
and tie-back anchoring procedure, as described above. When determining the maxim
um pullout resistance o a tie-back anchor, it is important to determine the soi
l type, and whether the structure is temporary or permanent. For permanent walls
in clays, the use o eective stress analysis concepts is essential in calcula
ting the longterm pullout capacity. On the other hand, total stress analysis (un
drained conditions) may be adopted or short-term evaluation o tie-back anchor
capacity. For tie-back anchors in sand, the maximum capacity, Tult , is calculat
ed rom Tult = dgL tan (10.26) (10.26) where d is the diameter o the grouted bul
b, pg is the earth pressure on the grout, L is the grouted length, and is the ri
ction angle o the soil. The value o pg may be taken as or shallow depths, whe
re arching is not expected in the soil. Alternatively, based on ield measuremen
ts o typical grouted anchors, the value o dg may be taken to be equal to 500
kN/m for coarse granular materials, and 150 kN/m for fine sands. For undrained a
nalysis in clays, Tult, is calculated from Tult =0.3 dLSu (10.27) where Su is the
undrained shear strength (undrained cohesion) of the clay. The factor of safety
for ullout resistance is tyically taken to be 3 or 4 for longterm analysis a
nd 2 for shortterm analysis. Tieback anchors are tested in the field, ostcons
truction, at 1.5 times their desired caacity. In case of failure, the anchor is
regrouted and retested.
10.8 Soil Nail Systems
Soil nailing is a technique for stabilizing stee sloes and vertical cuts. The
technique relies on driving soil nails, which are steel rods 25 to 50 mm in diam
eter, into a vertical or stee cut at a 15 angle as excavation roceeds (Figure 1
0.32). Alternatively, the soil nails may be
installed through drilling and grouting. Concetually, the method differs from t
ieback anchored walls in that no rior driving or installation of an earth reta
ining wall (sheet ile, soldier iles, or slurry wall) is conducted. Instead, th
e exosed soil surface is
Page 463
FIGURE 10.32 Construction of soilnailed wall.
ket from caving in by installing a wire mesh on which the soil nails are connec
ted through face lates. The technique works best in cohesive soils, since signi
ficant unraveling may occur in sandy soils. The wire mesh is then covered with s
hotcrete, and excavation is roceeded to the next level. Soil nail walls are ty
ically used as temorary earth retaining systems, although they have been used s
uccessfully as ermanent structures. When analyzing soil nail systems, global st
ability is considered. Conventional methods for sloe stability analysis are use
d, with the tension in the soil nails contributing to the stability of the sloe
. Tyically, the method of slices is chosen, and the forces acting on each slice
, including the tensile resistance of the soil nail are included. The global sta
bility of the reinforced soil mass is then assessed, and a factor of safety is c
alculated. The length of the soil nails is determined accordingly, so as to sati
sfy equilibrium of the sloe or vertical cut.
10.9 Drainage Considerations
Proer drainage of backfill materials is a crucial comonent of retaining wall d
esign. In general, cohesive backfills are highly undesirable because of their o
or drainage, loss of strength and increase in density uon wetting, and high coe
fficient of active earth ressure. This is articularly imortant in the case of
MSE walls, where only select backfill material may be used. Accetable soil ty
es for such urose are SW (wellgraded sand), GW (wellgraded gravel), and SP (
oorly graded sand). The vast majority of current design codes rohibit the use o
f cohesive materials as backfill in MSE walls. In addition, roer drainage rov
isions must be included in the design. This entails the inclusion of drains and
filters in the cross section, such as those shown in Figure 10.33.
Page 464
FIGURE 10.33 Drainage rovisions in cantilever retaining wall.
While graded sand constituted the majority of filters and drains in the ast, ge
osynthetics (geotextiles, geonets, and geocomosites) are used in almost all ro
jects today. In order to select the roer filter material, the accetable aar
ent oening size (O 95) of the geosynthetic must be first determined. Current gu
idelines require that O95 be smaller than 2.5D85, where D85 is the grain size co
rresonding to 85 ercentile on the grain size distribution of the soil. Geonets
selected for drainage must have a maximum flow rate that is greater than the an
ticiated flow rate in the structure.
10.10 Deformation Analysis
Recently, the recognition of the imortance of limiting deformation levels in re
taining walls has led to the emergence of deformationbased design aroaches. B
ecause all such methods require accurate estimation of the stressstrain behavio
r of soils, by itself a difficult task, deformationbased design is limited to l
arge rojects where, for instance, soil arameters can be determined accurately
from extensive laboratory tests. Finite element analyses can then be erformed t
o determine the anticiated levels of deformation under a given set of boundary
conditions, and the wall design is modified accordingly to result in accetable
deformations. In rojects where deformation is critical, such as bridge aroach
es and abutments, deformations are tyically monitored during construction to en
sure they remain within the accetable range. In situations where tieback ancho
red sheetile walls are constructed, the tension within the tiebacks may be ad
justed at the connection between the facing and the tiebacks to revent excessiv
e deformations during construction. Levels of deformation required to achieve ac
tive and assive conditions during construction, for different soil tyes, are g
iven in Table 10.1.
Page 465
10.11 Performance under Seismic Loads
In seismically active areas, it is essential to consider the additional seismic
forces acting on the earth retaining structure during design. For gravity and ca
ntilever walls, the rocedure most widely used in ractice is the MononobeOkabe
method, as modified by Seed and Whitman (1970). The method considers the stabil
ity of Coulombtye wedge in a manner similar to that used in static design (Fig
ure 10.34). However, an equivalent seismic load is assumed to act at the center
of gravity of the wedge, with horizontal and vertical magnitudes equal to the ma
ss of the wedge times the horizontal and vertical accelerations, resectively. T
he force resulting from the combination of static earth ressure and seismic loa
ding is assumed to act at a height of 0.6H from the bottom of the wall. The acti
ve earth ressure resultant force on the wall, PAE, is calculated from: P AE=(1/
2)KAE (1 kv)H2 (10.28)
(10.29)
(10.30) where kv is the vertical acceleration in s, is the seismic inertia angle
calculated from Equation (10.30), is the slope anle v is the inclination of th
e wall with respect to vertical, of the ground surface, and is the soil-wall int
erface friction angle.
FIGURE 10.34 Mononobe-Okabe stability wege uner seismic loaing.
Page 466 Similarly, the force on the wall uner passive earth pressure conition
s is calculate from: P PE=(1/2)KPE (1 kv)H2 (10.31) (10.31)
(10.32) Field observations of postearth
ake conditions of MSE walls indicate mi
nimal damae to the str ct re. This is partly d e to the hih level of red ndanc
y in desin, b t is mostly attrib ted to the d ctility of the str ct re.
Example 10.8 The concrete retainin wall shown in Fi re 10.35 retains a ran la
r backfill. The anle of friction between the backfill and concrete is 12. Determ
ine the res ltant force on the wall d e to the earth press re, its direction, an
d the line of action. Based on the fi re, 4 m=5 cm Hence, the top width=0.72 m
and the bottom width=2 m =180 tn[14/(2 0.72)]=180 72=108 =0 =12 N=30
Page 467 Using Coulombs active earth pressure coefficient (Equation 10.8)
The pressure iagram can be etermine by the following equation: (10.10) where
P A is the area of the pressure iagram equal to
The line of action an irection are inicate in the figure. Example 10.9 The s
teel sheet pile shown in Figure 10.36(a) is embee in clayey groun an retain
s a granular backfill (i) Plot the lateral earth pressure exerte on the sheet p
ile. (ii) Plot the Mohr circles for points on the sheet pile at epths of 1 m an
6 m from the top. (iii) Accurately inicate the failure surface
where Gs=2.65, Se=0, an e=1.2
For sany soil
or (10.8)
Page 468 where

For clayey soil
or
FIGURE 10.36
Page 469
FIGURE 10.36 (a) Illustration for Example 10.9. (b) Earth pressure istribution
on the sheet pile, (c) Earth pressure computations for Example 10.9. () Earth a
n water pressure istributions for Example 10.9. (e) Mohr circle plots for Exam
ple 10.9.
Page 470 (ii) Stresses at epths of 1 m an 6 m from the top: Active sie at 1 m

v=11.81=11.8 kPa ha =0.5711.8=6.7 kPa Active ide at 6 m
Paive ide at 6 m
Example 10.10 Etimate the paive preure on the wall hown in Figure 10.37(a)
by electing a trial failure urface hown. The backfill upport a highway pav
ement of width 4.5 m, which impoe a ditributed load of 40 kPa. Horizontal, =0
Soil area=(1/2)(6.5)(5)=16.25 m 2
FIGURE 10.37
Page 471
FIGURE 10.37 (a) Illustration for Example 10.10. () Free-od diagram for Examp
le 10.10. (c) Force polgon for Example 10.10. W1=16.2517=276.25 kN/m W2=(40)(3)=
120 kN/m W=W1 +W2=396.25 kN/m C=Su(length)=20(7.07)=141.4 kN/m
For passive lateral force, the wall will e pushed inside, moves right. B measu
ring according to scale, Pp=420 kN/m Example 10.11 Investigate the stailit of
the concrete retaining wall shown in Figure 10.38(a) against sliding. Assume tha
t the stem and the ase are of width 0.5 m.
Page 472
FIGURE 10.38 (a) Illustration for Example 10.11. () Earth pressure calculations
for Example 10.11. (c) Earth and water pressure distriutions for Example 10.11
.
Page 473
(10.8)
where
For foundation soil,
Ka =0.44 Kp=2.89 Active side:
h,4m =71.750.44=31.6 kPa water,4m=9.812.5=24.5 kPa Paive ide: h,0m =0 9.8)(0.5)
(2.89)=9.7 kPa h,0.5m =(16.5 water,0.5m=9.81(0.5)=4.9 kPa W=urcharge+oil+tem+b
ae =302+(16)(1.52)+(17)(22)+(0.5)(3.5)(23)+(0.5)(3.5)(23) =60+116+80.5=256.5 kN/m
F =bae friction reitance=W tan =60.8 kN/m
Page 474
So, not OK. Hence, wall will slie. Example 10.12 Check the stability of the gra
vity retaining wall shown in Figure 10.39(a) against overturning an evelopment
of bottom tension. (a) Clayey soil (10.11) Su=20 kPa; =17 kN/m; =10 P ax=(60.56)
cos 24=55.32 kN/m P ay =(60.56) sin 24=24.63 kN/m
FIGURE 10.39 Continue
Page 475
FIGURE 10.39 (a) Illustration for Example 10.12. (b) Earth pressure calculations
for Example 10.12. (c) Bottom pressure istribution for Example 10.12.
(10.8)
(10.10)
Page 476
(10.13)
So, OK. (b) Bottom tension V =220.8+66.24+50.03+24.6 =361.67kN/m A =(3.2)(1)=3.2
m2/m M=(220.8)(0.6)+(55.3)(0.85) (66.24)(0.8) (50.03)(1.2) (24.6)(1.4)=32.017 kN
There is no tension. Example 10.13 Investigate the stability of the cantilever s
heetpile wall shown in Figure 10.40 using the freeearth support method. Assume
that the depth embedment is 1.5 m.
FIGURE 10.40 Continued
age 477
FIGURE 10.40 (a) Illustration for Example 10.13. (b) Earth pressure calculations
for Example 10.13. (c) Earth pressure distribution for Example 10.13.
Right side:
age 478 Left side:

From the figure, Horizontal stress at E, (6.85+29.4)=28.5 kPa E=(50.05+14.7) Hor
izontal tre at C, =(86.85+29.4) (14.7)=101.55 kPa C
therefore, 11.02+22.05 32.4+65.02D1=0 D1=negative Point of rotation doe not exi
t. Wall will move rightward, Untable. Example 10.14 Auming that the depth of
embedment i 1.2 m, etimate the magnitude of tenioning required for tability
of the anchored heetpile wall hown in Figure 10.41(a). Comment on the depth o
f embedment provided.
FIGURE 10.41 Continued
Page 479
FIGURE 10.41 (a) Illutration for Example 10.14. (b) Propertie of different oi
l layer in Example 10.14. (c) Earth preure ditribution for Example 10.14.
Page 480 (1) Backfill oil:

(2) Original clayey oil:
FIGURE 10.42 Illutration for Example 10.15.
Page 481
Fx =0 P A=P p+T T=(24+12.6)+(15.68+23.04+9.5+12.6) T=64.22 kN/m Mo=0 T(3.7 da)+(2
4)(0.6)+(12.6)(0.4)=(15.68)(1.25+1.2)+(23.04)(2.033) +(49.5)(0.6)+(12.6)(0.4) th
erefore da=2.13 m Example 10.15 A 5 m MSE wall i reinforced with teel trip a
t vertical and horizontal pacing of 0.7 and 0.45 m, repectively. Firt draw th
e configuration of the trip and the wall. If the teel trip are 4 mm in thic
kne and 5.7 m in length determine the minimum width of the trip and the afe
ty factor of the MSE wall againt yielding under a urcharge of 100 kPa. Aume
that the unit weight and internal friction are 17 kN/m3 and 30, repectively, and
the yield trength of teel i 250 MPa. (10.2)
Maximum horizontal tree will develop at the bottom layer
Auming FSyielding =1.5, F max=1.559.060.70.45=27.91 kN The width of teel tripe
,
Page 482 For bottom layer, effective length=5.7 (5 4.55) tan 30=5.44 m= Le
For top layer, effective length=5.7 (5 0.35) tan 30=3.02 m
therefore =0.0715 m=71.5 mm therefore Fsteel= y (w)(t)=250,000(0.0715)(0.004)=71.
5 kN
Gloary
Allowable tre deign (ASD) A deign method in which a global factor of afety
i calculated by comparing the reiting force to the detabilizing force. Ear
th retaining tructure A broad cla of civil engineering tructure intended to
upport excavation or earth fill into vertical or nearly vertical geometrie.
Geoynthetic reinforced oil (GRS)A cla of MSE material that i pecifically
reinforced with geoynthetic. Load and reitance factor deign (LRFD) A deign
method in which the load and reitance component are multiplied by factor rel
ated to the uncertainty aociated with each component. Mechanically tabilized
earth (MSE) A compoite material made of oil and metal, polymer, or natural fibe
r incluion that exhibit uperior trength and tiffne characteritic compa
red to the oil.
Reference
Coulomb, C.A., 1776, Eai ure une application de rgle de maximi et minimi q
uelque problme de tatique relatif l'architecture, Mmoire de Mathmatique et de
Phyique, preented in 1773 at the Acadmie Royale de Science, 7:343382. Craig, R
.F., 1987, Soil Mechanic, 4th edn, Van Notrand Reinhold, New York.
Page 483
Da, B.M., 1999, Principle of Foundation Engineering, 4th edn, Brook Cole Publ
ihing, Pacific Grove, CA. Fang, H.Y., ed, 1991, Foundation Engineering Handbook
, 2nd edn, Van Notrand Reinhold, New York. Holtz, R.D., Chritopher, B.R., and
Berg, R.R., 1997, Geoynthetic Engineering, BiTech Publiher, Richmond, BC, Can
ada. Jky, J. 1948, Earth preure in ilo, Proceeding of the Second Internation
al Conference on Soil Mechanic and Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, p
p. 103107. Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W., 1990, Manual on Etimating Soil Propert
ie for Foundation Deign, Electric Power Reearch Initute, Palo Alto, CA. Kulh
awy, F.H., Jackon, C.S., and Mayne, P.W., 1989, Firtorder etimation of Ko in
and and clay, in: Foundation Engineering: Current Principle and Practice, K
ulhawy, F.H., ed., ASCE, New York, pp. 121134. Lacae, S. and Lunne, T., 1988, C
alibration of dilatometer correlation, Proceeding of the Firt International S
ympoium on Penetration TetingISOPT1, Orlando, Vol. 1, pp. 539548. Marchetti, S.
, 1980, Initu tet by flat dilatometer, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineeri
ng Diviion, ASCE, 106(GT3):299321. Rankine, W.J.M., 1857, On the tability of l
ooe earth, Philoophical Tranaction of the Royal Society of London, 147(Part
l):927. Schmidt, B., 1966, Dicuion of Earth preure at ret related to tre
hitory Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 3(4):239 242. Seed, H.B. and Whitman, R.V.,
1970, Deign of earth retaining tructure for dynamic load, ASCE Specialty Co
nference on Lateral Stree in the Ground and the Deign of EarthRetaining Str
ucture, Cornell Univerity. Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., and Meri, G., 1996, Soil
Mechanic in Engineering Practice, 3rd edn, Wiley Intercience, New York. Tomli
non, M.J., 2001, Foundation Deign and Contruction, 7th edn, Prentice Hall, En
glewood Cliff, NJ. Vidal, H., 1966, Terre Arme, Annale de lInstitue Technologiqu
e du Btiment et des Traveaux Puliques, France, No. 228229, pp. 888938. Withiam, J.
L., Votko, E.P., Barker, R.M., Duncan, J.M., Kell, B.C., Musser, S.C., and Eli
as, V., 1998, Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) of highwa ridge sustru
ctures, Pulication No. FHWI HI-98032, Federal Highwa Administration, Washington
, DC.
Page 484
This page intentionall left lank.
Page 485
11 Stailit Analsis and Design of Slopes
Manjriker Gunaratne CONTENTS 11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 Required Minimum Factors o
f Safet 11.2 Analsis of Finite Slopes with Plane Failures 11.3 Method of Slice
s 11.3.1 Ordinar Method of Slices 11.3.2 Bishops Simplified Method 11.4 Slope-St
ailit Analsis Using the Stailit Numer Method 11.4.1 Stailit Analsis of
a Homogeneous Slope Based on an Assumed Failure Surface 11.4.1.1 Plane Failure S
urface 11.4.1.2 Circular Failure Surface 486 487 487 489 492 492 496 496 497 497
11.4.2 Stailit Analsis of a Homogeneous Slope Based on the Critical Failure 4
98 Surface 11.4.2.1 Closed-Form Solution 11.4.2.2 Use of Talors Stailit Charts
11.5 Stailization of Slopes with Piles 11.5.1 Lateral Earth Pressure on Piles
11.5.2 Analsis Using the Friction-Circle Method 11.5.3 Design Methodolog 11.6
Reinforcement of Slopes with Geotextiles and Geogrids 11.6.1 Reinforcement with
Geotextiles 11.6.2 Geogrid Reinforced Slope 11.7 Reliailit-Based Slope Design
11.7.1 Reliailit Estimates with Random Loads 11.7.1.1 Use of the Lognormal Dis
triution 11.8 Slope Instailit and Landslides 11.8.1 Factors Causing Landslide
s 498 498 503 503 504 505 506 506 507 507 509 510 512 512
11.8.1.1 Bedrock Geolog 11.8.1.2 Hdrolog 11.8.1.3 Surface Overurden 11.8.1.4

Slope Range 11.8.1.5 Land Use 11.8.1.6 Landform 11.8.2 Impact of Rainfall on Sl
ope Instailit 11.9 Investigation of Slope Failures 11.10 Approximate Three-Dim
ensional Slope-Stailit Analsis 11.11 Additional Examples References
512 513 513 513 513 513 513 514 514 515 526
Page 486
11.1 Introduction
Construction of uilding foundations and highwas on sloping ground or emankmen
ts can present instailit prolems due to potential shear failure. Therefore, g
eotechnical designers are often required to design stale emankments that would
allow additional construction such as highwas and uildings on top of them. On
the other hand, instailit could also result due to partial excavation of slop
es during foundation construction. Furthermore, when one designs a structure in
the vicinit of a slope, then safet considerations would naturall warrant a st
ailit analsis of that slope. Hence, designers are often required to perform a
ground stailit analsis in addition to the foundation design. Stailit anal
sis can e performed more effectivel and accuratel if the analst comprehends
the specific causes of potential slope failure under the given geological condit
ions. The primar cause of slope instailit due to possile shearing is the ina
dequate moilization of shear strength to meet the shear stresses induced on an
impending failure plane the loading on the slope. Mathematicall, the condit
ion for instailit can e expressed as in the following equation ased on the M
ohr-Coulom criterion: (11.1) where i the normal tre on the potential failur
e plane. One can identify the following factor that would trigger the above con
dition (Equation (11.1)): 1. Common factor that caue increaed hear tree
in lope: a. Static load due to external building or highway b. Cyclic load
due to earthquake c. Steepened lope due to eroion or excavation 2. Common f
actor that caue reduction in hear trength of lope: a. Increaed pore pre
ure due to eepage and arteian condition b. Lo of cementing material c. Su
dden lo of trength in enitive clay The limit equilibrium method i the mo
t popular method adopted in lopetability analyi. In thi approach, it i a
umed that the hear trength i mobilized imultaneouly along the entire (pred
etermined) failure plane. Then the factor of afety for the predetermined failur
e wedge can be defined baed on either the force or moment a follow: (11.2)
It mut be noted that the tabilizing force or the tabilizing moment i the max
imum force or the maximum moment that can be generated by the failing oil along
the failure plane. Hence, thee quantitie can be determined by auming that
hear trength i mobilized along the entire failure urface. A dicued in Cha
pter 1, and employed in Equation (11.1), the hear
trength of a oil i commonly determined by the MohrCoulomb hear trength cri

terion in foundation engineering. On the other hand, the detabilizing force or
moment active at a given intance can be determined in term of the hear force
required to maintain the current tate of equilib
Page 487
TABLE 11.1 Suggeted Minimum Factor of Safety from FHWA
Condition
Highway embankment ide lope Slope affecting ignificant tructure (e.g., br
idge abutment, major retaining wall)
Recommended Minimum Factor of Safety (FS)
1.25 1.30
Source: From Federal Highway Adminitration, 1998, Load and Reitance Factor De
ign (LRFD) for Highway Bridge Subtructure, Wahington, DC. With permiion.
rium. A number of common lopetability analyi procedure will be outlined in
the enuing ection.
11.1.1 Required Minimum Factor of Safety
The minimum factor of afety a uggeted by FHWA and AASHTO are given in Table
11.1 and Table 11.2.
11.2 Analyi of Finite Slope with Plane Failure
Finite lope uch a natural embankment that are limited in extent can contain
trata of relatively weak layer a hown in Figure 11.1(a) and (b) and Figure
11.2. Similar ituation can alo occur due to tratified depoit and interface
between crut (or hell) of dam that are typically granular oil and core
of dam made of imperviou oil. By conidering the weak layer to be planar
urface (Figure 11.1a), one can perform imple tability analye baed on the l
imit equilibrium method.
TABLE 11.2 Required Minimum Factor of Safety from AASHTO
Required Minimum Factor of Safety (FS) Condition
Highway embankment lope and retaining wall Slope upporting abutment or abu
tment above retaining wall
Detailed Exploration Limited Exploration
1.3 1.5 1.5 1.8
Source: From AASHTO, 1996, Standard Specification for Highway Bridge, American
Aociation for State Highway and Tranportation Official, Wahington, DC. Wit
h permiion.
Page 488
FIGURE 11.1 (a) Finite lope with a homogeneou failure plane, (b) Finite lope
with a homogeneou nonplanar failure urface.
Cae A. Homogeneou failure plane Referring to Figure 11.1a, one can derive the
following relation by conidering force equilibrium parallel and perpendicular
to the failure plane, repectively, T=W in( ) (11.3) N=W cos( ) (11.4) The weight
of the fail e mass can be expessed in tems of the nit weight of the failing
soil mass as (11.5) whee
FIGURE 11.2
Finite slope with a nonhomogeneo s fail e plane.
Page 489 The stabilizing foce is detemined by the available stength based on
the Moh-Co lomb citeion as (11.6) whee c and ae the shea stength paamete
s of the weak soil laye (of length L) along the fail e plane. It is also seen
that nde the c ent state of eq ilibi m, Fdestab. is eq al and opposite to
T. Then, it follows fom Eq ations (11.2) and (11.6) that
whee is the aveage poe pess e along the fail e plane. By sing Eq ations
(11.3) (11.5), the factor of safety can be simplified to (11.7) A reasonable val
ue of u representative of the pore pressures in the failure plane can be estimat
ed by any of the methods outlined in Section 1.3. Under undrained conditions Equat
ion (11.7) simplifies to (11.8) Case B. Nonhomogeneous failure plane When the re
latively weak stratum defines only a part of the potential failure plane, then d
estabilization of a slope occurs only if the stronger soil composing the failure
mass allows the rest of the failure plane to form within itself, as shown in Fi
gure 11.2. However, in such cases, it is difficult to obtain a closedform solut
ion for the safety factor without making a number of assumptions regarding the d
istribution of shear stresses on the entire failure plane comprising two differe
nt materials undergoing shear failure, i.e., weak stratum and the relatively str
onger soil forming the rest of the failure surface. Such assumptions are typical
ly made in the method of slices described in Section 11.3. Hence, it is the method
of slices that would be most suitable for analyzing the stability of slopes whe
re conditions are nonuniform throughout the plane of failure or the failing soil
mass.
11.3 Method of Slices
The method of slices is a numerical procedure that has been developed to handle
stability analysis of slopes where conditions are nonhomogeneous within the soil
mass making it impossible to deduce closedform solutions. Some such nonhomogen
eous conditions that are commonly encountered are as follows:
age 490 1. Irregularity of failure planes, i.e., failure planes cannot be defin
ed by simple geometric shapes. This situation arises when relatively weak strata
are randomly distributed within the slope or when the slope contains different
soil types along the potential failure surface. 2. resence of two different soi
l types within the failure wedge requiring the use of different soil properties
in analysis. 3. Significant variation in the distribution of pore pressure along
the failure plane, even under static groundwater conditions. 4. Irregularity of
the slope geometry. 5. Significant variation in the buoyancy effects due to art
esian conditions and seepage of groundwater. The analysis requires the selection
of a trial failure plane and discretization of the resulting failure wedge into
a convenient number of slices as shown in Figure 11.3. The analyst is required
to device the slicing in a manner that can incorporate any nonhomogeneity within
the slope so that each resulting slice would be a homogeneous entity. Then, the
stability of each slice can be analyzed separately using the limit equilibrium
method and principles of statics, as done in Section 11.2. The freebody diagram
for each slice is illustrated in Figure 11.4 where it is seen that the side for
ces on the slices (X i and Yi) introduce additional unknowns into the analysis m
aking it a statically indeterminate problem. Hence, the analyst needs to make si
mplifying assumptions to reduce the number of unknowns to facilitate a staticall
y determinate solution. This flexibility has given rise to a variety of differen
t analytical procedures, some of which will be outlined in this section. It is a
lso realized that although the number of slices used in the analysis determines
the accuracy of the solution, todays availability of superior computational devic
es and effective algorithms enable one to achieve solutions with reasonable accu
racy for even the most complicated situations. Without the need for any assumpti
ons a simple expression can be derived for the safety factor by considering the
equilibrium of the entire failure wedge as follows. Under normal equilibrium con
ditions (Figure 11.3 and Figure 11.4), the destabilizing moment about the center
of the trial failure surface is given by
where n is the total number of slices.
FIGURE 11.3 Illustration of the method of slices.
age 491
FIGURE 11.4 Freebody diagram for any slice i.
On the other hand, the stabilizing moment obtained from Equation (11.6) is based
on the available strength and can be given as
where l i is the arc length of slice i which can be expressed as l i=bi sec ( i)
Then, by employing Eqution (11.2), the sfety fctor for the given slope cn be
expressed s (11.9) In order to suit reltively complex situtions where nonho
mogeneity with respect to soil properties nd pore pressures previls over the e
ntire soil wedge, Eqution (11.9) cn be rewritten s (11.9b) A resonble vlu
e of u cn be estimted by ny of the methods outlined in Section 1.3.2. It is t
he elimintion of Ni tht requires simplifying ssumptions giving rise to sever
l different pproches used in the method of slices.
Pge 492
11.3.1 Ordinry Method of Slices
Fellinius (1937) oversimplified the problem by neglecting the side forces comple
tely. Then, bsed on the freebody digrm in Figure 11.4, one notes tht Ni =Wi
cos( i) Then, Eqution (11.9b) reduces to the following explicit form: (11.10) S
ince the impending downslope movement of the slices involves distortions of the
slices, shering stresses do occur on sides. Therefore, the min limittion of t
he ordinry method of slices is the omission of the side forces.
11.3.2 Bishops Simplified Method
Bishop (1955) ssumed the side forces in ll of the slices to be horizontl. Thi
s provides the following dditionl equtions. For the verticl force equilibriu
m of ech slice: Ni cos( i)+T i sin( i )=Wi (11.11) It is lso ssumed tht the in
dividul sfety fctor for ech slice is equl to tht of the entire filure wed
ge. Then, by using Eqution (11.2) for ech slice one obtins (11.12) Equtions
(11.11) nd (11.12) cn be used to solve for Ni in terms of F . Subsequent subst
itution for Ni in Eqution (11.9b) yields n implicit expression for the sfety
fctor s (11.13)
Eqution (11.13) cn be solved on n itertive bsis until convergence is chiev
ed in terms of the ssumed nd computed sfety fctors. Exmple 11.1 Investigte
the stbility of the embnkment shown in Figure 11.5 (bsed on the tril filur
e surfce drwn in Figure 11.5), using (i) the ordinry method of slices nd (i
i) Bishops method of simple slices for: Cse 1. Dry embnkment conditions nd usi
ng the ordinry method of slices only for (Tble 11.3 nd Tble 11.4)
Pge 493
FIGURE 11.5 () Illustrtion for Exmple 11.1 (drwn to scle), (b) Investigtio
n of slope filure under rpid drwdown.
Cse 2. Immeditely fter compction (ssuming pore pressure coefficient, ru=0
.4) Cse 3. Under completely submerged conditions (groundwter tble t the leve
l CD) Cse 4. On sudden drwdown of the groundwter tble to level AB for the tr
il filure surfce drwn in Figure 11.5(b).
TABLE 11.3 Dt for the Ordinry Slices Method (Exmple 11.1, Cse 1)
Slice (i) bi (m) hi (m) Wi= bi hi
1 2 3 4 5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06 3.88 6.3 +0.83 6.93 +1.12 5.82 471.2 657.40
i
Wi sin i l i=bi sec i
201.91 110.94 235.59 408.07 =330.81 6.61 5.16 5.42 10.12
Cili
99.15 103.2 108.4 151.8
Wi cos i tn i
138.93 100.64 108.22 136.02
314.12 40 581.44 11 21 60
=462.55 =483.81
Page 494
TABLE 11.4 Data fo Bishops implified Method (Example 11.1, Case 1); Ass med F=4
.2
lice (i)
1 2 3 4
bi (m)
5.06 5.06 5.06 5.06
hi (m)
3.88 6.3 +0.83 6.93 +1.12 5.82
Wi= bihi
314.12 581.44 657.40 471.2
i
40 11 21 60 181.36 102.52 115.92 272.05
cibi
75.9 101.2 101.2 75.9 0.48 0.034 0.068 1 1.48 1.03 1.05 1.62
Assume the following soil properties: Silty cly Cohesion=15 kP Undrined cohes
ion=20 kP Dry unit weight=16.0 kN/m3 cly Cohesion=20kP Undrined cohesion=30
kP Dry unit weight=17.0 kN/m3 First, it is noted tht slicing is done to sepr
te the soil lyers. Solution From Section 1.6, dry=Gsyw/(1+e), and ass min Gs t
o be 2.65 and knowin that w=9.8 3 kN/m , For silty clay, e=0.623 Also sat= w(G s
+e)/(1+e ) 3 =19.76 kN/m sat 3 In addition, s b =19.769.8=9.96 kN/m Similarly for
clay, 3 sat=20.37 kN/m 3 s b=20.379.8=10.57 kN/m Usin E
ation (11.10), F =(483
.81+462.55)/(330.81)=2.86 Usin E
ation (11.13), F =[(181.36+75.9)1.48+(102.52+
101.2)1.03+(115.92+ 101.2)1.05+(272.05+75.9)1.62]/(330.81)=4.18 Case 2. Immediat
ely after compaction The Bishop and Morenstern pore press re coefficient, r , i
s defined as (Table 11.5)
Pae 495
TABLE 11.5 Pore Press re Estimations for Example 11.1, Case 2
Slice (i)
1 2 3 4
hi (m)
3.88 6.3 +0.83 6.93 +1.12 5.82
Wi= hi
62.08 114.91 129.92 93.12
i (kPa)
24.8 45.96 51.96 37.25
li =bi sec i
6.61 5.16 5.42 10.12
Ui li
163.93 237.15 281.62 376.97 143.43 162.02 166.96 70.18 =542.59
(11.14) Using Eq ation (11.10), F =(542.59)/(330.81)=1.64 Case 3. Unde complete
ly s bmeged conditions In this case, one can ass me ndained conditions to be
the most citical and both poe pess e and the s chage wate can be incopo
ated togethe in the analysis by consideing the s bmeged weights of the slices
(Table 11.6). Using Eq ation (11.10), F =(652)/(301.57)=2.16. Case 4. Rapid da
wdown In cohesive soils apid dawdown conditions pomote slope fail es as the
one shown in Fig e 11.5(b) d e to the tansient seepage condition developing at
the face of the slope as shown in Fig e 11.5(b). Then, the safety facto fo t
he tial base fail e s face shown in Fig e 11.5(b) can be comp ted as ill st
ated in Table 11.7. It m st be noted that the poe pess e val es have been com
p ted sing the flownet pinciples disc ssed in ection 13.2 ince poe pess e
s ae sepaately comp ted, the weights of slices ae eval ated based on the sat
ated nit weight of 19.8 kN/m3. It is also easonable to ass me that dained co
nditions occ in a tansient flow egime. Hence, an effective stess analysis i
s pefomed sing the eval ated poe pess es. Fom Eq ation (11.10), F=1.1. Th
e method of slices can be employed to pefom stability analysis of slopes nde
steadystate seepage conditions as well. In s ch cases, one can conveniently pe
dict the poe pess es sing Beno llis eq ation (ection 13.2, Eq ation 13.1)
TABLE 11.6 Poe Pess e Estimations fo Example 11.1, Case 3
lice (i) bi (m) hi (m) Wi= s b bihi

1 2 3 5.06 5.06 5.06 3.88 6.3 +0.83 6.93 +1.12 600.67
i
Wi sin i l i=bi sec i (Cu)il i Wi cos i tn i
184.35 101.47 215.26 6.61 5.16 5.42 132.2 154.8 162.6 0 0 0
286.8 40 531.8 11 21
4
5.06
5.82
429.7
60
372.13 =301.57 =652
10.12
202.4
0
Page 496
TABLE 11.7 Poe Pess e Estimations fo Example 11.1, Case 4
lice (i)
1 2 3
i
bi
li
ui (kP)
13.2 26.4 41.5
ui bi
66.7 133.5 209.8
uili
68.6 139.9 327.9 21.6+78 40.94+80 53+119
Wi sin i
26.3 78.4 154.7
10 5.1 5.2 15 5.1 5.3 50 5.1 7.9
11.4 SlopeStbility Anlysis Using the Stbility Number Method
In the stbility number method (Tylor, 1948), the limit equilibrium computtion
s re bsed on n ssumed liner or circulr rupture surfce. Then the sfety f
ctor, F, is defined s the rtio of mximum sher strength tht cn be mobilized
to the sher strength required on the ssumed filure surfce to mintin the s
lope in equilibrium. Bsed on the MohrCoulomb criterion, F cn be written by (1
1.15) where c nd re the strength prmeters nd the subscript d indictes the st
rength prmeters required for equilibrium or the developed strength. n i the a
verage normal tre on the failure urface. The individual afety factor with
repect to coheion and friction can be alo defined, repectively, a follow:
(11.16)
(11.17) Obervation of Equation (11.15)(11.17) how that the actual (true) afe
ty factor i obtained under the following condition: (11.18)
11.4.1 Stability Analyi of a Homogeneou Slope Baed on an Aumed Failure Sur
face
The following procedure i typically followed in obtaining the true afety facto
r guided by Equation (11.16)(11.18):
Step 1. Aume a reaonable for the aumed failure urface. Step 2. Ue Equatio
n (11.17) to etimate knowing the available friction. Step 3. Knowing the develo
ped frictional trength perform a tatic equilibrium analyi of the failure ma
to determine the developed coheive trength cd. Thi i conventionally deign
ated a a nondimenional coheive trength or the tability number for the given
failure ma uing ( nit weiht) and H (heiht of slope).
Pae 497
FIGURE 11.6 E
ilibri m of fail re wede on a planar fail re s rface.
(11.19) If the fail re mass has a simple eometric shape, the stability n mber c
an be derived based on principles of statics. For example, the followin stabili
ty n mber expressions are available for planar and circ lar fail re s rfaces sho
wn in Fi re 11.6 and Fi re 11.7, respectively. 11.4.1.1 Plane Fail re S rface
In terms of the notation in Fi re 11.6, the stability n mber can be expressed a
s follows: (11.20)
11.4.1.2 Circ lar Fail re S rface For ass med circ lar trial fail re s rfaces, t
he stability n mbers can be expressed in E
ations (11.21a) and (11.21b), in ter
ms of the notation in Fi re 11.7 for toe fail re (Taylor, 1937)
FIGURE 11.7 E
ilibri m of fail re wede on a circ lar fail re s rface.
Pae 498 Toe fail re (11.21a) Base fail re (11.21b) where i is the slope anle,
H is the heiht of the slope, x, y, and v are anles shown in Fi re 11.7, and i
s te ratio of te distance between te toe of te slope and point A and te slo
pe eigt H (for base failure). Figure 11.7 also sows te forces tat ensure t
e equilibrium of te assumed failure wedge. Tese are te weigt, W, te design
coesion, Cd, and te resultant of te normal and frictional forces, P. Te forc
e P must be tangent to a circle of radius and centered at o (Figure 11.14). Tis
circle is known as te friction circle. Step 4. Knowing te maimum available c
oesion, c, estimate F c from Equations (11.21) Step 5. If Fc and are not equal,
repeat te procedure from Steps 1 to 4 for different values until te condition
of is satisfied. Once it is satisfied, tis Fc (or ) is te true safety factor
FS (Equation (11.18)).
11.4.2 Stability Analysis of a Homogeneous Slope Based on te Critical Failure S
urface
If te ultimate goal is to find te failure surface wit te minimum safety fact
or, i.e., te critical failure surface, ten te above procedure as to be repea
ted for a number of different trial failure surfaces. 11.4.2.1 Closed-Form Solut
ion For a planar critical surface, a closed-form solution for minimum safety fac
tor can be obtained using Equation (11.20) in terms of as (11.22a) Ten te corr
esponding failure plane would be defined by te following inclination (v): (11.2
2b) Te above failure plane would provide te igest potential for sliding. 11.
4.2.2 Use of Taylors Stability Carts
Te stability number c d/ H (E

ation (11.19)), correspondin to critical circ la
r fail re s rfaces with respect to a iven slope, can be determined sin Fi re
11.8 and Fi re 11.9. Accordinly, if the analyst is in search of the minim m p
ossible safety factor for the iven slope and not a safety factor with respect t
o a specific fail re s rface, Fi re 11.8 and Fi re 11.9 will immensely red ce
the vol me of comp tations in Step 3 of the above iterative proced re.
Pae 499
FIGURE 11.8 Stability chart for soils with friction anle. (From Taylor, D.W., 1
948, F ndamentals of Soil Mechanics, John Wiley, New York. With permission.)
Taylors simplified method of stability analysis will be ill strated in Examples 1
1.211.4. Example 11.2 With respect to the slope shown in Fi re 11.10, estimate t
he safety factor correspondin to the trial fail re plane BD. Ass me the followi
n soil properties: Anle of friction=20 Cohesion=15kPa Dry nit weiht=17.5 kN/m
3 Sol tion Trial 1 Ass me an of 1.5. Then, from E
ation (11.17), By applyin E
ation (11.20),
Pae 500
FIGURE 11.9 Stability chart for soils with zerofriction anle (From Taylor, D.W
., 1948, F ndamentals of Soil Mechanics, John Wiley, New York. With permission.)
Trial 2 For an ass med of 5, a similar proced re prod ces Fc =7.77 Trial 3 Final
ly, for an ass med of 6.2, one obtains F c=1.97. Then the res lts of the above i
terative proced re can be plotted in Fi re 11.11, from which it is seen that th
e tr e factor of safety
FIGURE 11.10
Ill stration for Example 11.2.
Pae 501
FIGURE 11.11 Plot of Fc vs. for Example 11.2.
Example 11.3 With respect to the slope shown in Fi re 11.12, estimate the minim
m safety factor correspondin to a critical fail re plane passin thro h the t
oe. Ass me the followin soil properties: Anle of friction=20 Cohesion=15kPa Dry
nit weiht=17.5 kN/m3
FIGURE 11.12 Ill stration for Examples 11.3 and 11.4
Pae 502 Sol tion Trial 1 Ass me an

of 1.5. Then, from E
ation (11.17) yield
From Fi re 11.8, D=0 (toe fail re), i=31, and
Th s, F c=2.09. Trial 2 Ass me an of 1.7. Then, from E
ation (11.17), fail re)
and yield
From Fi re 11.8, D=0 (toe
Th s, F c=1.537. Trial 3 Ass me an of 1.6. Then, from E
ation (11.17), From Fi
re 11.8, D=0 (toe fail re) and yield
Th s, F c=1.608. Hence, considerin a toe fail re, the tr e minim m safety facto
r for the slope in Fi re 11.12 is abo t 1.6. Example 11.4 With respect to the s
lope shown in Fi re 11.12, estimate the minim m safety factor correspondin to
a critical fail re plane that to ches the bedrock. Ass me the followin soil pro
perties: Undrained cohesion=25 kPa Dry nit weiht=17.5 kN/m3 Sol tion From Fi
re 11.9, D=16.2/8.2=1.975 (base fail re) and i=31 yield
Th s, F =F c=1.007. Fi re 11.9 also shows that the critical fail re s rface int
ersects the base at a distance of nH, where n =1.3. Hence, the critical fail re
s rface passes at a distance of 10.67 m from the toe prod cin a safety factor o
f 1.007.
Pae 503
11.5 Stabilization of Slopes with Piles
The se of piles as a restrainin element has been applied s ccessf lly in the p
ast and proven to be an effective sol tion, since piles can often be installed w
itho t dist rbin the e
ilibri m of the slope. Piles sed to stabilize slopes a
re in a passive state and the lateral forces actin on the piles are dependent o
n the soil movements that are in t rn affected by the presence of piles. D e to
their relatively low cost and the insinificant axial strenth and lenth demand
in this partic lar application, timber piles are ideal for stabilization of slo
pes.
11.5.1 Lateral Earth Press re on Piles
Po los (1973) first s ested a method to determine the lateral forces on piles.
Ito and Mats i (1975) proposed a different theoretical approach to analyze the
rowth mechanism of lateral forces actin on stabilizin piles ass min that soi
l is forced to s
eeze between the piles. This condition is applicable to relati
vely small aps between piles. Then, the passive force on the pile per nit len
th (2) (Fi re 11.13) can be comp ted by the followin e
ation based on Ito et
al. (1975): (11.23)
where
FIGURE 11.13
Plastically deformin ro nd aro nd stabilizin piles. (From Hassiotis, S., Cham
ea , J.L., and G naratne, M., 1997, Jo rnal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Enineerin, ASCE, 123(4). With permission.)
Pae 504
D1 is the pile spacin, D2 is the openin between the piles, c is cohesion and i
s the friction anle. Under ndrained conditions E
ation (11.23) red ces to (11
.24) where z is the overb rden stress.
11.5.2 Analysis Usin the FrictionCircle Method
Modified stability n mber. For a slope of inclination i and heiht H (Fi re 11.
14), the stability n mber can be expressed as in the followin e
ations (Hassio
tis et al., 1997).
FIGURE 11.14 Forces on a slope reinforced with piles. (From Hassiotis, S., Chame
a , J.L., and G naratne, M., 1997, Jo rnal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Enineerin, ASCE, 123(4). With permission.)
Pae 505 For toe fail re (11.25a)

For base fail re (11.25b)
where E =1 2 cot 2 (i)+3cot (i)cot (x) 3cot(i) cot(y) +3cot(x)cot (y) F p=Passive
press re on the pile row per nit width of slope, comp ted by interatin E
ati
on (11.23) alon CE (Fi re 11.14) CEO, x, y, and are anles shown in Fi re 11.
14 OG =Moment arm of the lateral force FP aro nd the center of the friction circ
le (Fi re 11.14)
11.5.3 Desin Methodoloy
The followin steps have been proposed (Hassiotis et al., 1997) to desin the st
abilizin piles on a iven slope by selectin an appropriate pile spacin (D1 )
for a iven pile size (D 1 D2): Step 1. Dictated by the site conditions or on an
arbitrary basis, select an appropriate rane of the horizontal spacin, s, betwe
en the row of piles and the toe of the slope. Select a n mber of trial desin va
l es of s, within this rane. Step 2. Select a n mber of trial pile spacin (D 1
) val es. It m st be noted that since the pile size (D1 D2) is fixed, any selecte
d pile spacin (D 1) fixes the D2/D1 ratio. As pointed o t previo sly, E
ation
(11.23) is only applicable for relatively small ratios of D2/D1. Step 3. Select
a trial toe fail re s rface or trial base fail re s rface. Then, n merically int
erate
in E
ation (11.23) alon the depth CE (Fi re 11.14), and divide
by
the pile spacin D1 to obtain the passive force on the slope exerted by the pile
s per nit width of the slope. Step 4. From Fi re 11.14, also obtain the distan
ce OG and the anles CEO, x, y, and to comp te the safety factor from E
ation (
11.25a) or (11.25b), whichever is applicable. Step 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 for d
ifferent trial fail re s rfaces, and record the conditions prod cin the minim m
safety factor for iven s and D1. Step 6. Repeat steps 1 to 5 to obtain the min
im m safety factors for different combinations of s and D1 and plot the res lts
as shown in Fi re 11.15. Use Fi re 11.15 to select the optim m desin paramete
rs for the desired safety factor.
Pae 506
FIGURE 11.15 Ill stration of the selection of desin parameters.
Step 7. Ass min an infinite pile embedment, the horizontal deflection, the shea
r force, and the bendin moment alon the lenth of the pile can be determined a
ss min the pile to be an infinite beam embedded in an elastic fo ndation. This
desin methodoloy is disc ssed in detail in Chapter 8. Step 8. Finally, the opt
im m embedment can be decided pon by selectin the lenth of the pile above the
reion where the horizontal deflection, the shear force, and the bendin moment
approach zero for all practical p rposes.
11.6 Reinforcement of Slopes with Geotextiles and Georids
11.6.1 Reinforcement with Geotextiles
In desinin slopes with eotextiles, the s al eotechnical enineerin approac
h (Section 11.3) to the slopestability problem is extended to incl de the tensi
le force, T, provided by the eotextile (Fi re 11.16). The res ltin e
ation f
or the safety factor on a circ lar fail re s rface (Koerner, 1998) is iven in t
he followin e
ation: (11.26) where N i=Wi cos i, Wi is the weight of the slice,
i is the ngle of intersection of horizontl to tngent t the center of the sl
ice, li is the ar length of the slie, R is the radius of the failure irle is
the effetive angle of shearing resistane, is the ohesion, Ti is the allowa
ble geotextile tensile strength , yi is the moment geotextile, n is the number o
f slies, m is the number of geotextile layers, in whih ui=hi w=pore water press
re, hi is the heiht of water above the base of the circle, xi is the width of
the slie, and w is the nit weiht of water. For sat rated finerained cohesiv
e soils with E
ation (11.26) simplifies to (11.27)
Pae 507
FIGURE 11.16 Ill stration for stability analysis of eotextile reinforced slope.
where C is the ndrained cohesion, L is the lenth of the fail re arc, W is th
e weiht of the fail re zone, and X is the moment arm of the fail re arc abo t t
he center of the fail re circle.
11.6.2 Georid Reinforced Slope
Koerner (1998) also provides the followin expression for the safety factor of a
slope analyzed sin limit e
ilibri m methods sin a circ lar arc fail re pla
ne (Fi re 11.17) (11.28) where Mstab are moments resistin fail re d e to the s
hear strenth of the soil, Mdestab are moments resistin fail re d e to ravity,
seepae, live and other dist rbin loads, Ti is the allowable eorid tensile s
trenth, yi is the appropriate moment arm, and m is the n mber of separate reinf
orcement layers. Expressions for Mstab and Mdestab are fo nd in Section 11.3.
11.7 ReliabilityBased Slope Desin
For a homoeneo s slope made of a soil possessin shear strenth parameters of c
and the safety factor expression correspondin to the ordinary method of slices
(E
ation (11.10)) can be rewritten as (11.29)
Pae 508
FIGURE 11.17 Ill stration for stability analysis of eorid reinforced slope.
Spatial variation of soil strenth properties within a iven embankment often ma
kes it a diffic lt to estimate the soil properties re
ired for stability analys
is. If laboratory testin s ch as triaxial tests (Section 1.4) is cond cted base
d on samplin done in one location of the embankment, to determine soil properti
es applicable to the entire embankment, one wo ld have to acco nt for the random
spatial variation of soil properties prior to their se in stability analysis f
or the embankment. In the wake of possible variations in soil properties within
the considered slope, the safety factor, F, wo ld inherit a random ncertainty.
Under this scenario, the best option available for the analyst is to consider th
e safety factor, F, as a randomly distrib ted variable. Then the statistical pro
perties of the distrib tion of F can be estimated based on the statistics of the
spatial variation of strenth properties ( c and and the Taylor series approach
for manip lation of statistical parameters (Harr, 1977, 1987, Rosenbl eth, 1975
). Mean safety factor Based on the Taylor series approach, and E
ation (11.29)
the mean safety factor for a slope consistin of two soil types can be eval ated
by the followin expression: (11.30)
where and are the mean val es of the soil properties of two layers that make p
n and m slices, respectively, of the desined slope. Generally, if only sinle e
stimates of the strenth properties are available, then those are rearded as es
timates themselves of the mean val es of the respective soil properties. Standar
d deviation of the safety factor Taylor Series method. Usin the Taylor series a
pproach, and E
ation (11.29) an approximate estimate of the standard deviation
of the safety factor can be obtained as follows for a slope made p of two disti
nct soil types:
Pae 509
(11.31)
where and are the standard deviation val es of the soil properties of the two la
yers that make p n and m slices, respectively. If test data are ins fficient to
estimate the strenth properties, then one can se typical standard deviations
of soil properties within a iven site (Table 11.8). If the safety factor, F, ca
n be considered to be a random variable, then the iss e of slope stability becom
es one in which the deree of instability is expressed by the probability of fai
l re, pf, estimated as follows: pf=Prob(F 1) (11.32a) Alternatively, the reliabi
lity of the slope desin is expressed as R =Prob(F>1)=1 pf (11.32b) As for the d
istrib tion of the safety factor, the most pop lar choices are (1) normal or Ga
ssian distrib tion and (2) the lonormal distrib tion.
11.7.1 Reliability Estimates with Random Loads
If the resistance (S) and the loads (L) are both affected by random ncertainty,
then in order to investiate the probability of fail re of the system, a joint
probability distrib tion m st be defined for the random variable (S L). If this i
s denoted by f s L(s, l), then the probability of fail re is eval ated based on t
he followin condition: pf=p[(s L)<0] (11.33a) By ass min an appropriate distrib
tion for fs L(s, l), pf can be conveniently eval ated. Alternatively, the follow
in convol tion method can also be sed to estimate the probability of fail re i
n cases where both the resistance and the loads have to be considered as random
variables: (11.33b)
TABLE 11.8
Reported Coefficients of Variation of Soil Properties

Soil Property
Unit weiht Effective anle of friction, Undrained strength, su
Coefficient of Variation
38% 221% 13 49%
Source: From Harr, M.E., 1987, ReliabilityBased Design in Civil Engineering, Mc
GrawHill, New York. With permission.
age 510 where F S(l) is the cumulative distribution of the resistance in the lo
ad domain and fL(l) is the probability density function of the load. Example 11.
5 If the strength properties of Example 11.1 were determined using CT tests, th
e interpretation of which resulted in the data shown in Table 11.9, estimate the
reliability of the slope assuming that the safety factor is normally distribute
d. Mean and standard deviation values of soil properties in Table 11.9 are compu
ted by the following expressions: (11.34a)
(11.34b) Applying Equation (11.30) for the computed values in Table 11.9,
Then, Equation (11.31) and the information in Table 11.9 also produce, Hence SF=
0.467. From Table 11.10, the standard normal value (z) corresponding to F=1 is f
ound as (Figure 11.18)
In Figure 11.18, area (z)=0.499966 5 Therefore, pf =Pro(F 1)=3.510 . 11.7.1.1 Use
of the Lognormal Distribution There are two obvious drawbacks in the normal (Gau
ssian) distribution: 1. It assumes that the random variable takes a range of val
ues between and , which is unrealistic for positive variables such as the safety
factor.
TABLE 11.9 Soil roperties Inferred from In Situ CT Tests (for Example 11.5)
Silty Clay Test
1 2 3 Mean
Clay tan
0.600 0.623 0.488 0.570
c(kPa)
9.0 14.0 22.0 15
31 32 26
c (kPa)
26 12.5 21.5 20
12 12 6
tan
0.213 0.213 0.105 0.177
Std. dev.
6.56
0.072
6.85
0.062
Page 511
TABLE 11.10 Area under the Standard Normal distribution (P(z))
z
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0 0.003989 0.007978 0.011966 0.015953 0.019938 0.023922 0.027902 0.031881 0.0358
55
0.1 0.039827 0.043794 0.047757 0.051715 0.055669 0.059616 0.063558 0.067493 0.07
1422 0.075344 0.2 0.079258 0.083164 0.087062 0.090952 0.094832 0.098704 0.102566
0.106417 0.110258 0.114089 0.3 0.117908 0.121716 0.125513 0.129297 0.133068 0.1
36827 0.140573 0.144305 0.148024 0.151728 0.4 0.155418 0.159093 0.162753 0.16639
8 0.170027 0.17364 0.177237 0.180818 0.184382 0.187928 0.5 0.191458 0.194969 0.1
98463 0.201939 0.205396 0.208835 0.212255 0.215656 0.219037 0.222399 0.6 0.22574
1 0.229063 0.232365 0.235647 0.238908 0.242148 0.245367 0.248565 0.251742 0.2548
97 0.7 0.25803 0.261142 0.264231 0.267298 0.270344 0.273366 0.276366 0.279343 0.
282298 0.285229 0.8 0.288138 0.291023 0.293885 0.296724 0.299539 0.30233 0.30509
8 0.307843 0.310563 0.31326 0.9 0.315932 0.318581 0.321206 0.323807 0.326384 0.3
28936 0.331465 0.333969 0.336449 0.338905 1 0.341337 0.343744 0.346128 0.348487
0.350822 0.353133 0.35542 0.357682 0.359921 0.362135 1.1 0.364326 0.366492 0.368
635 0.370754 0.372849 0.37492 0.376967 0.378991 0.380991 0.382968 1.2 0.384922 0
.386852 0.388759 0.390643 0.392504 0.394342 0.396157 0.397949 0.399719 0.401466
1.3 0.403191 0.404893 0.406574 0.408232 0.409869 0.411483 0.413076 0.414648 0.41
6198 0.417727 1.4 0.419234 0.420721 0.422187 0.423633 0.425057 0.426462 0.427846
0.42921 0.430554 0.431879 1.5 0.433184 0.434469 0.435735 0.436983 0.438211 0.43
942 0.440611 0.441783 0.442937 0.444074 1.6 0.445192 0.446292 0.447375 0.44844 0
.449488 0.450519 0.451534 0.452531 0.453512 0.454477 1.7 0.455425 0.456358 0.457
275 0.458176 0.459061 0.459932 0.460787 0.461627 0.462453 0.463264 1.8 0.464061
0.464843 0.465611 0.466366 0.467107 0.467834 0.468548 0.469249 0.469937 0.470612
1.9 0.471274 0.471924 0.472562 0.473188 0.473801 0.474403 0.474993 0.475572 0.4
76139 0.476695 2 0.477241 0.477775 0.478299 0.478813 0.479316 0.479809 0.480292
0.480765 0.481228 0.481682 2.1 0.482127 0.482562 0.482988 0.483405 0.483814 0.48
4213 0.484605 0.484988 0.485362 0.485729 2.2 0.486088 0.486438 0.486782 0.487117
0.487446 0.487767 0.48808 0.488387 0.488687 0.48898 2.3 0.489267 0.489547 0.489
821 0.490088 0.490349 0.490604 0.490854 0.491097 0.491335 0.491567 2.4 0.491794
0.492015 0.492231 0.492442 0.492648 0.492848 0.493044 0.493236 0.493422 0.493604
2.5 0.493782 0.493955 0.494123 0.494288 0.494449 0.494605 0.494758 0.494906 0.4
95051 0.495192 2.6 0.49533 0.495464 0.495595 0.495722 0.495846 0.495967 0.496084
0.496199 0.49631 0.496419 2.7 0.496524 0.496627 0.496727 0.496825 0.496919 0.49
7012 0.497101 0.497188 0.497273 0.497356 2.8 0.497436 0.497514 0.49759 0.497664
0.497736 0.497805 0.497873 0.497939 0.498003 0.498065 2.9 0.498126 0.498184 0.49
8241 0.498297 0.49835 0.498402 0.498453 0.498502 0.49855 0.498596 3 0.498641 0.4
98685 0.498728 0.498769 0.498808 0.498847 0.498885 0.498921 0.498956 0.498991 3.
1 0.499024 0.499056 0.499087 0.499117 0.499147 0.499175 0.499203 0.499229 0.4992
55 0.49928 3.2 0.499304 0.499328 0.49935 0.499372 0.499394 0.499414 0.499434 0.4
99454 0.499472 0.49949 3.3 0.499508 0.499525 0.499541 0.499557 0.499573 0.499587
0.499602 0.499616 0.499629 0.499642 3.4 0.499654 0.499667 0.499678 0.49969 0.49
9701 0.499711 0.499721 0.499731 0.499741 0.49975
3.5 0.499759 0.499767 0.499776 0.499784 0.499791 0.499799 0.499806 0.499813 0.49
982 0.499826 3.6 0.499832 0.499838 0.499844 0.49985 0.499855 0.49986 0.499865 0.
49987 0.499875 0.499879 3.7 0.499884 0.499888 0.499892 0.499896 0.499899 0.49990
3 0.499906 0.49991 0.499913 0.499916 3.8 0.499919 0.499922 0.499925 0.499927 0.4
9993 0.499932 0.499935 0.499937 0.499939 0.499941 3.9 0.499943 0.499945 0.499947
0.499949 0.499951 0.499952 0.499954 0.499956 0.499957 0.499958 4 0.49996 0.4999
61 0.499962 0.499964 0.499965 0.499966 0.499967 0.499968 0.499969 0.49997
Source: rom Huang, Y.H., 2004, Pave ment Analysis and Design, Pearson Education
Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. With permission.
2. It is inappropriate for representing variables random variables that can vary
within a large range of values. Hence, it is also common to use the lognormal d
istribution as an alternative distribu-tion. If X is a lognormally distributed r
andom variable, then log X will be normally distributed. By knowing the followin
g relationship for the mean and the standard deviation of log X in terms of the
corresponding statistics of X, the normal distribution procedure exemplified in
Example 11.5 with Table 11.10 and igure 11.18 can be
Page 512
IGURE 11.18 Standard normal distribution.

conveniently used to evaluate the probabilities associated with the lognormal di
stribution (11.35a)
(11.35b) where and s are the mean and the standard deviation of X, respectively.
11.8 Slope Instability and Landslides
Landslide studies have broadly identified factors such as (1) bedrock eoloy, (
2) hydroloy and drainae, (3) surface overburden, (4) slope rane, (5) land use
, and (6) landform as major causative factors of landslides. These factors contr
ibute in different derees to initiate a landslide, and in many occasions their
impact is compounded. Therefore, the interation of the effect of such factors t
o evaluate the overall potential instability depends on how well their independe
nt contribution is quantified.
11.8.1 Factors Causin Landslides
11.8.1.1 Bedrock Geoloy Hihly jointed rocks such as quartzite and Charnockite
contribute more toward slope failure mainly because of their vulnerability to be
broken into slabs or lare blocks of rocks. On the contrary, rocks such as marb
le that remain as massive rocks contribute less toward slope failures, even thou
h they are hihly susceptible to weatherin. Moreover, quartzitic rocks, when d
ecomposed, adopt a clayey composition, and, therefore, landslides are more abund
ant in the residual soils of these rocks.
Pae 513
11.8.1.2 Hydroloy
Since infiltration of rainwater contributes to trierin of most landslides. Th
e followin secondary attributes determine the overall impact of hydroloy: (1)
Relief amplitude: difference between the hihest and lowest points in a drainae
basin. (2) Hydroloical basin form factor: the map unit or basin form factor is
defined by the ratio of basin area(basin lenth)2. Basin lenth is the distance
between the lowest dischare point and the most distant point on the crest line.
(3) Watershed basin: the area of the watershed basin overns the quantity of wa
ter flow. (4) Drainae density: the total lenth of stream channels per unit are
a of a basin. (5) Proximity to water bodies. 11.8.1.3 Surface Overburden Most su
rface deposits involve either transported (colluvial, alluvial, etc.) or residua
l soil. On occasions, transported soils are present over the residual soil on sl
opes; hence, the impact of these two materials on slope instability cannot be di
stinuished. However, in residual soils, relict structure, relict joints, and re
lict beddin planes are usually preserved and have a control on slope failures.
Hence, a iven thickness of transported soils tends to be more unstable than the
same thickness of residual soil. The extent and depth of the overburden deposit
s must be estimated visually by examinin cuts and exposures. Drillin or detail
ed surveys would also be helpful in this task. 11.8.1.4 Slope Rane Since ravit
y is the drivin force of unstable overburden, the steepness of a slope is direc
tly proportional to that slopes potential for failure. 11.8.1.5 Land Use Improper
land uses such as clear cutting, de-rooting, quarring, and mining impart a sig
nificant impact on slope failures facilitating surface erosion and changing t
he internal stresses in the soil of a slope. Therefore, the contriution of land
use depends on how well the land is managed or maintained. 11.8.1.6 Landform Ge
omorpholog or the shapes of slopes also affect the slopes stailit. A straight
or complex slope with higher relief is more susceptile to failure than a terrac
ed slope. A rough or roken rock slope with gullies is more vulnerale to failu
re than an undulating to rolling slope.
11.8.2 Impact of Rainfall on Slope Instailit
Rainfall presents an added hazard with respect to landslides (Okada, 1999). This
is mainl due to the reduction in effective stresses in the slope due to pore p
ressure increases and partl due to possile erosion. Evaluation of changing eff
ective stress conditions due to pore water pressure variations is rather a compl
ex prolem, especiall if the are addressed within the
impacts of the vegetation of the slope and the nature of its susoil. According
to Bhandari and Thaalan (1994), the est approach to evaluate the impact of
Page 514 ground water conditions is to measure the in situ suction and the pore
water pressure. However, the cost of instrumentation that can accuratel measure
these parameters overrides the incorporation of these parameters into an evalu
ations, specificall at a large scale. Hence, the current perception is to consi
der rainfall intensit as an external triggering factor in landslide zonation. R
esearch conducted Chen et al. (2004) has also shown that matric suction contr
iutes to the dilative or contractive ehavior of unsaturated soils. Further, th
e in situ hdrologic response to rainstorms indicates that soil suction in large
l unsaturated soils is reduced rainfall infiltration, which often ecomes th
e triggering factor in initiating slope instailit.
11.9 Investigation of Slope Failures
Historicall unstale slopes continue to present slope hazards. Geotechnical inv
estigators often stud well-defined slope failure histories in order to learn us
eful information regarding the mechanisms of slope failure. Information sought i
n this regard include the development of slip surfaces and moilization of shear
strength along the slip surface. This also enales analsts to determine the le
vels of safet factors that assure stailit. Stark and Eid (1997) studied a num
er of first-time slides to understand the moilization of shear strength in sti
ff fissured cla where significant differences were oserved in the peak and the
residual shear strengths (Figure 11.19). The aove stud concluded that the pea
k shear strength of the soil mass must e used to locate the critical slip surfa
ce in slopes that have not undergone previous sliding. On the other hand, in slo
pes that have undergone previous sliding, the critical slip surface is usuall w
ell defined and the shear strength moilized is an average etween the peak shea
r (for high plasticit clas) and the residual shear.
11.10 Approximate Three-Dimensional Slope-Stailit Analsis
Although the limit equilirium methods discussed in the previous sections are st
rictl ased on two-dimensional analsis, investigation of almost ever slope fa
ilure reveals
FIGURE 11.19 Drained shear strength failure envelopes for upper Lias cla. (From
Stark, T. and Eid, H., 1997, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engin
eering, ASCE, 123(4). With permission.)
Page 515 that the deformations along a direction parallel to the slope var sign
ificantl. Hence, actual slope failures cannot e accuratel modeled two-dime
nsional conditions and discrepancies are often oserved etween analtical predi
ctions and field oservations. On the other hand, three-dimensional analsis of
slope stailit presents extreme analtical and numerical difficulties mainl e
cause, to e meaningful, the analsis has to e performed on a sitespecific asi
s. Therefore, in order to address these issues, analsts usuall resort to psued
othree-dimensional techniques that are mostl ased on generalizing two-dimensio
nal formulations to three dimensions (Lam et al., 1993, Michalowski, 1989). Rese
archers have introduced alternative methods of three-dimensional analsis, one o
f which is the resistanceweighted procedure presented Loehr et al. (2004). Al
though the resistance-weighted procedure is approximate, it serves as a simple m
eans for estimating the magnitude of threedimensional effects when a more rigoro
us three-dimensional procedure is not availale. Performing a quasi-three-dimens
ional analsis using the resistance-weighted procedure involves the following st
eps: 1. Assume a potential three-dimensional slip surface and direction of slidi
ng. 2. Divide the soil mass aove the slip surface into a numer of two-dimensio
nal, vertical cross sections aligned with the direction of sliding. Approximatel
20 cross sections are sufficient to accuratel represent the stailit of most
sliding odies. 3. Determine the geometr of the mean cross section midwa etwee
n each cross section created in step 2. 4. Analze each mean cross section using a
conventional two-dimensional slope stailit analsis procedure to compute the
factor of safet, F2, and total moilized shear force, T1, for each section. A c
omplete (force and moment) equilirium procedure, such as the method of slices (
Section 11.3), is tpicall chosen for this purpose to produce an accurate set o
f forces. 5. Compute the three-dimensional factor of safet from Equation (11.36
) using the factors of safet, F2, and moilized shear forces, T1, computed in s
tep 4. 6. Repeat the analses for other assumed three-dimensional slip surfaces
and directions of sliding to estalish the most critical three-dimensional slip
surface and direction of sliding
(11.36) Where s is measured along the slip surface perpendicular to the 2-D cros
s-section and x is measured perpendicular to the 2-D cross section. Although the
aove method is approximate, results of comparative analses presented show tha
t the method produces three-dimensional factors of safet that are in close agre
ement with factors of safet computed using more rigorous three-dimensional slop
estailit analsis procedures.
Example 11.6 Figure 11.20 shows the tpical cross section of an earthen dam uil
t on an impervious foundation. This Figure has een drawn to a scale of 1 in.=3
m.
Page 516
FIGURE 11.20 (a) Illustration for Example 11.6 (scale 1 in.=3m). () Prolem con
figuration, (c) Aid for computation of the weight, (d) Computation of hdrostati
c forces.
Page 517
FIGURE 11.20 (e) Computation of moments, (f) Free-od diagram for Example 11.6.
The dam mostl consists of a cla with an unconfined compression strength (qu )
of 15kPa and a saturated unit weight of 17.5 kN/m 3. In order to investigate the
stailit of the upstream slope, one trial circular failure surface is selected
as shown in the Figure: (a) Evaluate the weight of the trial failure mass se
parating it to a triangle and a circle segment. Assume that the entire dam is sa
turated. () Evaluate the horizontal and vertical components of the water pressu
re force on the upstream emankment due to the reservoir. (c) Clearl indicate t
he points of action of the aove forces (due to the self-weight and water pressu
re). (d) Evaluate the safet factor for the trail failure surface.
1 (a) =cos (0.75/(1 3))=75.5 BD=0.75 tan =0.75 tan 75.5=2.9m Circle sement area ( =
5.5)= (3)2(75.5/360)=5.93m2 Triangle ABC Arc area=(1)=5.934.35=1.58m 2 Triangle (2)
Therefore, total area (1)+(2)=1.58+0.84=2.42m2 Weight of trial failure mass=2.4211
7.5=42.35 kN/m
age 518
(b) (c) Selfweight at (1)=areaunit weight=1.5817.5=27.65 kN/m Selfweight at (2)=
0.8417.5=14.7 kN/m Total selfweight=42.35 kN/m Taking moment at A Therefore, Fai
lure curve length=2 (3)(75.5/360) =3.95 m Stabilizing moment=(Cu)(3.95)(3)+( WH)(
30.5) =(7.5)(3.95)(3)+(11.02)(2.5)=116.42 kNm/m Destabilizing moment=(Ws)(1.53)+(
WV)(0.476) = (42.35)(1.53)+(10.51)(0.476) = 69.8 kNm/m
Examle 11.7 Estimate the maximum load that can be imosed on the building found
ation in order to ensure the stability of the sandy embankment shown in Figure 1
1.21. The unit weight of the embankment sand is 16.5 kN/m 3 and the shear streng
th arameters of the clay layer are 10 kPa and 15. (11.6)
Page 519
FIGURE 11.21 (a) Illustration for Examle 11.7 (scale 1 in.=1 m). (b) Freebody
diagram for Examle 11.7.
Therefore, 20.02+m1.056Wf=35.63+0.2428Wf Therefore, Wf=19.2 kN/m. Examle 11.8 F
igure 11.22(a) shows the cross section of a highway embankment close to a waterw
ay. It is constructed by comacting a fill of clayey material to have the follow
ing roerties: Drained strength: Cohesion=10 kPa, angle of internal friction=12
Undrained strength=7.5 kPa Saturated unit weight=17.5 kN/m3 Dry unit weight=16.5
kN/m3 i. Use Taylors stability charts to investigate the stability of the embank
ment in the long term (i.e., long time after it has been built) with resect to
toe failure. Assume that the embankment is dry.
Page 520
FIGURE 11.22 (a) Illustration for Examle 11.8. (b) Relationshi between safety
factors (dry embankment), (c) Relationshi between safety factors (wet embankmen
t).
ii. Use Taylors stability charts to investigate the stability of the embankment i
n the long term (i.e., long time after it has been built) with resect to toe fa
ilure. Assume that the embankment is comletely submerged by the rising water le
vel. What conclusions can you reach by comaring your resonses to arts (i) and
(ii)?
Page 521 iii. Use Taylors stability charts to investigate the stability of the em
bankment in the short term (i.e., immediately after it has been built) with res
ect to toe failure. How far below the toe would the lowest oint of the critical
circle be? (i) Taylors stability chart method (Section 11.4.2.2): SN=stability n
umber 3 Using C=10 kPa, d=16.5 kN/m , H =2.75 m (Table 11.11) So, from the plot,
(ii) Taylors stability chart method: Toe fail re (Case 1 of Fi re 11.8) Lonte
rm condition (drained) C=10kPa, (Table 11.12) Completely s bmered, 9.81=17.59.8=
7.7 kN/m 3 s b = sat From the plot area, Hiher stability d e to risin water leve
l, (iii) Taylors stability chart method: Toe fail re (Case A, Fi re 11.9, n=0) S
hortterm ( ndrained condition, C =7.5 kPa) 3 Sat rated nit weiht, s =17.5 kN/
m From Fi re 11.9 (for zerofriction anle), for n=0, i =29
1.5 2.0 2.5
8.06 6.06 4.86
0.085 0.100 0.11
2.6 2.2 2.0
2.0 4.0 3.0
6.06 3.04 4.05
0.100 0.125 0.115
4.7 3.8 4.1
Pae 522
Depth factor, D=1.23 Therefore, DH H=0.232.75=0.63m So, the lowest point of the c
ritical circle wo ld be 0.63 m below toe. Example 11.9 A hihway embankment of 3
m (Fi re 11.23) is desined in a densely compacted nat ral sand at a slope of
25. It is known that a clay layer passes thro h the entire embankment startin f
rom its toe and emerin from the top at a horizontal distance of 2 m from the t
op ede of the embankment. The two soil types have the followin properties: Cla
y: Cohesion=10 kPa, anle of internal friction=12 Unit weiht=17.0 kN/m3 Sand: An
le of internal friction=30 Unit weiht=18.0 kN/m3 i. Use the Stability n mber me
thod to estimate the safety factor of the embankment with respect to possible fa
il re alon the clay layer. ii. Compare yo r answer aainst the estimate iven b
y E
ation (11.7) and comment on it. Usin the stability n mber method (i.e., E
ation (11.20)) and

Pae 523
(ii) E
ation (11.7):
The two val es of FOS are
ite close. Example 11.10 Fi re 11.24(a) shows the c
ross section of a completely in ndated dike. The dike is made p of material tha
t has the followin properties: Cohesion=10 kPa Anle of internal friction=12 Sat
rated nit weiht=17.5 kN/m3 Water content=15% Use the ordinary slices method t
o investiate the stability of the trial fail re mass shown in the Fi re:
2.0 5.0 6.0 5.55
6.06 2.43 2.03 2.19
0.0262 0.0329 0.0336 0.0333
7.07 5.63 5.51 5.55
Pae 524
FIGURE 11.24 (a) Ill stration for Example 11.10 (scale: 1 in.=4m). (b) Confi ra
tion and information on slices for Example 11.10.
Cohesion=10kPa
Usin the ordinary slice method (E
ation 11.10) and Table 11.14:
Example 11.11 Fi re 11.25 shows the cross section of a hihway embankment close
to an interchane. The hihway pavement, which is 0.61 m (2 ft) thick, is const
r cted o t of 0.101 m (4 in.) of asphalt and compacted base. The nit weihts of
asphalt, base soil, and the embankment
Pae 525
Slice Width bi (m) Heiht hi (m) Weiht Wi (kN/m)
1 2 1.67 1.67 0.96 1.75 0.37 3 1.68 1.37 1.12 4 0.70 0.47 1.50 5 0.55 0.98 8.2 2
.53 17.72 22.5
Wi sin i i Wi cos i ci bi sec i(li)
5.6 0 11.0 31.9 18.74 16.7 0
12.34 27
26
20.32
41.67
18.69
67
13.97
12.14
10.67
7.55 =36.24
3.2 =99.91
14.07 =78.87
FIGURE 11.25 (a) Ill station fo Example 11.11 (scale: 1 in.=3 m). (b) Config
ation and infomation on slices fo Example 11.11.
Page 526
TABLE 11.15 Woksheet fo Example 11.11
lice Width bi (m)

1 2 3 4 5 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 2.15
Height hi (m)
0.74 1.80 2.41 2.55 1.54
Weight Wi Wi sin i (kN/m) i
20.38 24 49.57 8 66.37 8 70.23 24 56.28 46 +24.57 =80.85 =287.4 8.29 6.9 9.23 28
.56 58.16 =80.76
tan i tan i
0.257
sec i
1.09
For F=2.0
14.8 30.12 37.19 39.32 51.74
For F=2.2
14.58 30.00 37.32 39.74 52.84
For F=2.15
14.63 30.03 37.29 39.64 52.58
0.081 1.009 0.081 1.009 0.257 1.095 0.5980 1.44
=173.16 =174.5 =174.18
soil ae 22.5, 18.0, and 17.0 kN /m3, espectively. Ass ming that the embankment
is made p of a sandy mateial compacted to an aveage PT val e of 15, se Bis
hops method to investigate the stability of the fail e s face indicated in the
Fig e. 3 asphalt=22.5 kN/m (0.101 m thick) 3 base=18.0 kN/m (0.509 m thick) 3 s
and=17.0 kN/m
=0.10122.5+0.50918=11.43 kN/m : (11.13)
sin Table 11.15 Ass me F=2.0, F=173.16/80.76=2.14 Ass me F=2.2, F=174.5/80.762.

16 Ass me F=2.15, F=174.18/80.76=2.15 Satisfactory.
References
AASHTO, 1996, Standard Specifications for Hihway Brides, American Association
for State Hihway and Transportation Officials, Washinton, DC. Bhandari, R.K. a
nd Thayalan, N., 1994, Landslides and other mass movements incl din fail re of
c ttins in resid al soils of Sri Lanka, Proceedins of the National Symposi m o
n Landslides, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1994. Bishop, A.W., 1955, The se of slip circ
le in stability analysis of earth slopes, Geotechni
e, 5:717. Chen, H., Lee, C.F
., and Law, K.T., 2004, Ca sative mechanisms of rainfallind ced fill slope fail
res, Jo rnal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Enineerin, ASCE, 130(6): 59
3602. Chandler R.J., 1972, Lias clays, weatherin process and their effect on she
ar strenth, Geotechni
e, 22(3): 403431.
Pae 527
Chandler, R.J. and Skempton, A.W., 1974, Desin of permanent c ttin slopes in s
tiff fiss red clay, Geotechni
e, 24(4): 457466. Federal Hihway Administration,
1998, Load and Resistance Factor Desin (LRFD) for Hihway Bride S bstr ct res,
Washinton, DC. Fellini s, W., 1937, Erdstatiche Berechn nen, revised edition,
W.Ernst . Sons, Berlin, Germany. Harr, M.E., 1977, Mechanics of Partic late Me
dia, McGrawHill, New York. Harr, M.E., 1987, ReliabilityBased Desin in Civil
Enineerin, McGrawHill, New York. Hassiotis, S., Chamea , J.L., and G naratne,
M., 1997, Desin method for stabilization of slopes with piles, Jo rnal of Geot
echnical and Geoenvironmental Enineerin, ASGE, 123(4): 314323. H an, Y.H., 200
4, Pavement Analysis and Desin, Pearson Ed cation Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Ito, T. and Mats i, T., 1975, Methods to estimate lateral force actin on stabi
lizin piles, Soils and Fo ndation, 15:4359. Koerner, R., 1998, Desinin with Ge
osynthetics, Prentice Hall, Enlewood Cliffs, NJ. Lam, L. and Fredl nd, D.G., 19
93, A eneral limit e
ilibri m model for threedimensional slope stability anal
ysis, Canadian Geotechnical Jo rnal, 30(6): 905919. Loehr, J.E., McCoy, B.F., and
Wriht, S.G., 2004, Threedimensional slope stability analysis method for ener
al slidin bodies, Jo rnal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Enineerin, ASC
E, 130(6): 551560. Okada, K., 1999, Risk assessment and zonation on areas s scept
ible to rain ind ced slope fail res in railway embankments, Proceedins of the W
orkshop on Rain Ind ced Slope Fail res, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Po los, H.G., 1973,
Analysis of piles in soils nderoin lateral movement, Jo rnal of Soil Mechanic
s and Fo ndations Division, ASCE, 99:391 406 Rosenbl eth, E., 1975, Point estima
tes of probability moments, Proceedins of the National Academy of Science of th
e USA, 72(10): 38123814. Skempton, A.W., 1985, Resid al strenth of clays in land
slides, folded strata and the laboratory, Geotechni
e, 35(1): 38. Stark, T. and
Eid, H., 1997, Slope stability analysis in stiff fiss red clays, Jo rnal of Geot
echnical and Geoenvironmental Enineerin, ASCE, 123(4): 335343. Taylor, D.W., 19
37, Stability of earth slopes, Jo rnal of the Boston Society of Civil Enineers,
24(3): 337386. Taylor, D.W., 1948, F ndamentals of Soil Mechanics, John Wiley, N
ew York.
Pae 528
Pae 529
12 Methods of Soft Gro nd Improvement
James D.H ssin CONTENTS 12.1 Introd ction 12.2 Compaction 12.2.1 Dynamic Compact
ion 12.2.2 Vibro Compaction 12.2.3 Compaction Gro tin 12.2.4 S rcharin with P
refabricated Vertical Drains 12.2.5 Infre
entlyUsed Compaction Techni
es 12.2
.5.1 BlastDensification and Vac mInd ced Consolidation 12.3 Reinforcement 12.
3.1 Stone Col mns 12.3.2 Vibro Concrete Col mns 12.3.3 Soil Nailin 12.3.4 Micro
piles 12.3.5 Fract re Gro tin 12.3.6 Infre
entlyUsed Reinforcement Techni
es
12.3.6.1 Fibers and Biotechnical 12.4 Fixation 12.4.1 Permeation Gro tin 12.4.
2 Jet Gro tin 12.4.3 Soil Mixin 12.4.3.1 Dry Soil Mixin 12.4.3.2 Wet Soil Mix
in 12.4.4 Infre
entlyUsed Fixation Techni
es 12.4.4.1 Freezin and Vitrifica
tion 12.5 Other Innovative SoftGro nd Improvements Techni
es 12.5.1 Rammed A
reate Piers 530 531 531 533 536 539 540 540 541 541 543 545 547 549 551 551 552
552 554 556 558 559 560 560 560 560
12.5.2 Reinforced Soil Fo ndations 12.5.2.1 Mechanisms of Bearin Capacity Fail

re in Reinforced Soils References
562 563 565
Pae 530
12.1 Introd ction
When a s itable fo ndation has to be desined for a s perstr ct re, the fo ndati
on enineer typically follows a decisionmakin process in selectin the optim m
type of fo ndation. The flowchart shown in Fi re 12.1 ill strates the importan
t steps of that decision process, which is based on the principle that costeffe
ctive alternatives m st be so ht first before considerin relatively costly fo
ndation alternatives. It is seen that, in keepin with the decision se
ence adv
ocated in Fi re 12.1, one m st consider applicable site specific techni
es for
improvement of soft ro nd conditions, before resortin to deep fo ndations. Th
is chapter ives an overview of techni
es that are commonly sed by specialty c
ontractors in the United States to improve the performance of the ro nd in sit
. Not incl ded are less specialized methods of ro nd improvement s ch as s rfac
e compaction with vibratory rollers or sheep foot type compactors, or methods th
at involve the placement of eotextile or eorid materials in soil fill as it i
s placed. The techni
es are divided into three cateories: 1.Compactiontechni
e
s that typically are sed to compact or densify soil in sit . 2. Reinforcementtec
hni
es that typically constr ct a reinforcin element within the soil mass with
o t necessarily chanin the soil properties. The performance of the soil mass i
s improved by the incl sion of the reinforcin elements. 3. Fixationtechni
es th
at fix or bind the soil particles toether thereby increasin the soils strenth
and decreasin its compressibility and permeability.
FIGURE 12.1 Decision process involved with selection of fo ndation type.
Pae 531 Techni

es have been placed in the cateory in which they are most comm
only sed even tho h several of the techni
es co ld fall into more than one of
the cateories. As each techni
e is addressed, the expected performance in dif
ferent soil types is presented. An overview of the desin methodoloy for each t
echni
e is also presented as are methods of performin
ality ass rance and

ality control (QA/QC). Several in sit techni
es of soil improvement exist that
are not commonly sed. These techni
es are briefly described at the end of eac
h cateory. This chapter is intended to ive the reader a eneral nderstandin
of each of the techni
es, how each improves the soil performance, and an overvi
ew of how each is analyzed. The p rpose is neither to present all the n ances of
each techni
e nor to be a detailed desin man al. Indeed, entire books have be
en written on each techni
e separately. In addition, this chapter does not addr
ess all the safety iss es associated with each techni
e. Many of these techni

es have inherent daners associated with them and sho ld only be performed by tr
ained and experienced specialty contractors with doc mented safety records.
12.2 Compaction
12.2.1 Dynamic Compaction
Dynamic compaction (DC), also known as dynamic deep compaction, was advanced in
the mid1960s by L is Menard, altho h there are reports of the proced re bein
performed over 1000 years ao. The process involves droppin a heavy weiht on t
he s rface of the ro nd to compact soils to depths as reat as 40ft or 12.5m (F
i re 12.2). The
FIGURE 12.2 Deep dynamic compaction: (a) schematic, (b) field implementation. (F
rom Hayward Baker Inc. With permission.)
Pae 532 method is sed to red ce fo ndation settlements, red ce seismic s bside
nce and li
efaction potential, permit constr ction on fills, densify arbae d
mps, improve mine spoils, and red ce settlements in collapsible soils. Applicabl
e soil types: Dynamic compaction is most effective in permeable, ran lar soils.
Cohesive soils tend to absorb the enery and limit the techni
es effectiveness.
The expected improvement achieved in specific soil types is shown in Table 12.1
. The ro nd water table sho ld be at least 6 ft below the workin s rface for t
he process to be effective. In oranic soils, dynamic compaction has been sed t
o constr ct sand or stone col mns by repeatedly fillin the crater with sand or
stone and drivin the col mn thro h the oranic layer. E
ipment: Typically a c
ycle d ty crane is sed to drop the weiht, altho h specially b ilt ris have b
een constr cted. Since standard cranes are typically not desined for the hih c
ycle, dynamic loadin, the cranes m st be in ood condition and caref lly mainta
ined and inspected d rin performance of the work to maintain a safe workin env
ironment. The crane is typically ried with s fficient boom to drop the weiht
from heihts of 50 to 100ft (15.4 to 30.8m), with a sinle line to allow the wei
ht to nearly free fall, maximizin the enery of the weiht strikin the ro nd.
The weiht to be dropped m st be below the safe sinle line capacity of the cran
e and cable. Typically weihts rane from 10 to 30 tons (90 to 270 kN) and are c
onstr cted of steel to withstand the repetitive dynamic forces. Proced re: The p
roced re involves repetitively liftin and droppin a weiht on the ro nd s rfa
ce. The layo t of the primary drop locations is typically on a 10 to 20ft (3.1 t
o 6.2 m) rid with a secondary pass located at the midpoints of the primary pass
. Once the crater depth has reached abo t 3 to 4 ft (abo t 1 m), the crater is f
illed with ran lar material before additional drops are performed at that locat
ion. The process prod ces lare vibrations in the soil which can have adverse ef
fects on nearby existin str ct res. It is important to review the nearby adjace
nt facilities for vibration sensitivity and to doc ment their preexistin condit
ion, especially str ct res within 500 ft (154 m) of planned drop locations. Vibr
ation monitorin d rin DC is also pr dent. Extreme care and caref l monitorin
sho ld be sed if treatment is planned within 200ft (61.5m) of an existin str c
t re. Materials: The craters res ltin from the proced re are typically filled w
ith a clean, free drainin ran lar soil. A sand backfill can be sed when treat
in sandy soils. A cr shed stone backfill is typically sed when treatin finer
rained soils or landfills.
TABLE 12.1 Expected Improvement and Re
ired Enery with Dynamic Compaction
Soil Description
Gravel and sand <10% silt, no clay Sand with 1080% silt and <20% clay, p I<8 Fine
rrained soil with pI>8 Landfill
aEn
Expected Improvement
Excellent Moderate if dry; minimal if moist Not applicable Excellent
Typical Enery Re
ired (tons ft/cf)a
22.5 2.53.5 611
ery=(drop heihtweihtn mber of drops)/soil vol me to be compacted; 1 ton ft/ft3=
94.1kJ/m3.
Pae 533 Desin: The desin will bein with an analysis of the planned constr ct
ion with the existin s bs rface conditions (bearin capacity, settlement, li
e
faction, etc.). Then the same analysis is performed with the improved soil param
eters (i.e., SPT N val e, etc.) to determine the minim m val es necessary to pro
vide the re
ired performance. Finally, the vertical and lateral extent of impro
ved soil necessary to provide the re
ired performance is determined. The depth
of infl ence is related to the s
are root of the enery from a sinle drop (wei
ht times the heiht of the drop) applied to the ro nd s rface. The followin c
orrelation was developed by Dr Robert L cas based on field data: D=k(WH)1/2 (12.1
) where D is the maxim m infl ence depth in meters beneath the ro nd s rface, W
is the weiht in metric tons (9 kN) of the object bein dropped, and H is the d
rop heiht in meters above the ro nd s rface. The constant k varies with soil t
ype and is between 0.3 and 0.7, with lower val es for finerrained soils. Altho
h this form la predicts the maxim m depth of improvement, the majority of the
improvement occ rs in the pper twothirds of this depth with the improvement ta
perin off to zero in the bottom third. Repeated blows at the same location incr
eases the deree of improvement achieved within this zone. However, the amo nt o
f improvement achieved decreases with each drop event ally res ltin in a point
of diminishin ret rns. The expected rane of nit enery re
ired to achieve th
is point is presented in Table 12.1. Treatment of landfills is effective in red
cin voids; however, it has little effect on f t re decomposition of bioderadab
le components. Therefore treatment of landfills is typically restricted to plann
ed roadway and pavement areas, and not for str ct res. After completion of dynam
ic compaction, the soils within 3 to 4 ft (1 m) of the s rface are loose. The s
rface soils are compacted with a low enery ironin pass, which typically consists
of droppin the same weiht a co ple of times from a heiht of 10 to 15 ft (3.0
to 4.5 m) over the entire s rface area. Q ality control and
ality ass rance:
In most applications, penetration testin is performed to meas re the improvemen
t achieved. In landfills or constr ction debris, penetration testin is diffic l
t and shear wave velocity tests or lare scale load tests with fill mo nds can b
e performed. A test area can be treated at the beinnin of the proram to meas
re the improvement achieved and to make adj stments if re
ired. The depth of th
e craters can also be meas red to detect soft areas of the site re
irin addition
al treatment. The decrease in penetration with additional drops ives an indicat
ion when s fficient improvement is achieved.
12.2.2 Vibro Compaction
Vibro compaction (VC), also known as Vibroflotation was developed in the 1930s in
E rope. The process involves the se of a downhole vibrator (vibroflot), which
is lowered into the ro nd to compact the soils at depth (Fi re 12.3). The met
hod is sed to increase bearin capacity, red ce fo ndation settlements, red ce
seismic s bsidence and li
efaction potential, and permit constr ction on loose
ran lar fills. Applicable soil types: The VC process is most effective in free
drainin ran lar soils. The expected improvement achieved in specific soil type
s is shown in Table 12.2. The typical spacin is based on a 165horsepower (HP)
(124 kW) vibrator. Altho h most effective below the ro nd water table, VC is a
lso effective above.
Pae 534
TABLE 12.2 Expected Improvement and Typical Probe Spacin with Vibro Compaction
Soil Description
Wellraded sand <5% silt, no clay
Expected Improvement
Excellent
Typical Probe Spacin (ft)a
911 7.59 67.5
Uniform fine to medi m sand with <5% silt and Good no clay Silty sand with 515% s
ilt, no clay Sand/silts, >15% silt Clays and arbae
a
Moderate Not applicable Not applicable
b

Probe spacin to achieve 70% relative density with 165 HP vibroflot, hiher dens
ities re
ire closer spacin (1ft=0.308m). b Limited improvement in silts can be
achieved with lare displacements and stone backfill.
FIGURE 12.3 Vibroflotation: (a) schematic, (b) field implementation. (From Haywa
rd Baker Inc. With permission.)
E
ipment: The vibroflot consists of a cylindrical steel shell with and an inter
ior electric or hydra lic motor which spins an eccentric weiht (Fi re 12.4). C
ommon vibrator dimensions are approximately 10 ft (3.1 m) in lenth and 1.5 ft (
0.5 m) in diameter. The vibration is in the horizontal direction and the so rce
is located near the bottom of the probe, maximizin the effect on the s rro ndin
soils. Vibrators vary in power from abo t 50 to over 300 HP (37.7 to 226 kW).
Typically, the vibroflot is h n from a standard crane, altho h p rpose b ilt m
achines do exist. Extension t bes are bolted to the top of the vibrator so that
the vibrator can be lowered to the necessary treatment depth. Electric vibrators
typically have a remote ammeter, which displays the amperae bein drawn by the
electric motor. The amperae will typically increase as the s rro ndin soils d
ensify. Proced re: The vibrator is lowered into the ro nd, assisted by its wei
ht, vibration, and typically water jets in its tip. If diffic lt penetration is
enco ntered, predrillin thro h the firm soils may also be performed. The compa
ction starts at the bottom of the treatment depth. The vibrator is then either r
aised at a certain rate or repeatedly raised and lowered as it is extracted (Fi
re 12.5). The s rro ndin ran lar soils rearraned into a denser confi ration
,
achievin relative densities of 70 to 85%. Treatment as deep as 120 ft (37m) has

been performed.
Pae 535
FIGURE 12.4 Electric vibroflot cross section. (From Hayward Baker Inc. With perm
ission.)
Sand added aro nd the vibrator at the ro nd s rface falls aro nd the vibrator t
o its tip to compensate for the vol me red ction d rin densification. If no san
d is added, the in sit sands will fall, res ltin in a depression at the ro nd
s rface. Loose sand will experience a 5 to 15% vol me red ction d rin densific
ation. Coarser backfill, p to ravel size, improves the effectiveness of the te
chni
e, especially in silty soils. The techni
e does not densify the sands wit
hin 2 to 3 ft (0.6 to 0.9 m) of the ro nd s rface. If necessary, this is accomp
lished with a steel dr m vibratory roller. Materials: Backfill s ally consists
of sand with less than 10% silt and no clay, altho h ravel size backfill can a
lso be sed. A coarser backfill facilitates prod ction and densification.
FIGURE 12.5 Vibro compaction process. (From Hayward Baker Inc. With Permission.)
Pae 536 Desin: The desin will bein with an analysis of the planned constr ct
ion with the existin s bs rface conditions (bearin capacity, settlement, li
e
faction, etc.). Then the same analysis is performed with the improved soil param
eters (i.e., SPT N val e, etc.) to determine the minim m soil parameters necessa
ry to provide the re
ired performance. And finally, the vertical and lateral ex
tent of improved soil necessary to provide the re
ired performance is determine
d. In the case of settlement improvement for spread footins, it is common to im
prove the sands beneath the planned footins to a depth of twice the footin wid
th for isolated col mn footins and fo r times the footin width for wall footin
s. Area treatments are re
ired where an area load is planned or in seismic app
lications. For treatment beneath shallow fo ndations for nonseismic conditions,
it is common to treat only beneath the fo ndations (Fi re 12.6). The deree of
improvement achievable depends on the enery of the vibrator, the spacin of the
vibrator penetrations, the amo nt of time spent densifyin the soil, and the

antity of backfill added (or in sit soil vol me red ction). Q ality control and
ality ass rance: Prod ction parameters sho ld be doc mented for each probe lo
cation, s ch as depth, compaction time, amperae increases, and estimated vol me
of backfill added. If no backfill is added, the red ction in the ro nd s rface
elevation sho ld be recorded. The deree of improvement achieved is typically m
eas red with penetration tests performed at the midpoint of the probe pattern.
12.2.3 Compaction Gro tin
Compaction ro tin, one of the few US born ro nd improvement techni
es, was d
eveloped by Ed Graf and Jim Warner in California in the 1950s. This techni
e de
nsifies soils by the injection of a low mobility, low sl mp mortar ro t. The r
o t b lb expands as additional ro t is injected, compactin the s rro ndin soi
ls thro h compression. Besides the improvement in the s rro ndin soils, the so
il mass is reinforced by the res ltin ro t col mn, f rther red cin settlement
and increasin shear strenth. The method is sed to red ce fo ndation settleme
nts, red ce seismic s bsidence and li
efaction potential, permit constr ction o
n loose ran lar fills, red ce settlements in collapsible soils, and red ce sink
hole potential or stabilize existin sinkholes in karst reions.
FIGURE 12.6
Typical vibro compaction layo t for nonseismic treatment beneath fo ndations. (F

rom Hayward Baker Inc. With permission.)
Pae 537 Applicable soil types: Compaction ro tin is most effective in free dr
ainin ran lar soils and low sensitivity soils. The expected improvement achiev
ed in specific soil types is shown in Table 12.3. The depth of the ro ndwater t
able is not important as lon as the soils are free drainin. E
ipment: Three p
rimary pieces of e
ipment are re
ired to perform compaction ro tin, one to b
atch the ro t, one to p mp the ro t, and one to install the injection pipe. In
some applications, readymix ro t is sed eliminatin the need for onsite bat
chin. The injection pipe is typically installed with a drill ri or is driven i
nto the ro nd. It is important that the injection pipe is in tiht contact with
the s rro ndin soils. Otherwise the ro t miht either flow aro nd the pipe to
the ro nd s rface or the ro t press re miht jack the pipe o t of the ro nd.
A erin or excessive fl shin co ld res lt in a loose fit. The p mp m st be ca
pable of injectin a low sl mp mortar ro t nder hih press re. A piston p mp c
apable of achievin a p mpin press re of p to 1000 psi (6.9 MPa) is often re

ired (Fi re 12.7). Proced re: Compaction ro tin is typically started at the b
ottom of the zone to be treated and precedes pward (Fi re 12.8). The treatment
does not have to be contin ed to the ro nd s rface and can be terminated at an
y depth. The techni
e is very effective in taretin isolated zones at depth. I
t is enerally diffic lt to achieve sinificant improvement within abo t 8 ft (2
.5 m) of the ro nd s rface. Some shallow improvement can be accomplished sin
the slower and more costly top down proced re. In this proced re, ro t is first
p mped at the top of the treatment zone. After the ro t sets p, the pipe is
TABLE 12.3 Expected Improvement with Compaction Gro tin
Soil Description
Gravel and sand <10% silt, no clay Sand with between 10 and 20% silt and <2% cla
y Finerrained soil, nonplastic Plastic soil
Densification
Excellent Moderate Minimal Not applicable
Reinforcement
Very ood Very ood Excellent Excellent
FIGURE 12.7 Compaction ro t process: (a) schematic, (b) field implementation. (
From Hayward Baker Inc. With permission.)
Pae 538
FIGURE 12.8 Compaction ro tin process. (From Hayward Baker Inc. With permissio
n.)
drilled to the nderside of the ro t and additional ro t is injected. This pro
ced re is repeated ntil the bottom of the treatment zone is ro ted. The ro t
injection rate is enerally in the rane of 3 to 6ft3 /min (0.087 to 0.175 m3/mi
n), dependin on the soils bein treated. If the injection rate is too fast, exc
ess pore press res or fract rin of the soil can occ r, red cin the effectivene
ss of the process. Materials: Generally, the compaction ro t consists of Portla
nd cement, sand, and water. Additional finerained materials can be added to th
e mix, s ch as nat ral finerained soils, fly ash, or bentonite (in small
ant
ities). The ro t strenth is enerally not critical for soil improvement, and i
f this is the case, cement has been omitted and the sand replaced with nat rally
occ rrin silty sand. A minim m strenth may be re
ired if the ro t col mns o
r mass are desined to carry a load. Desin: The desin will bein with an analy
sis of the planned constr ction with the existin s bs rface conditions (bearin
capacity, settlement, li
efaction, etc.). Then the same analysis is performed
with the improved soil parameters (i.e., SPT N val e, etc.) to determine the min
im m parameters necessary to provide the re
ired performance. Finally, the vert
ical and lateral extent of improved soil necessary to provide the re
ired perfo
rmance is determined. In the case of settlement improvement for spread footins,
it is common to improve the sands beneath the planned footins to a depth of tw
ice the footin width for isolated col mn footins and fo r times the footin wi
dth for wall footins. A conservative analysis of the posttreatment performance
only considers the improved soil and does not take into acco nt the ro t eleme
nts. The ro t elements are typically col mns. A simplified method of acco ntin
for the ro t col mns is to take a weihted averae of the parameters of the im
proved soil and ro t. The ro t col mns can also be desined sin a standard d
isplacement pile methodoloy. The deree of improvement achievable depends on th
e soil (soil radation, percent fines, percent clay fines, and moist re content)
as well as the spacin and percent displacement (the vol me of ro t injected d
ivided by vol me of soil bein treated). Q ality control and
ality ass rance:
Dependin on the ro t re
irements, ro t sl mp and strenth is often specified
. Sl mp testin and samplin for nconfined compressive strenth testin is perf
ormed d rin prod ction. The prod ction parameters sho ld also be monitored and
doc mented, s ch as p mpin rate,
antities, press res, ro nd heave, and injec
tion depths. Postro tin penetration testin can be performed between injection
locations to verify the improvement of ran lar soil.
Pae 539
12.2.4 S rcharin with Prefabricated Vertical Drains
S rcharin consists of placin a temporary load (enerally soil fill) on sites
to preconsolidate the soil prior to constr ctin the planned str ct re (Fi re 1
2.9). The process improves the soil by compressin the soil, increasin its stif
fness and shear strenth. In partially or f lly sat rated soils, prefabricated v
ertical drains (PVDs) can be placed prior to s rchare placement to accelerate t
he drainae, red cin the re
ired s rchare time. Applicable soil types: Preloa
din is best s ited for soft, finerained soils. Soft soils are enerally easy
to penetrate with PVDs and layers of stiff soil may re
ire predrillin. E
ipme
nt: Generally, a s rchare consists of a soil embankment and is placed with stan
dard earthmovin e
ipment (tr cks, dozers, etc). Often the site s rface is soft
and wet, re
irin low ro nd press re e
ipment. The PVDs are installed with a
mast mo nted on a backhoe or crane, often with low ro nd press re tracks. A pr
edrillin ri may be re
ired if stiff layers m st be penetrated. Proced re: Fil
l soil is typically delivered to the area to be s rchared with d mp tr cks. Doz
ers are then sed to p sh the soil into a mo nd. The heiht of the mo nd depends
on the re
ired press re to achieve the re
ired improvement. The PVDs typicall
y are in 1000 ft (308 m) rolls and are fed into a steel rectan lar t be (mandre
l) from the top. The mandrel is p shed, vibrated, driven or jetted vertically in
to the ro nd with a mast mo nted on a backhoe or crane. An anchor plate or bar
attached to the bottom of the PVD holds it in place in the soil as the mandrel i
s extracted. The PVD is then c t off slihtly above the ro nd s rface and anoth
er anchor is attached. The mandrel is moved to the next location and the process
is repeated. If obstr ctions are enco ntered d rin installation, the wick drai
n location can be slihtly offset. In very soft sites, piezometers and inclinome
ters, as well as staed loadin, may be re
ired to avoid the fill bein placed
too
ickly, ca sin a bearin capacity or slope stability fail re. If stiff lay
ers m st be penetrated, predrillin may be re
ired.
FIGURE 12.9 S rcharin with prefabricated vertical drains: (a) schematic, (b) f
ield implementation. (From Hayward Baker Inc. With permission.)
Pae 540 Settlement plates are placed in the s rchare. The elevation of these p
lates is meas red to determine when the desin settlement has occ rred. Material
s: The first layer of s rchare enerally consists of a drainae material to dra
in the water displaced from the ro nd d rin compression. Since s rchare soils
are enerally temporary in nat re, their composition and deree of compaction a
re enerally not critical. If the site settlement will res lt in some of the s r
chare soil settlin below finish rade, this heiht of fill is initially placed
as compacted str ct ral fill, to avoid havin to excavate and replace it at the
end of the s rchare proram. The PVD is composed of a 4in. (10 cm) wide strip
of corr ated or knobbed plastic wrapped in a woven filter fabric. The fabric i
s desined to remain permeable to allow the ro nd water to flow thro h it b t
not the soil. Desin: Generally, a s rchare proram is considered when the site
is nderlain by soft finerained soils which will experience excessive settleme
nt nder the load of the planned str ct re. Usin consolidation test data, a s r
chare load and d ration is selected to preconsolidate the soils s fficiently s
ch that when the s rchare load is removed and the planned str ct re is constr c
ted, the remainin settlement is acceptable. PVDs are selected if the re
ired s
rchare time is excessive for the project. The time re
ired for the s rchare
settlement to occ r depends on the time it takes for the excess pore water press
re to dissipate. This is dictated by the soils permeability and the s
are of t
he distance the water has to travel to et to a permeable layer. The PVDs accele
rate the drainae by shortenin the drainae distance. The spacin of the PVDs a
re desined to red ce the consolidation time to an acceptable d ration. The clos
er the drains are installed (typically 3 to 6 ft on center) the shorter the s rc
hare proram is in d ration. Q ality control and
ality ass rance: The heiht
and nit weiht of the s rchare sho ld be doc mented to ass re that the desin
press re is bein applied. The PVD man fact rers specifications sho ld be reviewe
d to confirm that the selected PVD is s itable for the application. D rin insta
llation, the location, depth, and verticality are important to monitor and recor
d. The settlement monitorin proram is critical so that the completion of the s
rchare proram can be determined.
12.2.5 Infre
entlyUsed Compaction Techni
es
12.2.5.1 BlastDensification and Vac mInd ced Consolidation Blastdensificatio
n densifies sands with nderro nd explosives. The techni
e was first sed in t
he 1930s in the former Soviet Union and in New Hampshire. The below rade explos
ion ca ses vol metric strains and shearin which rearranes of soil particles in
to a denser confi ration. The soils are li
efied and then become denser as the
pore press res dissipate. Soils as deep as 130 ft (40 m) have been treated. A
limited n mber of projects have been performed and enerally only for remote loc
ation where the blastind ced vibrations are not a concern. Vac mind ced conso
lidation (VIC) ses atmospheric press re to apply a temporary s rchare load. Th
e concept of VIC was introd ced in the 1950s; however, the first practical proje
ct was performed in 1980 in China. Followin that, a n mber of small projects ha
ve been performed, b t few o tside China. A poro s layer of sand or ravel is pl
aced over the site and it is covered with an air tiht membrane, sealed into the
clay below the ro nd s rface. The air is then p mped o t of the poro s layer,
prod cin a press re difference of 0.6 to 0.7 atm, e
ivalent to abo t 15ft (4.6
m) of fill. The process
Pae 541 can be accelerated by the se of PVDs. The process eliminates the need
for s rchare fill and avoids shear fail re in the soft soil; however, any sand
seams within the compressible layer can make it diffic lt to maintain the vac m
.
12.3 Reinforcement
12.3.1 Stone Col mns
Stone col mns refer to col mns of compacted, ravel size stone particles constr
cted vertically in the ro nd to improve the performance of soft or loose soils.
The stone can be compacted with impact methods, s ch as with a fallin weiht o
r an impact compactor or with a vibroflot, the more common method. The method is
sed to increase bearin capacity ( p to 5 to 10ksf or 240 to 480 kPa), red ce
fo ndation settlements, improve slope stability, red ce seismic s bsidence, red
ce lateral spreadin and li
efaction potential, permit constr ction on loose/so
ft fills, and precollapse sinkholes prior to constr ction in karst reions. Appl
icable soil types: Stone col mns improve the performance of soils in two ways, d
ensification of s rro ndin ran lar soil and reinforcement of the soil with a s
tiffer, hiher shear strenth col mn. The expected improvement achieved in speci
fic soil types is shown in Table 12.4. The depth of the ro nd water is enerall
y not critical. Proced re: The col mn constr ction starts at the bottom of the t
reatment depth and proceeds to the s rface. The vibrator penetrates into the ro
nd, assisted by its weiht, vibration, and typically water jets in its tip, the
wet top feed method (Fi re 12.10 and Fi re 12.11a). If diffic lt penetration
is enco ntered, predrillin thro h the firm soils may also be performed. A fron
t end loader places stone aro nd the vibroflot at the ro nd s rface and the sto
ne falls to the tip of the vibroflot thro h the fl shin water aro nd the exter
ior of the vibroflot. The vibrator is then raised a co ple of feet and the stone
falls aro nd the vibroflot to the tip, fillin the cavity formed as the vibrofl
ot is raised. The vibroflot is then repeatedly raised and lowered as it is extra
cted, compactin and displacin the stone in 2 to 3 ft (0.75 to 0.9 m) lifts. Th
e fl shin water is s ally directed to a settlement pond where the s spended so
il fines are allowed to settle. If the dry bottom feed proced re is selected, th
e vibroflot penetrates into the ro nd, assisted by its weiht and vibrations al
one (Fi re 12.11b). Aain, predrillin may be sed if necessary or desired. The
remainin proced re is then similar except that the stone is feed to the tip of
the vibroflot tho h the tremie pipe. Treatment depth as deep as 100 ft (30 m)
has been achieved.
TABLE 12.4 Expected Densification and Reinforcement Achieved with Stone Col mns
Soil Description
Gravel and sand <10% silt, no clay Sand with between 10 and 20% silt and <2% cla
y Sand with >20% silt and nonplastic silt Clays Excellent
Densification
Very ood Marinal (with lare displacements) Not applicable
Reinforcement
Very ood Very ood Excellent Excellent
Pae 542
FIGURE 12.10 Installation of stone col mns: (a) schematic, (b) field implementat
ion. (From Hayward Baker Inc. With permission.)
E
ipment: When jettin water is sed to advance the vibroflot, the e
ipment an
d set p is similar to VC. If jettin water is not desired for a partic lar proje
ct, the dry bottom feed process can be sed (Fi re 12.11b). A tremie pipe, thro
h which stone is fed to the tip of the vibroflot, is fastened to the side of t
he vibroflot. A stone skip is filled with stone on the ro nd with a front end l
oader and a separate cable raises the skip to a chamber at the top of the tremie
pipe. A specific application is referred to as vibro piers. The process refers
to short, closely spaced stone col mns desined to create a stiff block to incre
ase bearin capacity and red ce settlement to acceptable val es. Vibro piers are
typically constr cted in cohesive soils in which a f ll depth predrill hole wil
l stay open. The stone is compacted in 1 to 2 ft (0.4 to 0.8 m) lifts, each of w
hich is rammed and compacted with the vibroflot. Materials: The stone is typical
ly a raded cr shed hard rock, altho h nat ral ravels and pebbles have been s
ed. The reater the friction anle of the stone, the reater the mod l s and she
ar strenth of the col mn. Desin: Several methods of analysis are available. Fo
r static analysis, one method consists of calc latin weihted averaes of the s
tone col mn and soil properties (cohesion, friction anle, etc.). The weihted a
veraes are then sed in standard eotechnical methods of analysis (bearin capa
city, settlement, etc.). Another method developed by Dr Hans Priebe, involves ca
lc latin the posttreatment settlement by dividin the ntreated settlement by
an improvement factor (Fi re 12.12). In static applications, the treatment limi
ts are typically e
al to the fo ndation limits. For li
efaction analysis, ston
e col mn benefits incl de densification of s rro ndin ran lar soils, red ction
in the cyclic stress in the soil beca se of the incl sion of thes tiffer stone
col mns, and drainae of the excess pore press re. A method of eval ation for al
l three of these benefits was presented by Dr J an Baez. Dr Priebe has also pres
ented a variation of his static method for this application. In li
efaction app
lications, the treatment enerally covers the str ct re footprint and extends la
terally o tside the areas to be protected, a distance e
al to twothirds of the
thickness of the li
efiable zone. This is necessary to avoid s rro ndin ntre
ated soils from adversely affectin thetreated area beneath the fo ndation.
Pae 543
FIGURE 12.11 Stone col mn constr ction: (a) wet top feed method, (b) schematic,
and (c) field implementation of dry bottom feed method. (From Hayward Baker Inc.
With permission.)
Q ality control and
ality ass rance: D rin prod ction, important parameters t
o monitor and doc ment incl de location, depth, ammeter increases (see Section 1
2.2.2), and
antity of stone backfill sed. Posttreatment penetration testin
can be performed to meas re the improvement achieved in ran lar soils. F llsca
le load tests are becomin common with test footins meas rin as lare as 10ft
s
are (3.1m) and loaded to 150% of the desin load (Fi re 12.13).
12.3.2 Vibro Concrete Col mns
Vibro concrete col mns (VCCs) involve constr ctin concrete col mns in sit sin
a bottom feed vibroflot (Fi re 12.14). The method will densify ran lar soils
and transfer
Pae 544
FIGURE 12.12 Chart to estimate improvement factor with stone col mns.
loads thro h soft cohesive and oranic soils. The method is sed to red ce fo n
dation settlements, to increase bearin capacity, to increase slope stability, a
nd as an alternative to pilin. Applicable soil types: VCCs are best s ited to t
ransfer area loads, s ch as embankments and tanks, thro h soft and/or oranic l
ayers to an nderlyin ran lar layer. The depth of the ro ndwater table is not
critical. E
ipment: The e
ipment is similar to the bottom feed stone col mn s
et p. A concrete hose connects a concrete p mp to the top of the tremie pipe. Si
nce verticality is important, the vibroflot is often mo nted in a set of leads o
r a spotter. Proced re: The vibroflot is lowered or p shed thro h the soft soil
ntil it penetrates into the bearin strat m. Concrete is then p mped as the vi
broflot is repeatedly raised and lowered abo t 2ft (0.75m) to create an expanded
base and densifyin s rro ndin ran lar soils. The concrete is p mped as the v
ibroflot is raised to the s rface. At the
FIGURE 12.13 F llscale load test (10ft or 3.1m2, loaded to 15 ksf or 719 kPa).
(From Hayward Baker Inc. With permission.)
Pae 545
FIGURE 12.14 Installation of vibro concrete col mns: (a) schematic, (b) field im
plementation. (From Hayward Baker Inc. With permission.)
ro nd s rface, the vibroflot is aain raised and lowered several times to form
an expanded top. Most VCC applications are less than 40 ft (12.3 m) in depth. Ma
terials: Concrete or cement mortar ro t is typically sed. The mix desin depen
ds on the re
irements of the application. Desin: The analysis and desin of VC
Cs are essentially the same as wo ld be performed for an expanded base pile exce
pt that the improved soil parameters are sed. Q ality control and
ality ass r
ance: D rin prod ction, important parameters to monitor and doc ment incl de lo
cation, depth, verticality, injection press re and
antity, and concrete
alit
y. It is very important to monitor the p mpin and extraction rates to verify th
at the ro t p mpin rate matches or slihtly exceeds the rate at which the void
is created as the vibroflot is extracted. VCCs can be load tested in accordance
with ASTM D 1143.
12.3.3 Soil Nailin
Soil nailin is an in sit techni
e for reinforcin, stabilizin, and retainin
excavations and deep c ts thro h the introd ction of relatively small, closely
spaced incl sions ( s ally steel bars) into a soil mass, the face of which is t
hen locally stabilized (Fi re 12.15). The techni
e has been sed for fo r deca
des in E rope and more recently in the United States. A zone of reinforced ro n
d res lts that f nctions as a soil retention system. Soil nailin is sed for te
mporary or permanent excavation s pport/retainin walls, stabilization of t nnel
portals, stabilization of slopes, and repairin retainin walls.
Pae 546
FIGURE 12.15 Soil nailin: (a) schematic, (b) field implementation. (From Haywar
d Baker Inc. With permission.)
Applicable soil types: The proced re re
ires that the soil temporarily stand in
a near vertical face ntil a row of nails and facin are installed. Therefore,
cohesive soil or weathered rock is best s ited for this techni
e. Soil nails ar
e not easily performed in cohesionless ran lar soils, soft plastic clays, or or
anics/peats. E
ipment: The techni
e re
ires some piece of earth movin e
ip
ment (s ch as a dozer or backhoe) to excavate the soil, a drill ri to install t
he nails, a ro t mixer and p mp (for ro ted nails), and a shotcrete mixer and
p mp (if the face is to be stabilized with shotcrete). Proced re: The proced re
for constr ctin a soil nail excavation s pport wall is a top down method (Fi r
e 12.16). A piece of earth movin e
ipment (s ch as a dozer or backhoe) excavat
es the soil in incremental depths, typically 3 to 6 ft (1 to 2 m). Then a drill
ri typically is sed to drill and ro t the nails in place, typically on 3 to 6
ft (1 to 2 m) centers. After each row of nails is installed, the excavated face
is stabilized, typically by fastenin a welded wire mesh to the nails and then
placin shotcrete. Materials: Soil nails are typically steel reinforcin bars b
t may consist of steel t bin, steel anles, or hihstrenth fiber rods. Gro te
d nails are s ally installed with a Portland
FIGURE 12.16 Soil nailin process. (From Hayward Baker Inc. With permission.)
Pae 547 cement ro t sl rry. The facin can be prefabricated concrete or steel
panels, b t is s ally shotcrete, reinforced with welded wire mesh, rebar or ste
el or polyester fibers. Desin: Soil nails are desined to ive a soil mass an a
pparent cohesion by transferrin of resistin tensile forces enerated in the in
cl sions into the ro nd. Frictional interaction between the ro nd and the stee
l incl sions restrain the ro nd movement. The main enineerin concern is to en
s re that the ro ndincl sion interaction is effectively mobilized to restrain
ro nd displacements and can sec re the str ct ral stability with an appropriate
factor of safety. There are two main cateories of desin methods: 1. Limit e

ilibri m desin methods 2. Workin stress desin methods. Many software desin p
rorams are available incl din one developed in 1991 by CALTRANS called Snail.
Soil nail walls are enerally not desined to withstand fl id press res. Therefo
re, drainae systems are incorporated into the wall, s ch as eotextile facin,
or drilled in place relief wells and slotted plastic collection pipin. S rface
drainae control above and behind the retainin wall is also critical. Extreme c
are sho ld be exercised when an existin str ct re is adjacent to the top of a s
oil nail wall. The soil nail reinforced mass tends to deflect slihtly as the ma
ss stabilizes nder the load. This movement may ca se damae to the adjacent str
ct re. Q ality control and
ality ass rance: The location and lenths of the n
ails are important to monitor and doc ment. In addition, the ro t sed in the i
nstallation of ro ted nails can be sampled and tested to confirm that it exceed
s the desin strenth. Tension tests can also be performed on test nails to conf
irm that the desin bond is achieved.
12.3.4 Micropiles
Micropiles, also known as minipiles and pin piles, are sed in almost any type o
f ro nd to transfer str ct ral load to competent bearin strata (Fi re 12.17).
Micropiles were oriinally small diameter (2 to 4 in., or 5 to 10cm), lowcapac
ity piles. However, advances
FIGURE 12.17 Micropilin: (a) schematic, (b) field implementation. (From Hayward
Baker Inc. With permission.)
Pae 548 in drillin e

ipment have res lted in desin load capacities in excess
of 300 tons (2.7 MN) and diameters in excess of 10 in. (25cm). Micropiles are o
ften installed in restricted access and limited headroom sit ations. Micropiles
can be sed for a wide rane of applications; however, the most common applicati
ons are nderpinnin existin fo ndations or new fo ndations in limited headroom
and tiht access locations. Applicable soil types: Since micropiles can be inst
alled with drillin e
ipment and can be combined with different ro tin techni
es to create the bearin element, they can be sed in nearly any s bs rface so
il or rock. Their capacity will depend on the bearin soil or rock. E
ipment: T
he micropile shaft is s ally driven or drilled into place. Therefore, a drill r
i or small pile drivin hammer on a base nit is re
ired. The pipe is filled w
ith a cement ro t so the appropriate ro t mixin and p mpin e
ipment is re

ired. If the bearin element is to be created with compaction ro t or jet ro t
, the appropriate ro tin e
ipment is also re
ired. Proced re: The micropile
shaft is s ally either driven or drilled into place. Unless the desired pile ca
pacity can be achieved in end bearin and side friction alon the pipe, some typ
e of bearin element m st be created (Fi re 12.18). If the tip is nderlain by
rock, this co ld consist of drillin a rock socket, fillin the socket with ro
t and placin a f lllenth, hihstrenth threaded bar. If the lower portion of
the pipe is s rro nded or nderlain by soil, compaction ro tin or jet ro tin
can be performed below the bottom of the pipe. Also, the pipe can be filled wi
th ro t which is press rized as the pipe is partially extracted to create a bon
d zone. The connection of the pipe to the existin or planned fo ndation m st th
en be constr cted. Materials: The micropile typically consists of a steel rod or
pipe. Portland cement ro t is often sed to create the bond zone and fill the
pipe. A f ll lenth steel threaded bar is also common, composed of rade 40 to 1
50 ksi steel. In some instances, the micropile only consists of a reinforced, r
o t col mn. Desin: The desin of the micropile is divided into three components
: the connection with the existin or planned str ct re, the pile shaft which tr
ansfers the load to the bearin zone, and the bearin element which transfers th
e load to the soil or rock bearin layer.
FIGURE 12.18 Sample of micropile bearin elements. (From Hayward Baker Inc. With
permission.)
Pae 549 A standard str ct ral analysis is sed to desin the pile section. If a
ro ted friction socket is planned, Table 12.5 can be sed to estimate the sock
ets diameter and lenth. Bond lenths in excess of 30 ft (9.2 m) do not increase
the piles capacity. Q ality control and
ality ass rance: D rin the constr ct
ion of the micropile, the drillin penetration rate can be monitored as an indic
ation of the strat m bein drilled. Gro t sho ld be sampled for s bse
ent compr
essive strenth testin. The piles verticality and lenth sho ld also be monitor
ed and doc mented. A test pile is constr cted at the beinnin of the work and l
oad tested to 200% of the desin load in accordance with the standard specificat
ion ASTM D 1143 (Fi re 12.19).
12.3.5 Fract re Gro tin
Fract re ro tin, also known as compensation ro tin, is the se of a ro t sl
rry to hydrofract re and inject the soil between the fo ndation to be controlle
d and the process ca sin the settlement (Fi re 12.20). Gro t sl rry is forced
into soil fract res, thereby ca sin an expansion to take place co nteractin th
e settlement that occ rs or prod cin a controlled heave of the fo ndation. M lt
iple, discrete injections at m ltiple elevations can create a reinforced zone. T
he process is sed to red ce or eliminate previo s settlements, or to prevent th
e settlement of str ct res as nderlyin t nnelin is performed. A variation of
fract re ro tin is injection systems for expansive soils. The techni
e red ce
s the posttreatment expansive tendencies of the soil by either raisin the soil
s moist re content, fillin the desiccation patterns in the clay or chemically tr
eatin the clay to red ce its affinity to water. Applicable soil types: Since th
e soil is fract red, the techni
e can be performed in any soil type. E
ipment:
For fract re ro tin, the e
ipment consists of a drill ri to install the sle
eve port pipes, ro t injection t bin with packers, ro t mixer, and a hihpre
ss re ro t
TABLE 12.5 Estimated Soil and Rock Bond Val es for Micropiles
Soil/Rock Description
Nonpress re ro ted Silty clay Sandy clay Medi m clay Firm clay or stiffer Sands
Soft shales Slate and hard shales Sandstones Soft limestone Hard limestone Pres
s re ro ted Medi m dense sand Dense sand
SPT N val e (blows/ft)
36 36 48 >8 1030
Gro t Bond with Soil/Rock (ksf)a
0.51.0 0.71.0 0.751.25 1.01.5 24 515 1528 1535 1533 2035 3.56.5 5.58.5
Very dense sand

a
812
Desin val es, 1 ft=0.308m, 1 ksf=47.9 kPa.
Pae 550
FIGURE 12.19 Micropile load test. (From Hayward Baker Inc. With permission.)
FIGURE 12.20 Fract re ro tin: (a) schematic, (b) field implementation. (From H
ayward Baker Inc. With permission.)
p mp. A sleeve port pipe is a steel or PVC pipe with openins at re lar interva
ls alon its lenth to permit ro t injection at m ltiple locations alon the pi
pes lenth. Also a precise realtime level s rveyin system is often re
ired to
meas re the movements of the str ct re or the ro nd s rface. For injection of
expansive soils, the e
ipment enerally consists of a track mo nted ri that p
shes m ltiple injection pipes into the ro nd at the same time (Fi re 12.21). A
mixin plant, storae tank and p mp prepare, store, and deliver the sol tion to
be injected. Proced re: For fract re ro tin beneath existin str ct res, lar
e diameter shafts (10 to 15ft, or 3 to 4.6m, in diameter) or pits are constr cte
d adjacent to the exterior of the str ct re to be controlled. From these shafts,
a drill ri installs the sleeve port pipes horizontally beneath the str ct re.
Then a ro t injection t be is inserted into the sleeve port pipe. Packers on th
e injection t be are inflated on either side of an individ al port and ro t is
injected. The packers are then deflated, the injection t be moved to another por
t, and the process repeated as necessary to achieve either the desired heave or
Pae 551
FIGURE 12.21 Injection ri for treatment of expansive soils. (From Hayward Baker
Inc. With permission.)
prevent settlement. A level s rveyin system provides information on the respons
e of the ro nd and overlyin str ct re which is sed to determine the location
and
antity of the ro t to be injected. For injection of expansive soils, m lt
iple injection rods are typically p shed into the ro nd to the desired treatmen
t depth (typically 7 to 12ft, or 2.2 to 3.7m) and then an a
eo s sol tion is in
jected as the rods are extracted. Materials: For fract re ro tin beneath str c
t res, the ro t typically consists of Portland cement and water. For injection
of expansive soils, the followin sol tions have been sed: Water sed to swell ex
pansive clays as m ch as possible prior to constr ction. Lime and fly ash sed to
fill the desiccation pattern of cracks, red cin the aven es of moist re chane.
Potassi m chloride and ammoni m linos lfonate sed to chemically treat the clay
and red ce its affinity for water. Desin: For fract re ro tin beneath a str c
t re, the desin involves identifyin the strata which has or will res lt in set
tlement, and placin the injection pipes between the shallowest strat m and the
str ct re. For injection of expansive soils, the desin incl des identifyin the
lateral and vertical extents of the soils re
irin treatment. Q ality control
and
ality ass rance: For fract re ro tin beneath existin str ct res, it is
critical to know where all the injection ports are located, both horizontally an
d vertically. The monitorin of the overlyin str ct re is then critical so that
the affected portion of the str ct re is acc rately identified and the injectio
n is performed in the correct ports. For injection of expansive soil, acceptance
is typically based on increasin the in sit moist re content to the plastic li
mit pl s 2 to 3 moist re points, red cin pocket penetrometer readins to 3tsf (
288 kPa) or less, and red cin the averae swell to 1% or less within the treatm
ent zone.
12.3.6 Infre
entlyUsed Reinforcement Techni
es
12.3.6.1 Fibers and Biotechnical Fiber reinforcement consists of mixin discrete
, randomly oriented fibers in soil to assist the soil in tension. The se of fib
ers in soil dates back to ancient time b t renewed interest
Pae 552 was enerated in the 1960s. Laboratory testin and comp ter modelin ha
ve been per formed; however, field testin and eval ation la behind. There are c
rrently no standard idelines on field mixin, placement and compaction of fib
erreinforced soil composites. Biotechnical reinforcement involves the se of li
ve veetation to strenthen soils. This techni
e is typically sed to stabilize
slopes aainst erosion and shallow mass move ments. The practice has been widely
sed in the United States since the 1930s. Recent applications have combined in
ert constr ction materials with livin veetation for slope protection and erosi
on control. Research has been sponsored by the National Science Fo ndation to ad
vance the practice.
12.4 Fixation
12.4.1 Permeation Gro tin
Permeation ro tin is the injection of a ro t into a hihly permeable, ran la
r soil to sat rate and cement the particles toether. The process is enerally
sed to create a str ct ral, load carryin mass, a stabilized soil zone for t nne
lin, and water c toff barrier (Fi re 12.22). Applicable soil types: The permea
bility re
irement restricts the applicable soils to sands and ravels, with les
s than 18% silt and 2% clay. The depth of the ro ndwater table is not critical
in freedrainin soils, since the water will be displaced as the ro t is inject
ed. Loose sands will have red ced strenths when ro ted compared to sands with
SPT N val es of 10 or reater. E
ipment: The mixin plant and ro t p mp vary d
ependin on the type of ro t sed. Drill ris typically install the ro t injec
tion pipe. The ris can vary from very small to very lare, dependin on the pro
ject re
irements. When the eometry of the ro ted mass is critical, sleeve por
t pipes will be sed. Proced re: The ro t can be mixed in batches (cementacio s
sl rries) or stream mixed (silicates and other chemical ro ts). Batch mixin i
nvolves mixin a selected vol me of ro t, possibly 1 yard 3 or 0.79 m3, and the
n injectin it before the next batch is mixed. The amo nt batched depends on the
speed of injection and amo nt of time the specific ro t
FIGURE 12.22 Permeation ro tin: (a) schematic, (b) field implementation. (From
Hayward Baker Inc. With permission.)
Pae 553 can be held and still be sable. Steam mixin involves storin the ro
t components in several tanks and then p mpin them thro h separate hoses that
combine before the ro t reaches the injection pipe. If the eometry of the ro
ted mass is not important, the ro t can be p mped thro h and o t the bottom of
the injection pipe. The pipe is then raised in increments, 1 to 3 ft (0.3 to 0.
9 m), as the specified vol me is injected at each interval. A sleeve port pipe i
s sed when the ro ted eometry is important, s ch as excavation s pport walls.
A sleeve port pipe is a steel or PVC pipe with holes, or ports, located at re
lar intervals, possibly 1 to 3 ft (0.3 to 0.9 m), alon its lenth. A thin r bbe
r membrane is placed over each port. The ri drills a hole in the soil, fills it
with a weak, brittle, Portland cement ro t, and inserts the sleeve port pipe.
After the weak ro t has hardened, a ro t injection pipe with two packers is in
serted into the sleeve port pipe allowin the ro t to be injected thro h one p
ort at a time (Fi re 12.23). The injection pipe is then raised or lowered to an
other port and the process repeated in a se
ence that incl des primary, seconda
ry, and tertiary injections. Materials: The type of ro t sed depends on the ap
plication and soil rain size. For str ct ral applications in ravel, Portland c
ement and water can be sed. However, the particle size of the Portland cement i
s too lare for sands. A finely ro nd Portland cement is available for se in c
o rse to medi m sands. In fine, medi m, and coarse sand, chemical ro t can be
sed. The most common chemical ro t sed for str ct ral applications is sodi m s
ilicate. Other chemical ro ts are acrylates and poly rethanes. Desin: Generall
y, nconfined compressive strenth and permeability are the desin parameters. S
ands ro ted with sodi m silicate can achieve a permeability of 1 x 10~5 cm/sec
and an nconfined compressive strenth of 50 to 300 psi (0.345 kPa to 2.07 MPa),
altho h consistently achievin val es in the field reater than 100 psi (0.69
MPa) is diffic lt. A standard analysis is performed ass min that the ro ted so
il is a mass with the desin parameters. For excavation s pport walls, the mass
is analyzed as a ravity str ct re, calc latin the shear, slidin and overt rni
n of the mass, as well as the lobal stability of the system. Q ality control a
nd
ality ass rance: The mix desin of the ro ted soil can be estimated in the
lab by compactin the soil to be ro ted in a cylinder or c be molds at abo t t
he same
FIGURE 12.23 (a) Sleeve port pipes and (b) cross section of ro t injection thro
h a port. (From Hayward Baker Inc. With permission.)
Pae 554 density as exists in sit and then sat ratin the soil with the ro t.
Laboratory permeability or nconfined compressive strenth tests can be performe
d after a specified c re time, s ch as 3, 7, 14, and 28 days. D rin prod ction,
the ro t vol me and press re sho ld be monitored and doc mented. The ro ted s
oil can also be cored and tested after ro tin.
12.4.2 Jet Gro tin
Jet ro tin (Fi re 12.24) was conceived in the mid1970s and introd ced in the
United States in the 1980s. The techni
e hydra lically mixes soil with ro t t
o create in sit eometries of soilcrete. Jet ro tin offers an alternative to
conventional ro tin, chemical ro tin, sl rry trenchin, nderpinnin, or the
se of compressed air or freezin in t nnelin. A common application is nderpi
nnin and excavation s pport of an existin str ct re prior to performin an adj
acent excavation for a new, deeper str ct re. S per jet ro tin is a modificati
on to the system allowin creation of lare diameters (11 to 16ft, or 3.4 to 4.9
m) and is efficient in creatin excavation bottom seals and treatment of specifi
c soil strata at depth. Applicable soil types: Jet ro tin is effective across
the widest rane of soils. Beca se it is an erosionbased system, soil erodibili
ty plays a major role in predictin eometry,
ality, and prod ction. Gran lar
soils are the most erodible and plastic clays the least. Since the soil is a com
ponent of the final mix, the soil also affects the soilcrete strenth (Fi re 12
.25). Oranic soils are problematic and can be the ca se for low strenths nles
s partially removed by an initial erosion pass before ro tin. Flowin water ca
n also be a problem. E
ipment: An onsite batch plant is re
ired to mix the r
o t as needed. P mps are also re
ired to p mp the ro t and sometimes water and
air to the drill ri. The drill ri is necessary to fl sh the jet ro t monitor
into the ro nd. Compact drills are capable of low headroom and tiht access wo
rk. P mps may also be re
ired to remove the soilcrete waste. Proced re: Jet ro
t is a bottom p process (Fi re 12.26). The drill fl shes the monitor to the b
ottom of the treatment zone. The erosion and ro t jets are then initiated as th
e monitor is rotated and extracted to form the soilcrete col mn. Varyin eometr
ies can be formed. Rotatin the monitor thro h only a portion of a circle will
create a portion of a col mn. Extractin the monitor witho t rotatin it will cr
eate a panel. Treatment depths reater than 60 ft (18.5 m) re
ire special preca
tions.
FIGURE 12.24 Jet ro tin: (a) schematic, (b) field implementation. (From Haywar
d Baker Inc. With permission.)
Pae 555
FIGURE 12.25 Rane of soilcrete strenths based on soil type. (From Hayward Bake
r Inc. With permis sion.)
There are three traditional jet ro t systems (Fi re 12.27). Selection of the m
ost appropriate system is determined by the in sit soil, the application, and t
he re
ired strenth of the soilcrete. The three systems are sinle, do ble, and
triple fl id. The sinlefl id system ses only a hihvelocity cement sl rry
ro t to erode and mix the soil. This system is most effective in cohesionless so
il and is enerally not an appropriate nderpinnin techni
e beca se of the ris
k of press rizin and heavin the ro nd. The do blefl id system s rro nds the
hihvelocity cement sl rry jet with an air jet. The shro d of air increases the
erosion efficiency. Soilcrete col mns with diameters over 3 ft (0.9 m) can be a
chieved in medi m to dense soils, and more than 6 ft (1.8 m) in loose soils. The
do blefl id system is more effective in cohesive soils than the sinlefl id s
ystem.
FIGURE 12.26 Jet ro t process. (From Hayward Baker Inc. With permission.)
Pae 556
FIGURE 12.27 Sinle, do ble, and triplejet ro t systems. (From Hayward Baker
Inc. With permission.)
The triplefl id system ses a hihvelocity water jet s rro nded by an air jet
to erode the soil. A lower jet injects the cement sl rry at a red ced press re.
Separatin the erosion process from the ro tin process res lts in hiher
ali
ty soilcrete and is the most effective system in cohesive soils. Since material
is p mped into the ro nd and mixed with the soil, the final mixed prod ct has a
larer vol me than the oriinal in sit soil. Therefore, as the mixin is perfo
rmed, the excess soilcrete exits to the ro nd s rface thro h the ann l s aro n
d the drill steel. This waste material m st be p mped or directed to an onsite r
etention area or tr cked offsite. Since the waste contains cement, the waste se
ts p overniht and can be handled as a solid the followin day. Materials: Port
land cement and water are enerally the only two components, altho h additives
can be tilized. Desin: Generally, either nconfined compressive strenth or pe
rmeability is the desin parameter. A standard analysis is performed to determin
e the re
ired soilcrete eometry necessary based on the parameters achievable i
n the soil to be mixed. For excavation s pport walls, the mass m st resist the s
rchare, soil and water press re imposed after excavation. This may incl de ana
lysis of shear, slidin and overt rnin, as well as the lobal stability of the
system. For nderpinnin applications, a standard bearin capacity and settlemen
t analysis is performed as wo ld be done for any cast in place pier. Q ality con
trol and
ality ass rance: Monitorin and doc mentin the prod ction parameters
and proced res is important to ass re consistency and
ality. Test cylinders o
r c bes made from the waste material ive a conservative assessment of the in si
t characteristics. Wet samplin of the soilcrete in sit can also be performed
altho h it is problematic. Corin of the hardened soilcrete is typical.
12.4.3 Soil Mixin
Soil mixin mechanically mixes soil with a binder to create in sit eometries o
f cemen ted soil. Mixin with a cement sl rry was oriinally developed for enviro
nmental
Pae 557 applications; however, advancements have red ced the costs to where the
process is sed for many eneral civil works, s ch as in sit walls, excavation
s pport, port development on soft sites, t nnelin s pport, and fo ndation s pp
ort. Mixin with dry lime and cement was developed in the Scandinavian co ntries
to treat very wet and soft marine clays. Applicable soil types: The system is m
ost applicable in soft soils. Bo lders and other obstr ctions can be a problem.
Cohesionless soils are easier to mix than cohesive soils. The ease of mixin coh
esive soils varies inversely with plasticity and proportionally with moist re co
ntent. The system is most commonly sed in soft cohesive soils as other soils ca
n often be treated more economically with other technoloies. Oranic soils are
problematic and enerally re
ire m ch larer cement content. The
ality achiev
ed with soil mixin is slihtly lesser than that achieved with jet ro tin in t
he same soils, with nconfined compressive strenths between 10 and 500 psi (0.6
9 to 3.45 MPa), and permeabilities as low as 1 x 10~ 7 cm/sec, dependin on the
soil type and binder content. E
ipment: A hihvol me batchin system is re
ir
ed to maintain prod ctivity and economics. The components consist of an acc rate
ly controlled mixer, temporary storae, and hihvol me p mps. A drillin system
is re
ired to t rn the mixin tool in the ro nd. The system varies from conve
ntional hydra lic drill heads to d almotor, cranemo nted t rntables with tor

e re
irements ranin from 30,000 to 300,000ft Ib (41 to 411 kj). M ltiaxis, el
ectrically powered drill heads are also sed, primarily for wallin applications
. The mixin tool is enerally a combination of partial flihtin, mix blades, i
njection ports and nozzles, and shear blades. It can be a sinle or m ltipleax
is tool (Fi re 12.28). Tool desins vary with soil types and are often c stomb
ilt for specific projects (Fi re 12.29). The diameter of the tool can vary fro
m 1.5 to 12ft (0.46 to 3.7m). Proced re: The binder is injected as the tool is a
dvanced down to assist in penetration and to take advantae of this initial mixi
n. The soil and binder are mixed a second time as the tool is extracted. The ra
te of penetration and extraction is controlled to achieve ade
ate mixin. Sinl
e col mns or interated walls are created as the a ers are worked in overlappin
confi rations. Treatment depths as reat as 100ft (31m) have been achieved.
FIGURE 12.28 Soil Mixin: (a) Schematic, (b) Field implementation.
Pae 558
FIGURE 12.29 Example of soil mixin tools. (From Hayward Baker Inc. With permiss
ion.)
Materials: For wet soil mixin, the binder is delivered in a sl rry form. Sl rry
vol mes rane from 20 to 40% of the so l vol me bein mixed. Common binders are
Portland cement, fly ash, ro nd blast f rnace sla, and additives. For dry soi
l mixin, the same materials (also line) are p mped dry sin compressed air. Pr
eprod ction laboratory testin is sed to determine mix enery and ro t proport
ions. Desin: As with jet ro tin, nconfined compressive strenth and permeabi
lity are enerally the desin parameters. A standard analysis is performed to de
termine the re
ired eometry based on the parameters achievable in the soil to
be mixed. For excavation s pport walls, the mass can be desined as a standard e
xcavation wall, or a thicker mass can be created and analyzed as a ravity str c
t re, calc latin the mass shear, slidin and overt rnin, as well as the lobal
stability of the system. When sed as str ct ral load bearin col mns, a standar
d bearin capacity and settlement analysis is performed as wo ld be for any cast
in place pier. Anchored retention sin steel reinforcement is common for s ppo
rt walls. 72.4.3.1 Dry Soil Mixin Dry soil mixin (Fi re 12.30) is a lowvibra
tion,
iet, clean form of ro nd treatment techni
e that is often sed in very
soft and wet soil conditions and has the advantae of prod cin very little spo
il. The hih speed rotatin mixin tool is advanced to the maxim m depth, dist rb
in the soil on the way down. The dry binder is then p mped with air thro h the
hollow stem as the tool is rotated on extraction. It is very effective in soft c
lays and peats. Soils with moist re content, reater than 60% are most economica
lly
Pae 559
FIGURE 12.30 Ill stration of dry soil mixin techni
e. (From Hayward Baker Inc.
With permission.)
treated. This process ses cementacio s binders to create bond amon soil partic
les and th s increases the shear strenth and red ces the compressibility of wea
k soils. The most commonly sed bindin aents are cement, lime, yps m, or sla
. Generally, the improvement in shear strenth and compressibility increases wit
h the binder dosae. By sin innovative mixt res of different binders enineers
s ally achieve improved res lts. It is known that strenth ains are optim m f
or inoranic soils. It is realized that the strenth ain wo ld decrease with in
creasin oranic and water content. The binder content varies from abo t 5 lb/ft
3 for soft inoranic clays to abo t 18 lb/ft3 for peats with a hih oranic cont
ent. 12.4.3.2 Wet Soil Mixin Wet soil mixin (Fi re 12.31) is a similar techni
e except that a sl rry binder is sed makin it more applicable with dryer soi
ls (moist re contents less than 60%). The ro t sl rry is p mped thro h the hol
low stem to the trailin ede of the mixin blades both d rin penetration and e
xtraction. Dependin on the in sit soils, the vol me of ro t sl rry necessary
varies from 20 to 40% of the soil vol me. The techni
e prod ces a similar amo n
t of spoil (20 to 40%) which is essentially excess mixed soil which, after setti
n p, can often be sed as str ct ral fill. The ro t sl rry can be composed of
Portland cement, fly ash, and ro nd ran lated blast f rnace sla. Q ality con
trol and
ality ass rance: Preprod ction laboratory testin is often performed
to prescribe the mixin enery and binder components and proportions. D rin pro
d ction, it is necessary to monitor and doc ment parameters s ch as mixin depth
, mixin time, ro t mix details, ro t injection rates, vol mes and press res,
tool rotation, penetration, and withdrawal rates. Test cylinders or c bes can be
cast from wet samples, b t are problematic. The hardened col mns can also be co
red. In weaker mixes, penetration tests can be performed.
Pae 560
FIGURE 12.31 Ill stration of wet soil mixin techni
e.
12.4.4 Infre
entlyUsed Fixation Techni
es
12.4.4.1 Freezin and Vitrification Gro nd freezin involves lowerin the temper
at re of the ro nd ntil the moist re in the pore spaces freezes. The frozen mo
ist re acts to cement the soil particles toether. The first se of this techni
e
was in 1862 in So th Wales. The process typically involves placin do ble walle
d pipes in the zone to be frozen. A closed circ it is formed thro h which a coo
lant is circ lated. A refrieration plant is sed to maintain the coolants temper
at re. Since ice is very stron in compression, the techni
e has been most comm
only sed to create cylindrical retainin str ct res aro nd planned circ lar exc
avations. Vitrification is a process of passin electricity thro h raphite ele
ctrodes to melt soils in sit . Electrical plasma arcs have also been sed and a
re capable of creatin temperat res in excess of 4000C. The soil becomes mama, a
nd after several days of coolin it hardens into an artificial ineo s rock. Alt
ho h laboratory testin is onoin, the electrical sae of the process to date
appears to make it neconomical. It is possible that the process co ld find app
lication in the field of environmental clean p.
12.5 Other Innovative SoftGro nd Improvements Techni
es
12.5.1 Rammed Areate Piers
Rammed areate piers (RAPs) are a type of stone col mn as presented in Section
12.3.1. Areate col mns installed by compactin s ccessive lifts of areate
material in a prea ered hold (Fi re 12.32). The predrilled holes, which typic
ally have diameters of 24 to 36 in. (0.6 to 1.2m), can extend p to abo t 20ft.
As seen in Fi re 12.33, areate is compacted in lifts with a beveled tamper t
o create passive soil press re conditions both at the bottom and the sides of th
e piers. RAPs are enerally restricted to cohesive soils in
Pae 561
FIGURE 12.32 Installation of rammed areate piers, a type of stone col mn. (Fr
om Geopiers Fo ndation Co. With permis sion.).
FIGURE 12.33 Schematic diaram of a rammed areate pier.
which a predrill hole will stay open. Altho h constr cted differently than stor
e col mns or vibro piers (Section 12.3.1) all provide similar improvement to coh
esive soils. The vertical tampin sed to constr ct RAPs res lts in minimal dens
ification in adjacent ran lar soils compared to vibratory probe constr ction.
Pae 562 RAPs can be sed in some of the followin stone col mn applications tha
t are o tlined below: 1. S pport shallow footins in soft ro nd. 2. Reinforces
soils to red ce earth
akeind ced settlements, however, does not densify sands
aainst li
efaction. 3. Increase drainae and conse
ently expedite lonterm s
ettlement in sat rated finerained soils. 4. Increase lobal stability and bear
in capacity of retainin walls in soft ro nd. 5. Improve stability of slopes i
f RAPs can be installed to intersect potential shear fail re planes. 6. Red ce t
he need for steel reinforcements when RAPs are installed below con crete mat or r
aft fo ndations.
12.5.2 Reinforced Soil Fo ndations
Bearin capacity of fo ndation soils can be improved sin eorids and eosythe
tics placed as a contin o s sinle layer, closely spaced contin o s m tilayer se
t or mattress consistin of threedimensional interconnected cells. Altho h sta
ndards on desin of footins on reinforced soils are c rrently navailable, Koer
ner (1998) provides some n merical idelines on the extent of the improvement o
f bearin capacity and red ction of settlement. Fi re 12.34(a) and (b) shows th
e res lts of laboratory tests where eotextiles were sed to improve the bearin
capacity of loose sands and sat rated clay, respectively.
FIGURE 12.34 Improvement of soil bearin capacity with eotextiles: (a) loose sa
nd, (b) sat rated clay. (From Koerner, R., 1994. Desinin with Geosynthetics, P
rentice Hall, Enlewood Cliffs, NJ. With permission.)
Pae 563 Fi re 12.35 also shows the eneral approximations that the a thor has
drawn from the res lts of lare laboratory tests (Millian and Love, 1984), whic
h shows the improvement of settlement properties of sat rated clay reinforced wi
th eorids. A lare n mber of load tests have been cond cted in the test pits a
t the T rnerFairbank Hihway Research Center (TFHRC) in Alaska, USA, to eval at
e the effects of sinle and m ltiple layer of reinforcement placed below shallow
spread footins (FHWA, 2001). In this test proram, two different eosynthetics
were eval ated; a stiff biaxial eorid and a eocell. Parameters of the testin
proram incl de: n mber of reinforcement layers; spacin between reinforcement
layers; depth to the first reinforcement layer; plan area of the reinforcement;
type of reinforcement; and soil density. Test res lts indicated that the se of
eosynthetic reinforced soil fo ndations may increase the ltimate bearin capa
city of shallow spread footins by a factor of 2.5 (FHWA, 2001). 12.5.2.1 Mechan
isms of Bearin Capacity Fail re in Reinforced Soils In spite of the known favor
able infl ence of eotextiles and eorids on soil bearin capacity, the fo ndat
ion desiner needs to be aware of a n mber of mechanisms of bearin capacity fai
l re even with reinforcements. These are disc ssed in Koerner (1998) as seen in
Fi re 12.36(a)(d). Fi re 12.36(a) shows the lack of reinforcement in the fo n
dation infl ence zone while Fi re 12.36(b) ill strates ins fficient embedment o
f eotextiles or eorids. Bearin capacity fail res leadin to inade
ate tensi
le strenth and excessive creep (lonterm deformation) of reinforcements is show
n in Fi re 12.36(c) and (d), respectively. These are disc ssed in Koerner (1998
) as sit ations arisin from; the lack of reinforcement in the fo ndation infl e
nce zone while Fi. 12.37 ins fficient embedment of eotextiles or eorids. bea
rin capacity fail res leadin to inade
ate tensile strenth, and excessive cre
ep (lonterm deformation) of reinforcements
FIGURE 12.35 Improvement of settlement properties of sat rated clays.
Pae 564
FIGURE 12.36 Improvement of settlement properties in sat rated clay with eorid
s. (From Koerner, Rv 1994. Desinin with Geosynthetics, Prentice Hall, Enlewoo
d Clifts, NJ. With permission.)
FIGURE 12.37 Lack of reinforcement in the fo ndation infl ence zone.
Pae 565
References
Baez, J.I., Martin, C.R., 1992, Q antitative eval ation of stone col mn techni

es for earth
ake li
efaction mitiation, Earth
ake Enineerin: Tenth World C
onference 1992, Balkema, Rotterdam, Swets & Keitliner, NL. Federal Hihway Admi
nistration (FHWA), 2001, Performance Tests for GeosyntheticReinforced Soil Incl
din Effects of Preloadin, FHWARD01018, J ne. Koerner, R., 1994. Desinin
with Geosynthetics, Prentice Hall, Enlewood Cliffs, NJ. Millian, G.W.E., Love,
J.P., 1984, Model testin of eorids nder areate layer in soft ro nd, Pro
ceedins of the Symposi m on polymer reinforcement in Civil Enineerin, London,
ICE, 1984, pp. 128138. Priebe, H.J., 1995, The Desin of Vibro Replacement, Gr
o nd Enineerin, December. Schaefer, V., Abramson, L., Dr mbeller, J., H ssin,
J., and Sharp, K., 1997, Gro nd improvement, ro nd reinforcement, ro nd treatm
ent developments 19871997, Geotechnical Special P blication No. 69, American So
ciety of Civil Enineers, NY.
Pae 566
Pae 567
13 Impact of Gro ndwater on the Desin of Earthen Str ct res
Manjriker G naratne CONTENTS 13.1 Gro ndwater and Seepae 13.2 Graphical Sol tio
n to Gro ndwater Problems: Flow Nets 13.2.1 Estimation of the Coefficient of Hyd
ra lic Cond ctivity 13.3 N merical Modelin of Gro ndwater Flow 13.4 Analytical
Modelin of Gro ndwater Flow 13.4.1 Conformal Mappin 13.4.2 Complex Flow Veloci
ty 13.5 Dewaterin of Excavations 13.6 Basic Environmental Geotechnoloy 13.6.1
Desin of Landfill Liners 13.6.1.1 Desin Consideration for Clay Liners 13.6.1.2
Desin Considerations for Geomembrane layers 13.7 Application of Gro ndwater Mo
delin Concepts in Environmental Geotechnoloy 13.7.1 Analysis of Seepae toward
Wells 13.7.2 Uniform Flow in an A
ifer 13.7.3 Transport of Contaminants 13.7.3
.1 Derivation of the Location of the Stanation Point 13.7.3.2 Determination of
the Contamination Zone 13.8 Desin of Filters 13.8.1 Desin of Soil Filters 13.8
.2 Desin of Geotextile Filters 13.8.2.1 Transmissivity of a Geotextile 13.8.2.2
Permittivity of a Geotextile 13.8.2.3 Apparent Openin Size of a Geotextile 567
568 569 571 573 573 576 576 577 578 579 579 579 580 582 583 583 584 587 587 588
588 588 588
References
593
13.1 Gro ndwater and Seepae
Seepin ro ndwater has a major impact on the desin of earthen str ct res. Stab
ility analysis of soil slopes in ro ndwater flow reimes re
ires the knowlede
of seepae forces. F rthermore, waterretainin str ct res are often b ilt in
ro ndwater flow
Pae 568 reimes ca sed by differential hydra lic heads. Therefore, an analysis
of ro ndwater seepae is essential in the desin of waterretainin str ct res
when estimatin the plift forces. Fo ndation enineers employ a variety of appr
oaches to nderstand the effects of ro ndwater on str ct res. They can be basic
ally classified as: 1. Graphical approaches based on flow nets. 2. N merical app
roaches based on the finite difference or the finite element method. 3. Analytic
al approaches based on mathematical transformations.
13.2 Graphical Sol tion to Gro ndwater Problems: Flow Nets
The most common and the simplest means of seepae analysis is by the method of f
low nets. In this method, two orthoonal families of e
ipotential and flow line
s are sketched in the flow domain (Fi re 13.1) sin the basic concepts definin
the two families. A flow line is an identified or a vis alized flow cond it bo
ndary in the flow domain. An e
ipotential line, on the other hand, is an imai
nary line possessin the same total enery head (enery per nit weiht). R les
Governin the Constr ction of a Flow net 1. E
ipotential lines do not intersect
each other. 2. Flow lines do not intersect each other. 3. E
ipotential lines a
nd flow lines form two orthoonal families. 4. In order to ens re e
al flow in
the drawn flow cond its and e
al head drop between adjacent e
ipotential lines
, individ al flow elements formed by adja cent e
ipotential lines and flow lines
m st bear the same heihtwidth ratio (this is typically selected as 1.0 for ea
se of plottin). Usef l idelines reardin the plottin of reasonably acc rate
flow nets for different flow sit ations are fo nd in Cederreen (1989). With se
epae velocities enerally relatively low, the press re (p) exerted by seepin w
ater and the potential enery contrib tes to the total hydra lic head (enery pe
r nit weiht) of water as (13.1) The
antity of ro ndwater flow at any locati
on in a poro s medi m s ch as soil can be expressed by DArcys law as
=kiA (13.2a)
where k is the coefficient of permeability (or hydra lic cond ctivity) at that
location while i, the hydra lic radient, can be expressed by (13.3)
Pae 569
FIGURE 13.1 Ill stration of a flow net.
13.2.1 Estimation of the Coefficient of Hydra lic Cond ctivity
The coefficient of hydra lic cond ctivity of a soil can be estimated in a n mber
of ways: 1. Usin laboratory permeameters (fallinhead or constanthead). The
readers are referred to Das (2002) for experimental details of these laboratory
tests. 2. Usin field p mpin tests that are disc ssed in Section 13.5. 3. Usin
an empirical correlation between k and D10 that is listed in E
ation (13.38) (
Example 13.6). It can be shown from E
ation (13.2a) that the
antity of seepa
e in the flow domain can also be expressed in terms of the n mber of e
ipotenti
al drops (ne) and the flow cond its (nf) as
=kH[n f/n e] (13.2b)
Pae 570 where H is the total head drop. The followin example ill strates the f
low net method of seepae analysis and eval ation of plift press res. Example 1
3.1 Ass me that it is necessary to establish the press re distrib tion at the bo
ttom and the seepae nder the dam as shown in Fi re 13.1. Also ass me the coef
ficient of permeability 6 to be 110 cm/sec. Sol tion As the first step in the sol
tion, a flow net has been drawn to scale followin the r les iven above. Usin
the bedrock as the dat m for the elevation head, total heads have been assined
sin E
ation (13.1) for all the e
ipotential lines as shown. It is noted tha
t the head drop between two adjacent e
ipotential lines is (9m 5m)/12=0.333m Th
en, by applyin E
ation (13.1) to the points where the e
ipotential lines inte
rsect the dam bottom (Bi), the followin expression can be obtained for the pres
s re distrib tion, which is plotted in Fi re 13.1: p= 3.0) w(h The total pthr st
can comp ted from the area of the press re distrib tion as 391.34 kPa/m actin
at a distance of 4.45m downstream. Then, by applyin E
ation (13.3) to the elem
ent ABCD, one obtains i =(7.0 6.667)/l.l=0.302
6 Since k=110 cm/sec, one can apply E
ation (13.2) to obtain the
antity of see
pae thro h ABCD as 9
1=1(10 )(0.302)(1.3)(1)m3/sec/m (since AD=1.3 m)
Since all of the cond its m st carry e
al flow (r le no. 4 of the flow net cons
tr ction), the total flow nder the dam is iven by
9 9 3
=3(10 )(0.302)(1.3)(1)m3/sec/m =1.1810 m /sec/m
The followin important ass mptions made in the above analysis m st be noted: 1.
The s brade soil is homoeneo s with respect to the coefficient of permeabilit
y. 2. Bedrock and concrete dam are free of fa lt or cracks. 3. There is no free
flow nder the dam d e to pipin (or erosion). Therefore, the desin and install
ation of an ade
ate porepress re monitorin system that can verify the analyti
cal res lts is an essential part of the desin. A piezometer with a eomembrane
or sand filter that can be sed for monitorin pore press res is shown in Fi re
13.2.
Pae 571
FIGURE 13.2 Piezometer probes. (From Thilakasiri, H.S., 1996, N merical Sim lati
on of Dynamic Replacement of Florida Oranic Soils, Ph.D. Dissertation, Universi
ty of So th Florida. With permission.)
13.3 N merical Modelin of Gro ndwater Flow
If it is ass med that the water flow in a sat rated soil is laminar, contin o s
(witho t any losses or ains in water d e to the presence of sinks or so rces),
and steady with respect to time, the followin partial differential e
ation can
be written for contin ity of twodimensional (2D) flow conditions at any iven p
oint in the flow domain: (13.4) where and v are the velocities in the X and Y
directions. Usin E
ation (13.3), the hydra lic radients in the respective dir
ections can be expressed as (13.5a)
(13.5b)
Pae 572 Now if E

ation (13.2) is applied per nit flow area, one obtains =k x
i x and v=ky iy where kx and ky are the hydra lic cond ctivities in the X and Y
directions, respectively, in a enerally anisotropic soil. Then, by s bstit tin
in E
ation (13.4) alon with E
ation (13.5), the Laplace e
ation for 2D flow
is obtained as (13.6a) It m st be noted that nder isotropic conditions E
atio
n (13.6a) red ces to (13.6b) If the secondorder differential terms in E
ation
(13.6a) are replaced by the correspondin forward difference n merical form in E
ation (13.7), (13.7a)

(13.7b) where the correspondin hydra lic heads hs are defined in Fi re 13.3 (w
here a rid of lenth interval l is plotted), one obtains the followin n merica
l form of Laplaces e
ation:
Then, h0 can be expressed in E
ation (13.8) to obtain the hydra lic head at any
point in terms of the hydra lic heads of its neihborin nodes as
FIGURE 13.3
Finite difference rid for sol tion of the seepae problem.
Pae 573
(13.8) Knowin the bo ndary conditions, which are the hydra lic head val es of t
he interfaces of soil with free water (i.e., head water and tail water), and the
hydra lic cond ctivities in each direction, E
ation (13.8) can be conveniently
coded in the comp ter to derive the hydra lic heads of the entire flow domain.
Then, once the hydra lic heads, h, are available, E
ations (13.3) and (13.2) ca
n be sed in steps to eval ate the hydra lic radient at any desired location in
the flow domain and the flow within any rid element.
13.4 Analytical Modelin of Gro ndwater Flow
Gro ndwater problems can be analytically solved sin transformation methods. Ge
nerally, the first step in this reard is to mathematically define the family of
e
ipotential lines and flow lines based on the potential f nction and the stre
am f nction ( ). It is also noted that the potential function is related to the h
draulic head Equation (13.9) (13.9) Then, a 2D groundwater regime in the x-
plane can e transformed to the domain using an appropriate transformation that
accounts for the oundar equipotential lines and flow lines ( =constant) in the
flow domain (x- plane). This is initiated defining the aove functions in t
erms of the flow velocities using the Cauch Reimann relationships (13.10a)
(13.10) It can e shown mathematicall that and are orthogonal to each other.
13.4.1 Conformal Mapping
The actual flow domain in the X-Y plane can e convenientl mapped onto the pote
ntial function-flow function domain using the following complex variales that r
educe the amount of mathematical manipulation required: z=x+i (13.11a)
(13.11)
Then, one can define appropriate conformal mapping functions in the following fo
rmats: =f(z) (13.12)
Page 574
FIGURE 13.4 Unconfined flo under a concrete dam.
Example 13.3 It can be shon that the folloing transformation is adequate to de
scribe the seepage under a concrete earth dam shon in Figure 13.4
since it satisfies the knon equipotential surfaces (soil-free ater interfaces
A and B) and the flo boundary at the dam bottom, k is the hydraulic gradient of
the foundation soil. The above expression can be used to plot the flo lines an
d equipotential lines for the above flo (assume that b=5 m and h=6 m). Using th
e folloing transformation: (13.13) and substituting the complex relations in Eq
uation (13.11), (13.14) Equation (13.14) can be manipulated using complex algebr
a to obtain expressions for and in terms of x and . Then, eliminating from t
he two equations, the flow lines can e plotted using the following equation (Fi
gure 13.5):
FIGURE 13.5 Flow lines drawn for selected flow quantities indicated in the legen
d.
Page 575
FIGURE 13.6 Equipotential lines drawn for selected hdraulic heads.
(13.15) Similarl, eliminating , the equipotential lines can e plotted using
the following equation (Figure 13.16): (13.16) Also, at the ottom of the dam s
ince =0, using Equations (13.1) and (13.9), the pressure distriution under the
dam can e expressed as (Figure 13.7) (13.17a) The total uplift force at the o
ttom of the dam and its moment aout the toe of the dam are important parameters
for the design of the dam. The can e otained as follows:
FIGURE 13.7
Pressure distriution under the ottom of the dam.
Page 576
(13.17)
(13.17c) The aove integrals can e evaluated using an numerical integration pa
ckage. 13.4.2 Complex Flow Velocit The complex flow velocit in Equation (13.18
) provides another useful relation that can e used to otain the flow velocit
components directl from the derivative of the transformation (13.18) Example 13
.4 If a certain seepage flow situation can e modeled the transformation w=2z
z2, find the resultant velocity at the point (1, 2) represented by z=1+2i Using
Equation (13.18),
where u =0 and v=4. Hence, the magnitude of the flow velocity is 4 units in the
+y direction. When one needs to develop an appropriate transformation for a spec
ific flow situation, one can use the SchwarzChristoffel transformation techniqu
e, which is widely used in such formulations. The reader is referred to Harr (19
62) for analytical details of the SchwarzChristoffel transformationbased ground
water seepage solutions.
13.5 Dewatering of Excavations
Construction in areas of shallow groundwater requires dewatering prior to excava
tion. Although contractors specialized in such work determine the details of the
dewatering program depending on the field performance, a preliminary idea of eq
uipment requirements and feasibility can be obtained by a simplified analysis. F
igure 13.8 shows the schematic diagram for such a program. It also shows the ele
vations of the depressed water table at various distances from the center of the
well. Observation wells (or piezometers) can be placed at intermediate location
s, such as those shown at distances of r1 and r2, to monitor the water table dep
ression. In analyzing a seepage situation like this, Dupuit (Harr, 1962) assumed
that (1) for a small inclination of the line of seepage the flow lines are hori
zontal and (2) the hydraulic gradient is equal to the slope of the free surface
and is invariant with depth.
age 577
FIGURE 13.8 Dewatering of excavations.
Hence, one can write the expression (13.19) by combining Equations (13.2) and (1
3.3) for the discharge rate through any general section such as one of the obser
vation well. The underlying assumption is that the entire soil stratum can be co
nsidered as homogenous with the average hydraulic conductivity represented by k
(13.19) Noting that q is constant throughout the flow regime, Equation (13.19) c
an be integrated between distances r1 and r2 to obtain (13.20) One can define th
e extent of dewatering, using parameters r1 , r2, h1, and h2, and utilize the ab
ove expression to determine the capacity requirement of the pump. Alternatively,
expression (13.20) can be used to estimate the average permeability coefficient
of the soil stratum. If the site where the dewatering program is executed conta
ins a number of layers with different soil properties, i.e., coefficients of per
meability, then Equation (13.20) has to be modified to incorporate properties of
all the layers in the area of influence of dewatering. The reader is referred t
o Cedergreen (1989) for expressions applicable to such complicated site conditio
ns.
13.6 Basic Environmental Geotechnology
Environmental geotechnology is a relatively new civil engineering discipline tha
t is concerned with the design of earthen structures that are utilized in assuri
ng environmental safety. Some examples of such structures include protective cla
y liners for landfills, soil or soilfabric filters that control erosion due to
groundwater, and earthen barriers against seepage of contaminated groundwater.
The amount of solid waste generated in the United States has exceeded 510 M tons
by the year 2000 (Koerner, 1998). Therefore, the immediate need for constructio
n of adequate
age 578
FIGURE 13.9 Typical cross section of a geomembranelined landfill.
landfills cannot be overemphasized. Although the construction of landfills invol
ves political and legal issues, properly designed, constructed, and maintained l
andfills have proven to be secure, especially if they are provided with lined fa
cilities. These are installed at the bottom or sides of a landfill to control gr
oundwater pollution by the liquid mixture (leachate) formed by the interaction o
f rainwater or snowmelt with waste material. Types of liners for leachate contai
nment are basically (1) clay liners, (2) geomembranes, and (3) composite liners
consisting of geomembranes and clay liners. Of these, until recently, the most f
requently used liners were clay liners, which minimized leachate migration by 8
9 achieving permeability values as low as 510 to510 cm/sec. However, owing to the la
rge thickness (0.6 to 2 m) requirement and chemical activity in the presence of
organicsolvent leachates, geomembranes have been increasingly utilized for land
fills.
13.6.1 Design of Landfill Liners
As shown in Figure 13.9 and Figure 13.10, the important components of a solid ma
terial containment system are (1) a leachate collection or removal system, (2) a
primary leachate barrier, (3) a leachate detection or removal system, (4) a sec
ondary leachate barrier, and (5) a filter above the collection system to prevent
clogging. Some of the design criteria (Koerner, 1998) are as follows: 1. The le
achate collection system should be capable of maintaining a leachate head of les
s than 30 cm. 2. Both collection and detection systems should have 3cmthick gr
anular drainage layers that are chemically resistant to waste and leachate, and
that have
FIGURE 13.10 Typical cross section of a clay/geomembranelined composite landfil
l.
age 579
2 permeability coefficient of not less than 110 cm/sec or an equivalent drainage m
aterial. 3. The minimum bottom slope of the facility should be 2%.
13.6.1.1 Design Consideration for Clay Liners In the case of clay liners, the U.
S. Environmental rotection Agency (EA) requires that the 7 coefficient of perm
eability be less than 10 cm/sec. This can be achieved by meeting the following cl
assification criteria: 1. The soil should be at least 20% fine (Section 1.2.1).
2. The plasticity index should have been greater than 10 (Section 1.2.2). 3. The
soil should not have more than 10% gravel size (>4.75mm) particles. 4. The soil
should not contain any particles or chunks of rock larger than 50 mm. It is rea
lized that liner criteria can be satisfied by blending available soil with clay
materials like sodium bentonite. 13.6.1.2 Design Considerations for Geomembrane
layers Geomembranes are mainly used in geotechnical engineering to perform the f
unctions of (1) separation, (2) filtration, and (3) stabilization. In this appli
cation of geotextiles, the functions of separation and, to a lesser extent, filt
ration are utilized. Owing to the extreme variation of solid waste leachate comp
osition from landfill to landfill, the candidate liner should be tested for perm
eability with the actual of synthesized leachate. In addition to the permeabilit
y criterion, other criteria also play a role in geomembrane selection: 1. Resist
ance to stresscracking induced by the soil or waste overburden. 2. Different th
ermal expansion properties in relation to subgrade soil. 3. Coefficient of frict
ion developed with the waste material that governs slope stability criteria. 4.
Axisymmetry in tensile elongation when the material is installed in a landfill t
hat is founded on compressible subgrade soils. In selecting a geomembrane materi
al for a liner, serious consideration should also be given to its durability, wh
ich is determined by the possibility of leachate reaction with the geomembrane a
nd premature degradation of the geomembrane. For more details on geomembrane dur
ability and relevant testing, the reader is referenced to Koerner (1998). Accord
ing to the U.S. EA regulations, the minimum required thickness of a geomembrane
liner for a hazardous waste pond is 0.75 mm.
13.7 Application of Groundwater Modeling Concepts in Environmental Geotechnology
A major challenge that goetechnical engineers face in the design of earthen stru
ctures associated with environmental protection is the evaluation of the effects
of pollutant or contaminant migration with groundwater such as the rate of seep
age, the extent of the
age 580 region of contamination, and the seepage forces induced by groundwater
flow on such structures. The analytical techniques introduced in Section 13.4 ca
n certainly provide convenient and effective tools for such evaluations. Hence,
the purpose of this section is to illustrate how the above analytical tools can
be utilized for the benefit of designing earthen structural elements for geoenvi
ronmental applications.
13.7.1 Analysis of Seepage toward Wells
Analytical consideration of 2D seepage toward wells is an important starting po
int for solving problems associated with groundwater contamination. For pure rad
ial flow in the horizontal plane, the velocity potential only depends on the rad
ial distance r and not on the transverse position defined by Hence, the followin
g mapping function can be conveniently employed to model seepage toward wells: (
13.21a) or (13.21b) where C 1 and C2 are constants. The following check can be p
erformed to verify that the selected velocity potential in fact satisfies Laplac
es equation (Equation 13.6)
FIGURE 13.11 2D Seepage toward wells.
age 581 Therefore, it is seen that Laplaces equation for isotropic conditions (E
quation (13.6b)) is satisfied. Now one can introduce the following boundary cond
itions to evaluate the constants C1 and C2: 1. The hydraulic head and hence the
velocity potential (Equation (13.9)) can be assumed as zero at the well where th
e flow terminates. Then, r=rw when 2. The hydraulic head, h, at a known radial d
istance of R is assumed to initiate the flow toward the well. Then, r=R when By
substituting the boundary conditions in Equation (13.21b), one obtains (13.22) T
hen, CauchyReimann relationships (Equation (13.10)) can be used to derive the f
low velocity components as (13.10a)
(13.10b) Thus, one obtains (13.23a)
(13.23b) The resultant velocity can be expressed as (13.23c) If the quantity of
flow is Q, then
where T is the thickness of the aquifer. It follows that (13.24) Thus, the veloc
ity potential function at any point (x, y) in the flow can be expressed in terms
of the intake Q, the aquifer thickness T, and the radius of the well rw as
age 582
(13.25) This provides a way to derive the stream function by using CauchyReim
ann relationships (13.26) With the velocity potential and the steam function, th
e complex potential (Equation (13.11b)) for seepage toward the well can be formu
lated as (13.27a)
Using Equation (13.11a) and complex algebraic manipulations, one obtains the fol
lowing simplified form: (13.27b) A major benefit of possessing Equation (13.27)
is that one can conveniently deduce the seepage originating from a source such a
s a source of contamination by substituting Q= Q.
13.7.2 Uniform Flow in an Aquifer
The regular (uncontaminated) 2D flow in an aquifer can be described as uniform
flow shown in Figure 13.12. For the above case, the two velocity components can
be derived as (13.28a)
FIGURE 13.12. Uniform 2D flow in an aquifer.
age 583
(13.28b) If the xaxis is chosen along the direction of the flow with the origin
of coordinates being at the source of contaminant, then (13.29a)
(13.29b)
13.7.3 Transport of Contaminants
The resultant flow caused by the introduction of contaminants into steady flow c
an be modeled by combining two types of flow: (1) outward flow from a source, wh
ich is the opposite scenario of flow into a well (Equation (13.27)) and (2) unif
orm flow in an aquifer (Equation (13.29)). Hence, the resultant velocity potenti
al and the stream function can be composed as (13.30a)
(13.30b) (Note that the sign is now + Q to indicate flow out of the source.) It
can be shown that a stagnation point (a point with one component of the flow vel
ocity being zero) is obtained at (13.31)
13.7.3.1 Derivation of the Location of the Stagnation oint The resultant x dir
ectional velocity (u) for the contaminated flow can be obtained by superimposing
the xdirectional velocities for the uniform aquifer flow and the flow emanatin
g from the contaminant source. Then, (13.32a) or
(13.32b) For u=0 at a stagnation point (x0, 0)
age 584
(13.31) Thus, it is seen that a stagnation point occurs at the above distance be
hind the source of contamination (Figure 13.14). 13.7.3.2 Determination of the C
ontamination Zone The streamline passing through the stagnation point must satis
fy ( x0, 0). By substituting x=x0 and y =0 in the stream function (Equation (13.
30b)), one obtains
1 However, tan (0) could have multiple values such as; n , 0, or +n (n=1, 2,) 1 If
one selects tan (0) to be 0, then =0, which in fact is the first flow line that s
tarts from the contaminant source and extends along the positive x-axis. In orde
r to derive the flow lines of the contaminant oundar that have nonzero , it is
ovious that one has to use or + in the above equation. Then,
(13.33) Therefore, the boundary of contamination is given by (13.34) Examle 13.
5 (a) Plot the contaminant flow in a groundwater regime that carries a flow of 1
0m3/sec within the flow cross section shown in Figure 13.13. The values of Q, T,
and U are as assigned below: Q=10m3/sec T=15m U=10m3/sec/(1520)= 0.0333 m/s
FIGURE 13.13
Illustration for Examle 13.5.
Page 585 By substituting the above values in Equation (13.34), one obtains the f
ollowing exression for the contamination boundary.
In order to lot the stream lines for designated flow quantities, vary from Q/2 T
to + Q/2 T in 0.1 Q/ T increments:
These streamlines are graphically illustrated in Figure 13.14.
age 586 (b) Determine the limiting streamlines It can be estimated from the plo
t that the contaminant flow is bounded by two, horizontal, parallel lines at y=+
10 and y= 10. The above equations can be derived mathematically by considering th
e limit of the boundary flow lines as x
x when the denominator is equal to zero, so tan (3.1420.3142y)=0 tan ( 3.1420.3142y)=
0 y= 10 y= 10 (c) Locate the stagnation point Applying Equation (13.31),
This is clearly seen in Figure 13.14 (d) lot the distance traveled by the conta
minant versus time on the x axis.
FIGURE 13.14. lot of the plume of contamination.
age 587 Initial condition when t =0, x =0 0= 95.68 ln (0+3.186) 0.31380+C C= 110.87
t = 95.68 ln (x +3.186) 0.3138x +110.87 This is plotted in Figure 13.15.
13.8 Design of Filters
Filters are essential for protection of earthen structures from seeping groundwa
ter. A number of empirical criteria for design of filters developed based on exp
erimental studies and past engineering experience are available in the geotechni
cal literature. In the past, filters were designed primarily using soil layers o
f different gradation or sizes. However, nowadays geotextile filters are in wide
application due to their reduced cost and easy construction.
13.8.1 Design of Soil Filters
The following criteria established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Huang, 2
004) are generally used in the design of soil filters. These criteria are based
on particle sizes corresponding to designated percentage of weights of the prote
cted soil and the filter material as reflected in the particle size distribution
curve (Chapter 1, Figure 1.3). Clogging criterion: To ensure that the protected
soil does not clog the larger particles of the filter, the following criterion
must be satisfied by the relative sizes: (13.35a)
FIGURE 13.15. lot of contaminant travel.
age 588 ermeability criterion: To ensure that water passes through the filter
system without building up excess pressure, the following criterion is recommend
ed: (13.35b) Additional criterion: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also recommends
the following additional criterion: (13.35c) Based on Equations (13.35), one can
design a satisfactory filter system when the particle size distributions of the
relevant soil samples are available.
13.8.2 Design of Geotextile Filters
When filters are designed using geotextiles, a set of unique criteria relevant t
o water flow through geofabrics and the size interaction between the geofabric a
nd the protected soil have to be considered. These will be briefly introduced in
the following sections. 13.8.2.1 Transmissivity of a Geotextile The ultimate tr
ansmissivity of a geotextile ( lt ) can be defined in terms of its inplane coef
ficient of hydra lic cond ctivity (k) and the averae thickness (t) as (Koerner,
1998) lt =kt (13.36)
13.8.2.2 Permittivity of a Geotextile Permittivity of a eotextile can be define
d in terms of its crossplane coefficient of hydra lic cond ctivity (k n) and th
e averae thickness (t) as (Koerner, 1998) (13.37)
13.8.2.3 Apparent Openin Size of a Geotextile The standard openin size of a e
otextile is desinated by the U.S. Army Corps of Enineers as the apparent openi
n size (AOS). AOS (or O95) of a iven eotextile is defined as the diameter of
a set of niform size lass beads of which only 5% wo ld pass thro h that eote
xtile when it is sed to sift the lass beads. The followin examples ill strate
the desin of a eotextiles for two different applications: (1) nderdrain filt
ers and (2) drains in earthen dams
(1) Underdrain filters The followin example ill strates the desin of a eotext
ile filter for an nderdrain
Pae 589
Example 13.6 A hihway embankment with an open pit ede drain is shown in Fi re
13.16. Ass min that the embankment soil adjacent to the drain is well raded w
ith a particle size distrib tion iven in c rve A of Fi re 13.17, recommend the
re
ired properties of a eotextile that can exec te the f nction of a satisfac
tory drain filter. The seepae s rface (phreatic line) nder the embankment is s
hown in a dotted line. Sol tion Step 1. Eval ate the critical nat re of the faci
lity and the site conditions This application has been determined to be of low c
riticality and low severity. Step 2. Characterize the soil Ass me the wellrade
d distrib tion in c rve A of Fi re 13.17, from which (c rve A) D10=0.01mm; D15
=0.02mm, D60=2.0mm; D85=19.0mm
FIGURE 13.17 Soil radation data for Examble 13.6 (same as Fi re 1.3).
Pae 590 C =D60/D10=200 An approximate val e of the coefficient of hydra lic con
d ctivity can be obtained from
(13.38)
when k and D10 are expressed in cm/sec and mm, respectively, C=1.0 4 Hence, k=10
cm/sec Step 3. Estimate the anticipated flow Ass me that the approximate flow ca
n be predicted by (13.20) where h1 and h2 are the heihts of the phreatic line (
free s rface) above the impervio s base at distances of r1 and r2, respectively.
Therefore, based on the free s rface information in Fi re 13.16, the followin
can be estimated: 6
=0.414k and since k =10 m/sec 7 2
=4.14 x 10 m /sec Accordi
n to Fi re 13.16, there is a 1.6m x 1.0m or 1.6m2/m area of eotextile to tran
smit the seepin water. Step 4. Determine the eotextile re
irements based on t
he retention, permeability, and permittivity criteria in Koerner (1998) as Reten
tion criterion: For finerained soils with 50% or more passin thro h No. 200
sieve O95<D85 for woven filters O95<1.SD85 for nonwoven filters O95>No. 50 sieve
For ran lar materials with 50% or less passin thro h No. 200 sieve (Fi re 1
3.17) O95<BD85 where B=1 for C <2 or C >8 B =0.5 when 2<C <4 B= 8/C , 4<C <8 For
this case, B=1 and D85=19.0 mm; hence, O95 <19 mm. Permeability criterion: In o
rder to maintain the drainae efficiency after the installation of the eotextil
e filter, k eotextile ksoil 6 k eotextile 10 m 2/S Permittivity criterion: If the
distance and the hydra lic head difference across the eotextile are t and h, r
espectively, then by applying Equation (13.2a),
Page 591 By substituting from Equation (13.37) (13.39) Assuming that the hyraul
ic hea insie the rain is 0, since the hyraulic hea just outsie the filter
is 1.6m, then, h=1.6m. By substituting in Equation (13.39), 7 1 required =1.7(10
) Sec Using an appropriate safet factor, the allowale permittivit can e expr
essed as (13.40) Sustituting in Equation (13.40) with F =5,
7 1 all=8(10) sec
However, the permittivit parameter generall specified for geotextiles is the u
ltimate permittivit value ( ult ) that can e related to all in the following ma
nner (Koerner, 1998): (13.41) where RFSCB, RFCR, RFIN, RFCC and RFBC are reducti
on factors that account for a numer of phenomena that reduce the actual flow su
ch as soil clogging and inding, creep reduction of void space, intrusion of adj
acent soil into geotextile void space, clogging due to chemical reactions, and c
logging due to iological activit, respectivel. For underdrain filters, Koerne
r (1998) recommends the following ranges: RFSCB=5.0 to 10.0 RFCR=1.0 to 1.5 RFIN
=1.0 to 1.2 RFCC=1.2 to 1.5 RFBC=2.0 to 4.0 B sustituting the average values o
f the aove ranges in Equation (13.41), ult is evaluated as
Step 5. Check for clogging Clogging criterion: For soils with Cu>3, O95>3(D15) O
95>3(0.02)>0.06mm Geotextile selection criteria: Select woven geotextile with th
e following properties
Page 592
Apparent opening size (O95) Permeailit (k geotextile) Permittivit
Between 0.06 and 19 mm
7 2 >4.14 x 10 m /sec 5 1 >3.34(10) sec
(2) Design ofgeotextile drains in earthen dam Example 13.7 Design a suitable geo
textile filter for the chimney drain of the earthen dam retaining water at a head
difference of 5m as shown in Figure 13.18. It is given that the filter is inclin
ed at an angle of 60 to the horizontal and the coefficient of hydraulic conductiv
ity of the fine 7 grained soil that is used in constructing the core of the dam
(ksoil ) is 110 m/ sec. (a) Assuming the axes of coordinates to be at the bottom o
f the filter, the phreatic line can be plotted using the equation, y2=1.44x. It
must be noted that the mathematical equation of the phreatic line can be derived
using a suitable transformation as discussed in Section 13.4. Then, based on a
flow net compute the quantity of seepage using DArcys law (Equation (13.2b)):
(b) Check the transmissivity criterion for the geotextile filter lt=kt where t
is the thickness of the eotextile. Ass min that the thickness and the inplane
permeability of the eotextile are 25 mm 3 and 10 m/sec,
4 2 lt=1510 m /min
Calc late the radient of flow in the eotextile i =sin(60)=0.866 Calc late the t
ransmissivity re
ired to handle the iven flow.
FIGURE 13.18
Ill stration for Example 13.7.
Pae 593 This can be done by rearranin DArcys e

ation (E
ation (13.2)) to expr
ess the transmissivity (E
ation (13.36)) as
where W is the width of the eotextile. Calc late the lobal factor of safety as
s min a red ction factor of 3.0 from lt to all
Since the safety factor is reater than the minim m recommended val e of 5, the
eotextile can be considered satisfactory.
References
Cederreen, H.R., 1989, Seepae, Drainae and Flow Nets, John Wiley, New York. D
as, B.M., 2002, Soil Mechanics Laboratory Man al, Oxford University Press, New Y
ork. Harr, M., 1962, Gro ndwater and Seepae, McGrawHill, New York. H an, Y.H.
, 2004, Pavement Analysis and Desin, Pearson Ed cation Inc., Upper Saddle River
, NJ. Koerner, R., 1998, Desinin with Geosynthetics, Prentice Hall, Enlewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Pae 594
Pae 595
Index
A AASHTO LRFD live load model, 124 ABAQUS proram, 411 Accessible water ro nd w
ater, 301 lake water, 301 salt water, 301 ACI 11.12.2, 185 Adhesion factor for d
rilled shafts in clayey soils, 309 Allowable stress desin (ASD), 147, 303, 482
conditions for allowable deflections, 239 allowable loads, 239 disadvantaes of,
116 method, 356, 436437 All vial, 513 American Society for Testin and Materials
(ASTM), 2, 59 Apparent openin size (AOS) of eotextile, 588; see also Geotexti
le filters, desin of A
ifer 2D flow in, 582 niform flow in, 582583 Artesian c
onditions, 490 Asphalt, 523 ASTM 152H hydrometer, 3 ASTM 4318, 56 ASTM D 1143, se
e In sit load tests ASTM D 1195, see In sit load tests ASTM D 3689, see In sit
load tests ASTM Desination D 3966, 408 ASTM
ick test method D 1143, 395 AST
MD 4945, see Standard test method for piles nder axial compressive load Atlas s
crew piles, 282 Atterber limits, 46 A ercast concrete piles, 238 Axial force,
349 B Beam theory, 350 Bearin capacity criterion, 9091 eval ation in soils mixed
in layers, 9798 of eccentric footins, 98100 sin in sit test data, 100102 facto
rs, 92, 241 fail re in reinforced soils, 566 fo ndations on soft soil overlyin
on hard strat m, 9697 overlyin on soft strat m, 9596
in homoeneo s soil, 9197 mechanisms of, 559 net ltimate, 9495 of mat footins, 1
52 pres mptive load, 102 sin in sit test data cone penetration test data, 97,
100101, 117 plate load test data, 101 standard penetration test data, 104 Benton
ite, 367 Berno llis e
ation, 495 Bidirectional static load test, see Osterber c
ell, load testin sin Binders, 558 Bindin aents, 559 Biotechnical reinforcem
ent, 552 Bishop and Morenstern pore press re coefficient, 493495 Blastdensifica
tion and vac mind ced consolidation, 540541 Bodkin connector, 454 Borehole shea
r test (BST) advantaes, 86 test proced re, 8485 Borin and samplin criteria, mi
nim m idelines of, 50 Borin techni
es, 59 Bo ssines
s elastic theory, 102, 11
5 Braced excavations, 461 Bride ab tments, 454 Bride fo ndation dead loads, bi
as factors and coefficients of variation for, 124 Broms method, 216 application p
roced re of, 216224 C Caisson, see Drilled shafts, str ct ral desin of Calibrati
on by fittin to ASD, 116117 Calibration by reliability theory determination of r
esistance factors, 124126 determination of simplified resistance factor, 126130 es
timation of probabilities, 120
Pae 596
load statistics, 124 lonormal distrib tion, 120 normal distrib tion, 119120 reli
ability index, 123 reliability of desin, 121122 resistance statistics, 123124 var
iability of soil data, 117119 Calibration of LRFD, 116 California bearin ratio (
CBR) test, 8284 Cantilever footins, 182 retainin walls, 446449 Cap model, 35 mat
hematical model of, 41 parameters of, eval ation of, 42 Capacity verification of
shaft, 318 Casarande li
id limit device, 5 Casarandes plasticity chart, 6 Cas
e dampin constant, 380381 Case pile wave analysis proram (CAPWAP) comp tational
method, 384 Casin f lllenth temporary casin methods, 301302 p rpose of, 301
Cast insit piles, 238 Ca chyReimann relationships, 573, 581 Ch n method of c
apacity prediction, 256 Clay liners classification criteria for, 579 desin cons
ideration for, 579 Claysand interface, soil strata, 314 Closedform sol tions,
339, 489, 498 Coefficient of hydra lic cond ctivity, estimation of, 569 Coeffici
ent of lateral earth press re, 429 at rest, 430 Cohesionless soils, cateories o
f ravelly sand or ravel, 311 sand or silty sand, 311 Coll vial, 513 Col mn foo
tin, soil press re distrib tion in, 184 Combined footins, 182, 196 Combined sp
read footins, 145 conventional desin methods, 147148 Compacted base, 523 Compac
tion ro tin, 536538 techni
es, 540541 s rcharin with prefabricated vertical d
rains, 539540 Compaction ro tin, 536 applicable soil, types of free drainin r
an lar soils, 537 densification, 537 desin, 538 e
ipment, 537 materials, 538 p
roced re of, 537 process field implementation, 537538 schematic, 537538

ality control and
ality ass rance reinforcement, 537 soil description, 537 C
ompaction techni
es, infre
ently sed blastdensification, 540 vac mind ced
consolidation (VIC), 540541 Compensation ro tin, see Fract re ro tin Compress
ibility of soil, 16 estimation of fo ndation settlement in sat rated clays, 2024
estimation of immediate settlement in soils, 1720 Comp tation of settlement in or
anic soils, 113 Concrete footin, soil press re distrib tion in, 183 Concrete p
iles, 237 disadvantaes of, 238 types of, 238 ses of, 238 Cone penetration test
(CPT), 69 data, see Bearin capacity sin in sit test data pore press re meas
rements, 7375 Conformal mappin, 573576 f nctions, 573 e
ipotential lines, 575 p
otential f nctionflow f nction domain, 573 press re distrib tion nder the dam,
575 seepae nder concrete earth dam, 574 Consistency limits, see Atterber lim
its Consolidometer apparat s, 21 Constr ction considerations, for drilled shafts
, 300 casin, 301302 concretin and mix desin, 302 dry or wet constr ction, 301
Contaminants, transport of derivation of location of stanation point, 583584 xd
irectional velocity, 583 determination of contamination zone example, ill strati
on, 584 pl me of contamination, 586 streamline, 584 flow, types of
Pae 597
o tward flow, 583 niform flow, 583 stanation point, 583 Contamination zone, de
termination of, 584587 Contin o s fliht a ers, se of, 51 Conventional desin m
ethod for combined spread footins bearin capacity criterion, 147148 eccentricit
y criterion, 147 settlement criterion, 148 Convol tion method, 509 Co lomb envel
ope, 13 Co lomb shear (frictional) fail re theory, 76 Co lombs coefficient of pas
sive earth press re, 433434 Co nterforts, 446 CPT tests, 510 CPTbased method for
pile ro ps, 272 Criteria for desin of footins, see Desin of footins to wit
hstand vibrations Critical depth ratio, 241 Crosshole sonic loin, see Q ality
ass rance test methods C m lative floor loads, 179 D DArcys law, 568, 593 Davisso
ns offset limit method, 389, 391, 394 De Beers method, 389390 Deep dynamic compacti
on applicable soil types, 532 e
ipment, sed, 532 field implementation, 531 mat
erials sed, 532 proced re of, 532 schematic, 531 Deflocc latin aent, 3 Desin
criteria for axially loaded piles, 274 Desin methodoloy of stabilizin piles,
505506 Desin of footins to withstand vibrations fo ndation vibrations d e to r
otatin masses, 138 list of criteria for, 131 rockin oscillations, 135136 slidin
oscillations, 136 138 vertical steady state vibrations, 130135 Desin of rade b
eams, 212 Desin of pile fo ndations desin criteria, 239 selection of method of
installation, 238239 selection of pile material, 236238 Desin philosophies sed
in desin of fo ndations, 115 Desin principles in walls deformation analysis, 4
64 drainae considerations, 463464 effect of compaction on nonyieldin walls, 439
effect of water table, 438439 fail re mechanisms, 440442 performance nder seismi
c loads, 465466 Destabilizin force or moment, 486, 518519 Dewaterin of excavatio
ns, 576577 Diametrically arraned lateral loadin plates, 71 Diesel hammers, 285
Differential actin air or steam hammers, 285 Dilatometer horizontal stress inde
x, 432 Dilatometer test (DMT), 79 determination of fo ndation desin parameters,
8182 meas rement proced re, 8081 Displacement compatibility, 442 Distrib ted soil
load, expression of, 350351 Do ble actin air or steam hammers, 284 Downdra (Ne
ative Skin Friction), 272 Downward loadcarryin resistance, 392393 Drilled cais
son, see Drilled shafts, str ct ral desin of Drilled piers, see Drilled shafts,
str ct ral desin of Drilled shafts behavior nder lateral loads, 215 constr ct
ion considerations, 300 casin, 301302 concretin and mix desin, 302 dry or wet
constr ction, 301 desin approach of ASD, 303 LRFD, 303 desin capacity of, 302
ASD vers s LRFD, 303304 estimation of end bearin, 305307 estimation of side shear
, 304306 standard penetration test data in sand, 304 desin methodoloy for, 21522
4 desinin from CPT data, estimation of, 311 end bearin, 312 side shear, 311312
desinin from load test data, estimation of, 313 end bearin, 314315 side shear
, 314 desinin from rock core data, estimation of, 312 end bearin, 313 side sh
ear, 313 end bearin desin methods for sands, 308 load testin, economy of, 318
selectin economical desin method, 319321
Pae 598
selectin economical shaft diameter, 319 postro ted shafts, desin of, 315 post
ro tin in other formations, 316318 postro tin in sand, 316 press re injected
footins (PIF), 321 concretin of shaft, 323325 constr ction of press re injected
footins, 322323 side shear desin methods for sand, 306 str ct ral desin of, 2
14215 triaxial or SPT data in clay, se of end bearin, 309311 side shear, 307309 D
riven pile in clay, zones s rro ndin, 255 Drivin techni
e, see Pile constr ct
ion, techni
es sed in Drop hammer, 284 Dr ckerPraer fail re s rface, 40 Dry
sample borin, 51 Dry soil mixin, 558559 D tch cone tests, 71 Dynamic compaction
(DC) applicable soil, types of cohesive soils, 532 ran lar soils, 532 oranic
soils, 532 desin, 533 e
ipment cycle d ty crane, 532 expected improvement, 532
materials cr shed stone, 532 free drainin ran lar soil, 532 sand, 532 weiht,
532 planned constr ction, analysis of compacted with low enery ironin pass, 5
33 correlation on field data, 533 improved soil parameters, 533 proced re of, 53
2 s bs rface conditions, 533 treatment of landfills, 533
ality control and
a
lity ass rance lare scale load tests, 533 shear wave velocity tests, 533 soil d
escription, 532 typical enery re
ired, 532 Dynamic deep compaction, see Dynami
c compaction Dynamic load test, 387 E Earth retainin str ct res, 427, 482 Earth
en str ct res, 577 behavior prediction of, experimental tasks of, 35 desin of,
challenes in, 579580 desinin of, analytical tools for 2D seepae toward wells
, 580582 transport of contaminants, 583584 niform flow in an a
ifer, 582583 Effec
t of vario s desin approaches on re
ired n mber of shafts, 320
Elastic method for endbearin piles, 262263 Elastic shortenin of piles, 263, 26
5, 399 Elastoplastic theory of cavity expansion, 77 Electrical plasma arcs, 560
Electrical resistivity imain (ERI), 57 Embankments, 486487 stability, investia
tion of dry embankment conditions, 492494 immediately after compaction, 494495 rap
id drawdown, 495496 nder completely s bmered conditions, 495 End bearin capaci
ty dependent on side shear capacity as, 316 estimation of, 305307, 312315 importan
ce of mobilized, 305, 309 in sandy soils, 316, 321 of drilled shafts in clayey s
oil, 307 of shafts, 309311 press reinjected footins (PIF) of, 322 resistance fr
om CPT data, 312 resistance in rock, 313 nits of stress, 316 End of initial dri
vin (EOID), 255256 Enineerin news record (ENR) e
ation, 367 Environmental eo
technoloy, 577578 desin of landfill liners, 578579 leachate miration, 578 liner
s, 578 clay liners, 578 composite liners, 578 eomembranes, 578 Excavations, dew
aterin of, 576 determination of capacity re
irement of the p mp, 577 dischare
rate thro h any eneral section, 577 permeability coefficient of the soil stra
t m, 577 Excessive timedependent settlement, 91, 148 Existin borin los, see
S bs rface preliminary investiation F Factor of safety (FS), 304, 436, 442, 445
, 450 for fail re wede, 486
Pae 599
Factors for slope instability increased shear stresses, 486 red ction in shear s
trenth, 486 Fail re mechanism d e to external instability of ravity walls bear
in capacity, 442 lobal stability, 442 overt rnin resistance, 442 slidin resi
stance, 441 Fast Fo rier transform, 418 Fiber reinforcement, 551552 Fiberreinfor
ced polymers (FRPs), 455 Field vane shear test, 75 Filters, desin of, 587 eote
xtile filters, see Geotextile filters, desin of soil filters, see Soil filters,
desin of Finite difference method of flexible mat footin desin, 172175 Finite
element method (FEM), see also Stiffness matrix analysis method drawbacks of, 3
1 force e
ilibri m e
ations, 33 of fo ndation analysis, 169 principles of, 31
Fittin proced re to enerate py c rves, ill stration of, 351355 Fixation techni
es, infre
ently sed ro nd freezin, 560 vitrification, 560 Fixation infre

ently sed techni
es for freezin and vitrification, 560 jet ro tin, 554556 pe
rmeation ro tin, 552554 soil mixin, 556 560 dry soil, 558559 wet soil, 559 Flexi
ble combined footins, desin of, 158 analysis and desin of rectan lar combine
d footins, 160 161 analysis of max footins based on slabs on elastic fo ndation
s, 166169 based on beams on elastic fo ndations, 161166 coefficient of vertical s
brade reaction, 158160 Flexible mat footins finite difference method for desin
of, 172 175 moment coefficients, 169 Flex ral strains, 351 Floatin pile fo ndat
ions, 205 Florida test pile proram, 256 Flow line, 568 Flow net method of seepa
e analysis, ill stration of, 570 Flow nets 568 r les for constr ction of, 568 F
ootin(s) area of str ct ral loads, see Bearin capacity, criterion desin witho
t shear reinforcement, 186 on piles, 185 shear strenth of, 186 conditions ove
rnin, 185 size determination of, 185 soil press re distrib tion nder, 183185 FO
S, 517
Fo ndation enineerin, 2 Fo ndation loadin, stress distrib tion in s bs rface

soils d e to analytical methods, 102 103 approximate stress distrib tion method,
103113 Fo ndation settlement factors for deformation of, 179 effects of, 180 Fo n
dation stabilization, ses of shorin of fo ndations, 423424 nderpinnin of fo n
dations, 422423 Fo ndation s bstr ct res desin, 179 soil bearin capacity and, 1
79 Fo ndation type, selection of decision process, 530 desin methodoloy, overv
iew of, 531 performin
ality ass rance, methods of, 531
ality control, 531 F
ract re ro tin applicable soil types, 549 desin, 551 e
ipment, 549 550 materi
als, 531 proced re, 550551
ality control and
ality ass rance, 551 Freezin an
d vitrification, 560 Friction piles in coarserained very permeable soils, 205
in very finerained soils of low permeability, 205 Frictioncircle method, 504
analysis for base fail re, 505 toe fail re, 505 G Galerkin method, 34 Georaphic
al testin method
Pae 600
ro nd penetratin radar (GPR), 5557 resistivity tests, 5758 seismic refraction, 5
859 Georid materials in soil, placement of, 530 Geomembrane layers applications,
579 permeability criterion, 579 selection criteria, 579 Geomembrane layers, des
in considerations for, 579 criteria in eomembrane selection, 579 f nctions, 57
9 filtration, 579 separation, 579 stabilization, 579 eotextiles, 579 Geomorphol
oy, 513 Geonets, 464 Geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS), 482 Geosynthetics, 449
types of, 563 Geotechnical enineerin, 2 approach, 506 Geotextile(s), 562 appa
rent openin size (AOS) of, 589 desin for two applications, 588, 592 permittivi
ty of, 588 transmissivity of, 588 Geotextile filter for drains in earthen dam, d
esin of, 592593 lobal factor of safety, 593 radient of flow, 592 transmissivit
y criterion, 592 for nderdrain, desin of, 589592 cloin criterion, 591 estima
tion of anticipated flow, 590 eotextile re
irements, 590 eotextile selection
criteria, 591 permeability criterion, 590 permittivity criterion, 590 retention
criterion, 590 Geotextile filters, desin of, 588 apparent openin size (AOS) of
, 588 eotextile drains in earthen dam, 592593 eotextile filter for an nderdrai
n, 588591 desin for two applications, 588, 592 permittivity of, 588 transmissivi
ty of, 588 Geotextile permittivity, see Geotextile filters, desin of Geotextile
transmissivity, see Geotextile filters, desin of Global deflection vector, 345
Global stiffness matrix, 345, 347348 Gravity walls, 439 445 Gro nd freezin, 560
Gro nd penetratin radar (GPR) depth penetration of, 56 feat res of GPR data, 565
7 GPR sinal, velocity of, 57 Gro nd performance, techni
es for improvement of,
530531
Gro ndwater, 301 and seepae, 567568 Gro ndwater flow analytical modelin of, 573
Ca chyReimann relationships, 573 complex flow velocity, 576 conformal mappin,
573575 potential f nction related to hydra lic head, 573 stream f nction, 573 tr
ansformation method, 573 n merical modelin of, 571573 e
ation for contin ity of
two dimensional (2D) flow conditions, 571 hydra lic radient at any desired loc
ation in the flow domain, 573 Laplace e
ation for 2D flow, 572 Laplace e
ation
, nder isotropic conditions, 572 Gro ndwater modelin concepts in environmental
eotechnoloy, application of, 579580 analysis of seepae toward wells, 580582 tr
ansport of contaminants, 583586 niform flow in an a
ifer, 582583 Gro ndwater on
str ct res, effects of, 568 Gro ndwater problems analytical modelin, 573 comple
x flow velocity, 576 conformal mappin, 573 raphical sol tion to, 568569 ass mpt
ions sed in analysis, 570 constr ction of flow net r les, 568 DArcys law, 568 eff
ects on str ct res, approaches to eval ate, 568 hydra lic cond ctivity coefficie
nt, estimation of, 568 hydra lic radient, expression of, 568 Gro t press re ind
ex (GPI), 316 Gro t sl rry, 559 H Hammeroperatin principle, 283 Hand a ers,
se of, 51
Pae 601
Hansens bearin capacity expression, 91, 96, 123,129130; see also Bearin capacity
, factors inclination, ro nd slope, and base tilt factors for, 92 shape and dep
th factors for Hansens expression, 92 Horizontal s brade mod l s, coefficient of
, 339, 341343, 346, 354 Hydra lic cond ctivity coefficient, estimation of, 569571
sin laboratory permeameters, 569 sin field p mpin tests, 569 sin an empir
ical correlation between k and D 10, 569 Hydroloical basin, 512 I Impact hammer
s, 284285 Impact of hydroloy, attrib tes determinin, 512 Imp lse response metho
d, see Q ality ass rance test methods In sit borehole mod l s devices, 68 In si
t load tests Osterber load test, 392 pile load test in compression (ASTM D 114
3), 392 pile load test in tension (ASTM D 3689), 392 plate load test (ASTM D 119
5), 392 In sit rock testin corin methods, 65 rock strenth tests, 6769 timed d
rillin, 6567 In sit testin advantaes of, 5354 invasive, 54 noninvasive, 54 sam
ple soil dist rbance, factors ca sin, 53 In sit tests CPT, 1920 SPT, 19 20 Incli
nometer, 355 Infl ence zone, 102 Interaction factor, 267 Interran lar stress, 8
Investiation of slope fail res eotechnical investiators, 514 mechanisms of s
lope fail re, information, 514 mobilization of shear strenth, 514 Stark and Eid
, 514 Iowa borehole shear device, 68 Isolated spread footins, 180 desinin of,
146 Isoparametric
adrilateral elements, se of, 31 J Jet ro tin applicable
soil types, 554 desin, 556 e
ipment, 554 materials, 556 proced re, 554556
ali
ty control and
ality ass rance, 556 types of, 555556 Jettin and prea erin, s
ee Pile constr ction, techni
es sed in
K Kern distance, 185 L Landfill liners, desin of, 578579 Landfill liners for lea
chate containment, types of, 578 desin criteria, 578 solid material containment
system, components of, 578 filter above the collection system, 578 leachate col
lection, 578 leachate detection, 578 primary leachate barrier, 578 secondary lea
chate barrier, 578 Landfills, constr ction of, 579 Landslides factors, ca sin,
512 bedrock eoloy, 512 hydroloy, 512 land se, 513 slope rane, 513 s rface o
verb rden, 513 landform, 513 Laplace e
ation analysis of seepae towards wells,
580 for 2D flow, 572 for isotropic conditions, 572 Lateral deformation e
ation
overnin, 339 of freeheaded piles, 339341 d e to load H, 339340 d e to moment M
, 340341 of fixedheaded piles, 341342 Lateral earth press re concepts, 429436 desi
n principles, 436439 Lateral load capacity based on deflections, 328, 339 based
on strenth, 328337 piles in cohesionless soils, 335337 piles in homoeneo s cohes
ive soils, 328334 effect of pile jettin on, 356
Pae 602
effect of prea erin on, 360 fail re mechanisms, 328 of pile ro ps, 355 Latera
l load capacity based on deflection, determination of, 339 linear elastic method
, 339 freeheaded piles, 339341 fixed headed piles, 341343 nonlinear methods, 343
lateral press redeflection (py) method of analysis, 348 stiffness matrix analy
sis method, 343 synthesis of py c rves based on pile instr mentation, 350 Later
al s brade reaction, 344 estimation of the mod l s of, 345 Leachate containment
, types of landfill liners, 578 Li
id limit (LL) of soil, definition of, 5 Load
and resistance factor desin (LRFD), 115, 303, 313, 437, 482 criteria, 272273 fo
r laterally loaded piles, 356 limit states extreme event, 304 fati e, 304 servi
ce, 304 strenth, 304 limitations of, 116 method, 99, 239 methods for selectin
resistance and load factors, 116 Load distrib tion method for pile ro ps, 272 L
oad factors for permanent loads, 128 Loadin cycle, 400 Local department of tran
sportation (DOT) soil man als, see S bs rface preliminary investiation Local U.
S. army corps of enineers hydroloical data, see S bs rface preliminary investi
ation Local U.S. eoloical s rvey (USGS) soil maps, see S bs rface preliminary
investiation Local niversity research p blications, see S bs rface preliminar
y investiation Lonormal distrib tion for probability of fail re and reliabilit
y index, 125 LRFD, see Load and resistance factor desin M Mat footins, convent
ional desin of bearin capacity, 152154 settlement of, 154158 Mat, raft, or conti
n o s footin, 182 Maxim m moment, 329, 334335, 356 Maxim m tensile force in the
reinforcement layer, calc lation of, 450 Mean safety factor, 508 Mechanical anal
ysis in soil classification hydrometer analysis for the fine fraction, 24 sieve a
nalysis for the coarse fraction (ravel and sand), 2, 4 Mechanically stabilized
earth (MSE) walls, 428, 436, 439, 482 eoridreinforced walls, 454 eotextiler
einforced walls, 454455 internal stability analysis and desin, 450452 reinforced
earth walls, 452 453 Method, for pile cpcity evlutions, 246 Method, for computa
tion of skin-friction, 246 Method, for prediction of s in-friction capacity of p
ies, 247 Method of sices, 489496 approaches, 491 Bishops simpified method, 492
ordinary method of sices, 492 Meyerhoffs bearing capacity expression, 91; see a
so Bearing capacity, factors shape, depth and incinations factors for, 91 Meye
rhoffs method, 241 Micropies, 547 appicabe soi types, 548 design, 548549 equi
pment, 548 materias, 548 procedure, 548 quaity contro and quaity assurance,
549 Minera surry, see Surry, types of Minimum factors of safety AASHTO, 487 c
ritica faiure pane, bedroc , estimation of, exampe of, 502 critica faiure
pane, toe, estimation of, exampe of, 501502 FHWA, 487t tria faiure pane, est
imation of, exampe of, 499501 Mobiized end bearing, 303 Modified Cam-cay mode
for cays, 35, 411 critica state of deformation of cay, 3738 isotropic consoi
dation of cays, 36 37 parameters of, evauation of, 40 stress-strain reationshi
p for yieding cays, 39 Modified Proctor compaction test, 27 Modified stabiity
number, 504 Modified unoading point method, see Statnamic test resut anaysis
Moduar boc was, 439 Mohr circe method, 1316, 431432, 467
Page 603
Mohr-Couomb criterion, 486, 489, 496 faiure enveope, 85 shear strength, 432 M
ohrs stress space, 431 Moment coefficients (C) for fexibe mat, 169 Moments resi
sting faiure, geogrid, 507 due to gravity, seepage, ive and other disturbing
oads, 507 due to the shear strength of the soi, 507 Mononobe-O abe method, 466
Mutipe ayer reinforcement, effects of, 563 Murchison and ONeis method, 359 N
Natura atera oads, 327 Natura surry, see Surry, types of Newmar s chart, 2
4 Newmar s infuence chart, 103, 108 Nonhomogeneous conditions, stabiity anaysi
s of sopes, 490 Noninear stress-strain reations evauation of Gmax from stand
ard penetration tests, 43 evauation of noninear eastic parameters, 4243 Norma
stress on the potentia faiure pane, 486 O Observation wes, 576 Omega screw
pies, 282 One-dimensiona (ID) aboratory consoidation test, 2122 Organic cont
ent of a soi (OC), 113 Osterberg ce, oad testing using, 394399 Osterberg oad
test, see In situ oad tests Over-consoidation ratio (OCR), 3637 P Permanent o
ads, oad factors for, see Load factors for permanent oads Permanent stee casi
ng or pipe, appication of, 321 Permeation grouting, 423 appicabe soi types,
552 design, 553 equipment, 552 materias, 553 procedure, 552553 quaity contro a
nd quaity assurance, 553 554 Permittivity of a geotextie, 588 Phenomenon of con
soidation settement, 20 Phreatic ine, 590, 592 Piezocone, see Cone penetratio
n test, pore pressure measurements Piezometer with a geomembrane monitoring syst
em, 570571 Piezometers, see Observation wes Pie cap, 205, 328329, 333, 340, 346
categories based on the method of transferring the oad into the ground frictio
n pies in coarse-grained very permeabe sois, 205 friction pies in very finegrained sois of ow permeabiity, 205 point bearing pies, 205 construction, te
chniques used in driving, 365
in situ casting, 367 jetting and preaugering, 367 damage, assessment of, see Pi
e driving anayzer driver, 205 driving, 255 driving anayzer anaytica determin
ation of pie capacity, 378380 assessment of pie damage, 380384 basic concepts of
wave mechanics, 374375 interpretation of pie-driving anayzer records, 375378 fo
undation(s), 183, 205, 236 design of, 236237 repairing, methods of, 420424 groups
anaysis of, 205206 bearing capacity of, 265267 hammers factors for using, 283 typ
es of, 283284 jac eting, see Pie foundation repairing, methods of oad transfer,
253256 materia, seection for different construction situations, 236238 setteme
nt, computation of, 259261 using approximate method, 262 stiffness, 339 tip, 35135
3, 356 top, 329, 333 -driving anayzer records, interpretation of condition of h
igh shaft resistance, 377 pie entering a hard stratum, 377 pie entering a soft
stratum, 377 -driving formuae, 367, 386 on roc , static capacity of, 277 -soi
interface nodes, 411 Pie capacity estimation from
Page 604
cone penetration test resuts, 248 249 standard penetration test resuts, 247248 v
erification of fu-scae oad tests, 367 use of pie-driving equations, 367368 u
se of wave equation, 368372 Pie integrity tester (PIT), 413414 imitations of, 41
4 Pane faiures anaysis of finite sopes, 487 homogeneous, 487489 nonhomogeneou
s faiure pane, 488489 Pastic imit (PL) of soi, definition of, 5 Pasticity i
ndex (PI), 6 Pate oad test ASTM-D 1143, see In situ oad tests data, 54, 159;
see aso Bearing capacity using in situ test data settement computation based o
n, 113 in compression, see In situ oad tests in tension, see In situ oad tests
Point bearing pies, 205 Point capacity estimation, 241242 Poissons ratio, 354 Po
re fuids, 6, 8 Postgrout test, see Quaity assurance test methods Postgrouted d
ried shaft tips, design for, 315 in cays, 316 in roc , 316 in sand, 316 in si
ts, 316 Preaugering or jetting, 238 Preiminary borings, 51 Preproduction abor
atory testing, 558559 Pressure grouting, 315 Pressure-injected footings (PIF) bea
ring capacity of, 321 concreting of shaft, 323324 construction of, 322 323 design
of, 322 drawbac s of, 321 instaation of, 321 Pressuremeter test (PMT), 7579, 35
5 Presumptive bearing capacities for foundations in granuar sois based on SPT
data, 106 from indicated buiding codes, 105 in cayey sois based on undrained
shear strength, 106 Proctor compaction test, 82 Q Quaity assurance test methods
crosshoe sonic ogging, 417 impuse response method, 418420 pie integrity test
er (PIT), 413414 postgrout test, 417418 shaft inspection device, 416 shaft integri
ty test (SIT), 414416
R Rammed aggregate piers (RAPs), 560561 appications of, 562 Ran ines theory, 432
Ran ine-type faiure wedge, 451 Rapid oad test, 387; see aso Statnamic pie o
ad test Raymond, see Pie construction, techniques used in Rebar spacing, 302 Re
compression ine (RCL), 36 Recovery ratio of coected sampe, 53 Rectanguar co
mbined footings, conventiona design of, 148152 Refrigeration pant, 560 Reinforc
ed earth, 449 Reinforced soi foundations, 562 oad testing of parameters of, 56
3 resuts of, 563 Reinforced sois, mechanisms of bearing capacity faiure in, 5
64 Reinforcement fracture grouting, 549551 infrequenty used reinforcement techni
ques, 551552 micropies, 548 549 soi naiing, 545547 stone coumns, 541543 techniqu
es, infrequenty used, 551552 vibro concrete coumns (VCCs), 543545 Reiabiity es
timates with random oads drawbac s of norma or Gaussian distribution, 509 use
of the ognorma distribution, 509511 Reiabiity-based sope design, 507512 Resid
ua shear strength, 253 Resistance factors for geotechnica strength imit state
for shaow foundations, 126 for semiempirica evauation of bearing capacity f
or spread footings on sand, 128 Resistivity tests, use of, 58 Rigid footing, 183
Roc Charnoc ite, 512 quartzite, 512 Roc engineering, 2 Roc quaity designati
on (RQD), 11, 278 Roc quaity index (RQD), 313
Page 605
Roc soc ets, 312313 Roc ing osciations, see Design of footings to withstand vi
brations Rotationay symmetric borehoe oading devices, 70 S Sand-cone test, 2
6 Saturated cay with geogrids, improvement of, 563 Saturated cohesive sois, co
nsistency of, 62 SAW-R4 wor boo , use of, 400 Schmertmann method, 35 Schwarz-Chr
istoffe transformation technique, 576 Scour, 300 Screw pies appications of, 2
82 types of, 280, 282 2-D seepage toward wes, 580582 Seepage toward wes, ana
ysis of, 580582 fow veocity, 580 Lapaces equation for isotropic conditions, 580
quantity of fow, 580 resutant veocity, 580 seepage toward wes, mapping fun
ction, 580 Segmenta unoading point method, see Statnamic test resut anaysis
Seismic refraction technique, use of, 59 Service I imit state, 273274 Settement
criterion, 91 Settement of mat footings, see Mat footings, conventiona design
of Settement of pie groups, 267 Shaft integrity test, see Quaity assurance t
est methods Shaft response axia dispacement, 314 interna strains, 314 atera
dispacement, 314 Shaow footings, design approaches, 239 Shear force, 329, 34
0, 349 Shear strength, 486, 489, 496, 507, 514, 517 of footings, 186 conditions
governing, 185 of soi, see Soi strength parameters of soi, tests to determine
triaxia tests, 1015 unconfined compression test, 15 properties of roc , determi
nation of, 278 Shear stresses, 486, 489 Sheep foot type compactors, 530 Sheet-pi
e was, 455 anchored sheet pies, 458460 braced excavations, 460461 cantiever s
heet pies, 455458 Sheby tube specimens, 307 Sheby tubes, 53, 67 Shoring founda
tions, uses of pies in, 423424 Side shear apha method of, 307309 estimation of,
311313 Singe acting air or steam hammers, 284 Singe ayer reinforcement, effect
s of, 563 Site exporation pan, see Subsurface site exporation
Site-specific conditions, identifying methods for cased or uncased, 300 dry cons
truction, 300301 freefa concrete, 300 surry type, 300 tremie paced, 300 wet d
riing, 300 S in friction, 205 capacity of pies, 244247 in cayey sois, 244 S
eeve port pipe, 553 Sicing, stabiity anayzed using imit equiibrium method,
490 principes of statics, 490 Siding osciations, see Design of footings to w
ithstand vibrations Sope-defection reations in structura anaysis, 344 Sope
s instabiity, 512 impact of rainfa, 513 in situ hydroogic response to rainst
orms, 513 matric suction, 513 measure the in situ suction, to evauate, 513 meas
ure the pore water pressure, to evauate, 513 stabiization with pies, 503506 re
inforcement with geogrid, 507 tensie strength, 507 reinforcement with geotexti
es, 506 safety factor on a circuar faiure surface, 506 tensie force, 506 Sop
e-stabiity anaysis imit equiibrium method, 486 three-dimensiona aternative
methods, 514 based on, psuedo-three-dimensiona techniques, 514 mean cross secti
on, 515 resistance-weighted procedure, 515 steps, quasi-three-dimensiona anaysi
s, 515 with stabiity number method, 496
Page 606
Surry, types of minera surries, 301 natura surries, 301 synthetic surries,
301 Smiths mode of ideaization of driven pie, 368369 Snai, 547 Sodium hexamet
aphosphate (Cagon), see Defoccuating agent Sodium siicate (water gass), see
Defoccuating agent Soft ground improvement, techniques of compaction, 530 fix
ation, 530 reinforcement, 530 Soi(s) bearing capacity, 179 boring, 4951 cassifi
cation Atterberg imits, 46 mechanica cassification, 24 unified soi cassificat
ion system, 6 cohesioness sois, 328 cohesive sois, 328 compaction evauation
of fied compaction, 2930 aboratory compaction, 2729 compressibiity, see Compres
sibiity of soi densities bu weight unit, 2526 dry unit weight, 26 saturated u
nit weight, 26 submerged (buoyant) unit weight, 27 eastic modui from in situ t
est data, 83 fiters, criteria for design of additiona criterion, 588 cogging
criterion, 589 permeabiity criterion, 588 iquid imit of, see Liquid imit (LL
) of soi, definition of matrix suction, 8 mixing, 556 appicabe soi types, 55
7 design, 558 equipment, 557 materias, 558 procedure, 557558 nai was, 547 nai
ing, 428, 462463, 545 appicabe soi types, 546 design, categories, 547 equipme
nt, 546 materias, 546547 procedure, 546 quaity contro and quaity assurance, 5
45 pastic imit of, see Pastic imit (PL) of soi pasticity index of, 334 pre
ssure distribution under footings, 183185 strength measurements, bias factors, an
d coefficients of variation, 125 types of, 328 variabiity in index tests, 119
strength tests, 119 yieding (pastic) behavior of, 33 common methods to mode,
35 Soi fiters, design of, 587588 criteria, 587 additiona criterion, 588 coggi
ng criterion, 589 permeabiity criterion, 588 Soi strength consoidated drained
, 11 drained strength parameters, 9 consoidated undrained, 11 shear, 9 undraine
d shear strength, 15 Spash zone, 420 Spring stiffness, 344 SPT -based method fo
r end-bearing pies, 263 bow count, 304 N vaue, 536 vaue, 345, 523526 Stabiit
y anaysis imit equiibrium method, 487 homogeneous sope, based on an assumed
faiure surface, 496 procedure, to obtain true safety factor, 496 homogeneous s
ope, based on the critica faiure surface, 498 Stabiity number method circuar
faiure surface, 497498 design cohesion, 498 toe of the sope, 498 imit equiib
rium method, 496 pane faiure surface, 497 Stabiizing force (stabiizing momen
t), 486, 489, 518519 Stagnation point, 583 Standard deviation of the safety facto
r, 508 Standard penetration test (SPT), 59, 304 correations with shear strength
properties, 5962 data, see Bearing capacity using in situ test data determinatio
n of shear strength of ime stone, 61 determination of shear strength of sands a
nd cays, 6061 efficiency of, 62 N-vaue, 432 Standard Proctor compaction test, 2
7 Standard spit-spoon sampers, 53
Page 607
Standard test method for pies under axia compressive oad, 385 State boundary
surface (SBS), 37 Static capacity of pies on roc , 277278 Static oad test, 387
Static pie capacity of a singe pie, estimation of, 239248 Static pie oad tes
ts advantages, 392 anchored, 393394 comparison between maintained oad and quic
oad tests, 388 Kentedge oad test, 392393 imitations of oad tests, 392 Statna
mic pie oad test advantages of, 400 imitations, of, 400401 resut anaysis, 40
1408 Statnamic test resut anaysis cacuation of segmenta motion parameters, 4
06407 modified unoading point method, 405 segmenta Statnamic and derived static
forces, 407408 segmenta unoading point method, 405406 unoading point method, 4
02405 Steam mixing, 553 Stee pies, 238 Stiffness matrix anaysis method, 343 St
o es aw, appication of, 4 Stone coumns appicabe soi types, 541 design, 542
equipment, 542 materias, 542 procedure, 541 quaity contro and quaity assuran
ce, 543 Strain gauge(s), 256 readings, 350351 Strength imit states, 273 Stress c
oncept of the soi, 6, 8 Stress diatancy theory for granuar sois, 4344 assumpt
ions of, 43 Stress reversas, 458 Strip footing, see Wa footing Structura des
ign of dried shafts, 214215 Structura foundations seection criteria for, 180
types of cantiever footings, 182 combined footings, 182 isoated spread footing
s, 180 mat, raft, or continuous footing, 182 pie foundations, 183 wa footings
, 180 Subsurface preiminary investigation aeria photographs, 48 existing borin
g ogs, 49 oca Department of Transportation (DOT) soi manuas, 49 oca unive
rsity research pubications, 49 oca U.S. army corps of engineers hydroogica
data, 49 oca U.S. Geoogica Survey (USGS) soi maps, 49 topographic maps, 48
U.S. Department of Agricuture (USDA) agronomy soi maps, 49 we driing ogs,
48 Subsurface site exporation detaied investigation, 4849 information required
for, 48 preiminary investigation, 48 use of, 48 Super jet grouting, 554 SUPERS
AW software program, 408 Surcharging, 539 with prefabricated vertica drains app
icabe soi types, 539 design, 540 equipment, 539 materias, 540 procedure, 5395
40 quaity contro and quaity assurance, 540 Synthetic surry, see Surry, type
s of T Tayor series approach, 508 Tayors stabiity charts, use of, 498 Terzaghis
bearing capacity expression, 91; see aso Bearing capacity, factors Terzaghis th
eory, 111 Thixotropic recovery, 255 Tie-bac anchorage, 436 anchored was, 436,
461462 Timber pies, 237 Time variation of pie capacity, 254255 Tip capacity mu
tipier (TCM), 305 Topographic maps, see Subsurface preiminary investigation Tr
ansmissivity of a geotextie, 588 Transport of contaminants derivation of ocati
on of stagnation point, 583584 determination of contamination zone, 584 Triaxia
tests, 508 computation of strength parameters based on triaxia tests, 1315 conso
idated drained tests, 11 consoidated undrained tests (CU), 11 of roc s, 11 se
ection on the basis of construction situation, 11
Page 608
unconsoidated undrained tests (UU), 11 Tripe-tube core barre, 67 Turner-Fairb
an Highway Research Center (TFHRC), 563 U Utimate bearing capacity of spread f
ootings, 91 factors of safety, 104 Utimate carrying capacity, 239 Utimate prim
ary settement, 21 Unconfined compression test, 15 Unconsoidated, undrained (UU
) triaxia test, 307 Underpinning, 422423 common techniques used in, 423 Undraine
d cohesion, 494, 502, 506 Undrained conditions, 489, 495, 504, 519 Unified soi
cassification system (USCS), 2, 7 Uniform fow in an aquifer, 582583 Unit s in f
riction in sandy sois, 244 Unoading point method, see Statnamic test resut an
aysis Upift oading, 279280 Upift pressures evauation, iustration of, 570 U
.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 587588 U.S. Department of Agricuture (USDA) agronom
y soi maps, see Subsurface preiminary investigation U.S. Environmenta Protect
ion Agency (EPA), 579 V Vane shear test (VST), 117 Variabiity of soi data, see
Caibration by reiabiity theory Vertica steady state vibrations, see Design
of footings to withstand vibrations Vesics bearing capacity expression, 91; see a
so Bearing capacity, factors incination, ground sope, and base tit factors f
or, 93 shape and depth factors for, 91 Vesics method, 242243 Vesics pie group inte
raction factor, 271 Vibratory hammers, 285 Vibratory roers, 530 Vibro compacti
on (VC) appicabe soi, types of free draining granuar sois, 533 as vibrofot
ation, 533 fied impementation, 534 schematic, 534 design, anaysis of existing
subsurface conditions, 536 improved soi parameters, SPT N vaue, 536 panned c
onstruction, 536 equipment, 534 down-hoe vibrator (vibrofot), 533534 hydrauic
motor, 534 weight, 534 expected improvement, 534 materias sand, 535 sit, 535 p
rocedure vibrator motion, 534535 vibrator schematic, 534535
quaity contro and quaity assurance, 536 soi description, 534 typica energy
required, 534 Vibro concrete coumns (VCCs), 543 appicabe soi types, 544 desi
gn, 545 equipment, 544 materias, 545 procedure, 544545 quaity contro and quai
ty assurance, 545 Vibrofot, 533534 Vibrofotation, see Vibro compaction Vitrifica
tion, 560 Von Mises faiure surface, 40 Vucan, see Pie construction, technique
s used in W Wa footing, 180, 190191 Wash boring, 51 Water content of the soi,
see Liquid imit (LL) of soi, definition of Water jetting, 356 Watershed basin,
512 Wave number, definition of, 404 Wave-equation programs GRLWEAP, 370 TTI, 37
0 TNOWAVE, 370 We driing ogs, see Subsurface preiminary investigation Wet
construction, see Construction considerations, for dried shafts Wet soi mixin
g quaity contro and quaity assurance in, 559 Z Ziggurats, 429 Zone of combined
infuence of jetting, 367

The Foundation Engineering Hand Book

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Foundation Engineering Hand Book

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Page i

THE FOUNDATION ENGINEERING HANDBOOK

Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8493-1159-4 1. FoundationsH

Page vi Finally, it is to my mother, Jeannette Gunaratne, and my late father, Ra

FIGURE 1.6 Illustration of in situ stresses.

2. Hence, only method of evaluating trength parameter baed on the triaxial te

1.4.2 Triaxial Tet

5.850 6.340 7.224 7.991 8.623 9.360

0.10.4 (depends somewhat on type of rock) 0.10.3 0.36 0.15 0.33

When the foundation load is applied on a saturated finerained soil, it is imme

Laboratory onsolidation urve (e versus log p ). (From Conrete Design Handboo

Page 24 Reompression index, Cr=(1.0951.045)/(log 60 log 10)=0.064 Compression in

Pae 26 somewhat of a difficult task that is enerally addressed by specially de

FIGURE 1.22 Laboratory soil compaction equipment. (Courtesy of the University of

Equipment for sandcone test. (Courtesy of the University of South Florida.)

Pae 30 Volume of mold=938.94cm3 Mass of sand in mold=1350 Density of sand=1.4

Mass of container ()

FIGURE 1.30 Illutration of the cap model.

FIGURE 1.31 Nonlinear elasti relationship.

2.10 Borehole Shear Test 2.10.1 Test Proced re References

2.10 Borehole Shear Test 2.10.1 Test Proced re References

loadin. For instance, a proposed roadway alinment typically re

In terms of fo ndation enineerin, in sit (or in place) testin refers to thos

, ksf (47.92 kPa) 0 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 8.0

Determination of the Frictional Shear Strenth of Limestone from SPT Blow Co nt

OCR Aed/cemented Stiff Very stiff Hard

Pae 63 Accordinly, the followin e

Atlas dilatometer BGR dilatometer Dilatometer 112 Elastometer 100 Elastometer 20

to otain foundation strength parameters, the following modification for evaluat

FIGURE 2.21 Field vane apparatus. (Courtesy of Geonor Corp.)

5.183 5.641 6.091 6.531 6.955 7.143

Pae 88 3.5.2 Rockin Oscillations 3.5.3 Slidin Oscillations 3.5.4 Fo ndation V

Infl ence zone of a shallow footin.

FIGURE 3.4 Ill stration for Example 3.2.

Pae 96 Example 3.2 Ass me that the s

n, lt =(20)(5.14)(1.195)(2.0) =245.69 kPa Alternatively, from E

In order to estimate the bearin capacity, the

lt expression also ets replaced by L . Th s, in s ch cases, one wo ld obtain t

FIGURE 3.9 Desinin footins to avoid eccentricity.

From Figure 3.15, preconolidation preure=pc =60 kPa Contact preure=q=200/(1

Note: Val es converted from po nds per s

Longman Sientifi and Tehnial, Brunthill, Harlow, England. With permission.

weak Weak Very weak 200600 60200 All

FIGURE 3.15 Laboratory onsolidation urve.

Page 113 Differential ettlement check. The differential ettlement i equal to

compreion teting) Undrained trength (unconolidated undrained triaxial teti

CPT Anle of friction ( N) Cohesion Wall friction ( ) Earth press re coefficient

Hence, the expression for can e simplified to (3.69)

Page 127 By defining the fctor s follows:

lexible buried structure lexible metal box Culverts Earth structures

3.5.1 Vertical Steady-State Vibrations

Hall, Engleood Cliffs, NJ. With permission.

3. Damping atio Damping atio=D=(damping constant)/(citical damping constant)

FIGURE 3.24 Footin s bjected to rockin.

Pae 136 2. Resonant fre

FIGURE 3.25 Footing subjected to sliding oscillation.

Pae 142 Therefore,

ftkip s/ft Blows/ft

FIGURE 4.1 Comined footing.

Footing configuration for Example 4.1.

Shear: clockwise positive. Moment: sagging moments positive

Free-body diagram for the strip BCGF in Figure 4.5.

Illustration for Example 4.3.

to otain foundation strength parameters, the following modification for evaluat

Hence, the expression for can e simplified to (3.69)

Page 127 By defining the fctor s follows:

lexible buried structure lexible metal box Culverts Earth structures

Hall, Engleood Cliffs, NJ. With permission.

3. Damping atio Damping atio=D=(damping constant)/(citical damping constant)

FIGURE 4.1 Comined footing.

If the soil bearing caacity is different under different isolated substructures

kiin. lbft kift ftlb ftki sec/ft

Source: Courtesy of the New York Deartment of Transortation.

FIGURE 5.10 Illustrtion for Exmple 5.1.

FIGURE 5.16 Details of reinforcement (Examle 5.3).

FIGURE 5.27 Pile cap layo ttansvese diection.

where A b=minimum re of br (mm2)=285 S=spcing of br (mm)=300 dc =concrete c

Pge 215 of drilled shft (similr to pile foundtions) is to enble structur

Trnsporttion Officils, Wshington, DC, 1998 (with 1999 interim revisions). Wi

Pge 217 () Cohesive soils:

Page 230 Step 9. Determine the dimensionless factor D/

FIGURE 5.45 Ill station fo Example 5.10 (elevation).

6.6 Computation of Pie Settement 6.6.1 Eastic Soution 6.6.2 Computation of P

Page 237 6.2.1.1 Timber Pies Timber is a reativey inexpensive materia to be

Undrined Strength (kP)

FIGURE 6.6 Illustrtion for the Exmple 6.1.

FIGURE 6.7 Dependence of the factor on pie penetration.

FIGURE 6.8 Tip infuence zone.

horizontal strss instrumntation. Subs

where Si )g=immediate settlement of the ile grou, Si )g=immediate settlement o

Steel (Tble 6.4)

Assuming tht the lod of 900 kN is desynthesized s follows: Weight of structur

FIGURE 7.2 Estimated soil properties from SPT low count.

During the construction rocedure, a thickwalled steel casing is laced vertica

uation (9.17) can b modifid to:

Illustration of the desynthesizing of DA record.