TI 818-02 3 August 1998

Technical Instructions

Design of Deep Foundations

Headquarters U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Division Directorate of Military Programs Washington, DC 20314-1000

CEMP-E

TI 818-02 3 August 1998

TECHNICAL INSTRUCTIONS

Design of Deep Foundations

Any copyrighted material included in this document is identified at its point of use. Use of the copyrighted material apart from this document must have the permission of the copyright holder.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Record of Changes (changes indicated by \1\..../1/) No. Date Location

This Technical Instruction supersedes EI 02C097, dated 1 July 1997.
(EI 02C097 text is included in this Technical Instruction and may carry EI 02C097 identification.)

CEMP-E

TI 818-02 3 August 1998

FOREWORD

These technical instructions (TI) provide design and construction criteria and apply to all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) commands having military construction responsibilities. TI will be used for all Army projects and for projects executed for other military services or work for other customers where appropriate. TI are living documents and will be periodically reviewed, updated, and made available to users as part of the HQUSACE responsibility for technical criteria and policy for new military construction. CEMP-ET is responsible for administration of the TI system; technical content of TI is the responsibility of the HQUSACE element of the discipline involved. Recommended changes to TI, with rationale for the changes, should be sent to HQUSACE, ATTN: CEMP-ET, 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20314-1000. TI are effective upon issuance. TI are distributed only in electronic media through the TECHINFO Internet site http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/techinfo/index.htm and the Construction Criteria Base (CCB) system maintained by the National Institute of Building Sciences at Internet sitehttp://www.nibs.org/ccb/. Hard copies of these instructions produced by the user from the electronic media should be checked against the current electronic version prior to use to assure that the latest instructions are used. FOR THE DIRECTOR OF MILITARY PROGRAMS:

KISUK CHEUNG, P.E. Chief, Engineering and Construction Division
Directorate of Military Programs

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Army Corps of Engineers Washington. . . . Analytical Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 Appendix D Modification of p-y curves for Battered Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Computer Assisted Analysis . . . . . . 2 Drilled Shafts . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 Appendix B Pipe Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DC 20314-1000 EI 02C097 01 July 1997 DESIGN OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS Table of Contents (Click on chapter titles to view topics. . . Structural Design of Driven Piles . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-4 1-7 1-12 Chapter 5 Pile Groups Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nonlinear Pile and p-y Model for Soil . . . . B-1 Appendix C Computer Program AXILTR . . . . . Status of the Technology . . . . . . . . . . . Selection of Deep Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Chapter 4 Lateral Loads Description of the Problem . . 3 Design for Lateral Loads . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Appendix A References and Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Site and Soil Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development of p-y Curve for Soils . . . .) Subject Paragraph Page Subject Paragraph Page Chapter 1 Introduction Purpose . . . . . . . References . . . . . Chapter 2 Design Stresses Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Driven Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Drilled Shafts .CEMP-E Engineering Instructions No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3-6 3-20 B-1 C-1 1 2 3 4 5 4-1 4-1 4-4 4-16 4-36 D-1 i . . . 1 Factors Influencing Pile Group Behavior . . . Factored Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Deep Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02C097 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U. 2 Design for Vertical Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 5-1 5-1 5-3 5-9 5-19 1 2 3 4 2-1 2-1 2-4 2-12 6-1 6-1 6-6 6-11 A-1 Chapter 3 Vertical Loads Design Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structural Design of Drilled Shafts . . . . General Design Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Load Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Driven Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Chapter 6 Verification of Design Foundation Quality . . . . . .S.

. . . 4-16 Form of variation of soil modulus with depth . . . . . . . . . . 3-34 Deep foundation resisting downdrag . . 3-13 Correction factor Cf with respect to * /Nr . . 4-26 Bending moment produced by moment applied at mudline . . . . 4-6 Characteristics shape of the p-y curves for soft clay below the water table . . . 3-22. 3-17 Sleeve friction factor for clays . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10. 4-9 Values of empirical parameters As and Ac . . . . . . . . 4-19. 3-24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16. . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14. . . . . . . 3-31 Pullout force in underreamed drilled shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18 Sleeve friction factors for sands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5 Concrete pile splice and boot . . . . . 3-19 Driven steel pipe pile . . . . . 3-16 Lambda correlation factor for clay . . . . . . 4-12 Characteristic shape of p-y curve for cyclic loading in stiff clay above the water table . . . . . . . 3-4. . . . 4-4 Wedge-type failure of surface soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6. . . . . 4-13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 Pipe pile and soil elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-20 Eccentric load on a pile group . . . . 4-3. 3-5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24 Slope of pile caused by moment applied at mudline . 3-3. . . . 3-41 4-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29 Elastic modulus of intact rock . . . . 2-5 Loading support of deep foundations . 1-2. . . . . . . 3-8. . . . 4-27 ii . . . . . . . . 3-5 Limiting base resistance for Meyerhof and Nordlund methods . . . . 3-21 Settlement influence factor Isock . 4-12. . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1. . . . . 4-16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33 Deep foundation resisting uplift thrust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 Conceptual p-y curve . . . . . 2-3 Limits to pile driving stresses . .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 List of Figures Figure Page Figure Page 1-1. . 4-10. 4-4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11. . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 Characteristic shape of p-y curve for static loading in stiff clay below the water table . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9 Axial-load deflection relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10 Driven pile applications . 1-6 Steel pile splices . . 3-20. . 3-19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11 Variation of the coefficient K with respect to Nr . . 4-18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15. . . . . . . . . . . 1-4. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20. . . . . . . . . . 3-6 Illustration of input parameters for equation 3-7a . . . . . 4-16 Nondimensional coefficient B for soil resistance versus depth . . 1-5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13. . . . . . . . . . . 1-8. . . . . . . 4-5 Potential failure surfaces generated by pipe at several diameters below ground surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40 General load-transfer functions for sand . . . . . . Model of pile under lateral loading with p-y curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7. 1-13 Load resistance of drilled shaft in various soils . . 3-2 Distribution of skin friction and the associated load resistance . 4-11 Characteristic shape of p-y curve for static loading in stiff clay above the water table . . . 4-22 Slope of pile caused by lateral load at mudline . . . . . . . . 3-9 Variation of coefficient " f and bearing capacity factor Nq with respect to Nr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21 Pile deflection produced by moment applied at mudline . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13 Characteristic shape of a family of p-y curves for static and cyclic loading in sand . . . . . . . . . . 3-9. . . . . 3-2. . . 4-8. . . 4-25 Bending moment produced by lateral load at mudline . . . . . 4-9. . . 4-5. . 3-17. . 3-35 Load-transfer curves used in AXILTR . . 3-7. . . . 3-29 Modulus reduction ratio Emass /Ecore . . . . . . . . . . . . Timber pile splice and boot . . . . . . 1-15 Variation of Kcu for clay with respect to undrained shear strength and overconsolidation ratio . . 3-6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19 Pile deflection produced by lateral load at mudline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3. . . . . . . . . . 3-18. . 3-12 Ratio * /N for given displacement volume V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14 Estimating pile tip capacity from CPT data . . . . . 4-7. . . . . 4-14 Values of coefficients Ac and As . . . 4-22. . . . . . . . . . 3-23. . . . . 4-21. 4-2 Distribution of unit stresses against a pile before and after lateral deflection . . . . 3-4 Critical depth ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2. . . . . . 1-6 Drilled shaft details . . . . 4-14. . 3-36 General load-transfer curves for clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10 Characteristic shape of p-y curve for cyclic loading in stiff clay below the water table . . . . . . 4-11. . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6. . . . . . . 3-18 Lateral earth pressure and friction angle factor $ f . . . . 4-2. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4. . . . . C-5 Plotted output for pullout and uplift problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Axial load versus settlement for reinforced concrete pile . . 5-7. . . . . . . 5-15 Pile loading-Case 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12 Set of pile resistance functions for a given pile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32 Graphical solution for relative stiffness factor . . . . . . . 6-14 Schematic diagram of soil and pile elements . . . . . . . 5-10 Simplified structure showing coordinate systems and sign conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9. . 5-14 Interaction diagram of reinforced concrete pile . . . . . 6-7 Typical Osterberg cell load test . . . 4-25. . . . . . . . . . . Shear produced by lateral load at mudline . . . . 6-4. . . 5-4 Typical pile-supported bent . C-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1. . . . . . . C-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24. . . . C-3. . . . . . . 5-2. . . . . . . . . . . . C-9 Plotted output for downdrag problem . . . . . . D-1. . . . . 5-5. . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27. . . . . . . . . . . . D-2 iii . . . . . . 4-29 Deflection of pile fixed against rotation at mudline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6. . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3 Schematic of field pile driving analyzer equipment . 6-5 Example results of CAPWAPC analysis . . C-11 Modification of p-y curves for battered piles . . 5-2 Stress zones in soil supporting piles . . . 4-34 Comparison of deflection and bending moment from nondimensional and computer solutions . . . . . . . 4-28 Shear produced by moment applied at mudline . . . . . . . 6-3. . . . . . . . . .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 List of Figures Figure Page Figure Page 4-23. . . . . . . . 5-13 Sketch of a pile-supported retaining wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1. . . . . . . 4-30 Soil-response curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-20 Schematic of wave equation model . . . 4-37 Groups of deep foundations . . . . . 5-3. . 5-15 5-8. . . 5-10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17 Plan and elevation of foundation analyzed in example problem . . . . . . 4-26. . . . .

. 5-2. . 4-5 4-2. . . . . Specifications for Bentonite Slurry . . . Values of Loading Employed in Analysis . . . . . Application of Drilled Shaft Design . .) 1-5. . . . . . . Qu by the Nordlund Method . . . . Listing of Data Input for Expansive Soil. . . . . . . . . 2-8 2-6. . . . . . . . . . . Procedure for Verifying Design and Structural Integrity of Driven Piles . . . . . Computed Movements of Origin of Global Coordinate System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1. . 3-27 3-8. . . C-6. . . . . . . . Listing of Output for Pullout and Uplift Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drilled Shaft Applications . General Design Procedure of a Driven Pile .5" x 11" paper. . . . C-7. Moment Coefficients at Top of Pile for Fixed-Head Case . . 4-7 4-3. Description of Input Parameters . . . . . . It can be viewed on screen. Adhesion Factors for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soil . . . . . . . . . Factors of Safety for Bearing Capacity . . . . . 3-15 3-5. 3-8 3-4. . . Methods of Estimating Ultimate Pile Capacity from Load Test Data . . . . . . . . . Empirical Tip Coefficient Cb . . Output Data . . 3-30 3-10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8 1-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . Design of a Drilled Shaft . Calculations of Vertical Loads in a Single Pile . . . . . . Nondimensional Coefficients for p-y Curves for Sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Equivalent Mat Method for Estimating Consolidation Settlement of Pile Groups in Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adhesion Factors for Cohesive Soil . . . Computed Movements and Loads at Pile Heads . . . . . . . Allowable Concrete Stresses . . . . . Vertical Load Analysis . C-1. . Performance and Eccentricity Factors . . . Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9 3-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2. . . . 6-4. Concrete Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 2-5. . . . . 1-16 2-1. . . . Types of Deep Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Standard H-piles: Dimensions and Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22 3-7. . . Recommended Soil Parameters for Wave Equation . . . . . . . . 1-11 1-4. . . . . . . Representative Values of g 50 . . . . . . . . Dimensionless Pressuremeter Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5. . File DATLTR. . . . . . Tolerances in Drilled Shaft Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 List of Tables Table Page Table Page General Design Methodology for Deep Foundations . . . 5-3. Representative Values of k for Stiff Clays . . 1-4 1-3. . . . . . . . . . 1-2 1-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2. . . . . . . . . . Listing of Data Input for Settling Soil . . Allowable Stresses for Pressure-treated Round Timber Piles for Normal Loads in Hydraulic Structures . . . . 3-42 4-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dimensions and Properties for Design of Pipe Piles . . . . 3-3 3-2. . . . . . . . . 5-1. 4-15 4-17 4-23 5-6 5-7 5-16 5-16 5-18 6-2 6-4 6-9 6-15 B-2 C-1 C-2 C-6 C-10 C-13 C-16 C-16 iv . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5. . . 2-6 Allowable Concrete Stresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . but will not print completely on 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4. . . . . . . . . . . 4-5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allowable Stresses for Fully Supported Piles . . . . . . . . Listing of Output for Downdrag Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4. . . . . 3-18 3-6. . . . 2-3 2-3. 3-38 3-11. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3. . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6. . . . . . .) for Sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28 3-9. . . . . . . . . . . . Minimum Requirements for Drilled Shaft Design . . . . . . . . 1-8 Characteristics of Deep Foundations . . . . . . 6-1. . . 2-8 2-7. . . . Prestressed 2-4. . . . . . . . . . . . Cast-in-Place and Mandrel-driven Piles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .TXT . . . . . . . . Representative Values of g 50 for Stiff Clays . . . . . . . 5-4. . . Equivalent Mat Method of Group Pile Capacity Failure in Soft Clays . . 2-2 2-2. . . . C-3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Representative Values of k (lb/cu in. . . . . . . . . . . . . (This table is sized for 11" x 17" paper. . . . 3-7 3-3.

Other design methodology aspects are the following: a. Guidance is provided to assist the efficient planning. the structural resistance. 3. General Design Methodology A single drilled shaft or a group of driven piles is typically designed to support a column load. Some example problems and the most widely accepted computer methods are introduced. principles. The LFD. it does provide the following: a.” 4. Examples of types of loads applied to a structure include the live load QLL. Load factor design. “Pile Driving Equipment. design. For construction of deep foundations. The diameter of the piles may be increased to reduce the size of the pile cap if appropriate. Single and groups of driven piles and drilled shafts under axial and lateral static loads are treated. the following references are offered: (1) Some guidance for selection of pile driving equipment and construction of driven piles is provided in TM 5-849-1. The probability of occurrence of each load is accounted for by multiplying each Qi by a load factor F > i 1. and earthquake load QEL. The number of driven piles in a group is determined by dividing the column load by the design load of a single pile.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Chapter 1 Introduction 1. and construction of deep foundations. dead load QDL. 1992) and Pile Foundations in Engineering Practice (Prakash and Sharma 1989) for guidance on design of deep foundations subject to dynamic load. and the soil resistance are all related to the load factors as follows: (1) Definition. 2.0. “Drilled Shaft Inspector's Manual. Guidance is not specifically provided for design of sheet piles used as retaining walls to resist lateral forces or for the design of stone columns. The piles should be arranged in the group to provide a spacing of about three to four times the pile diameter B up to 6B. design. (2) Structural resistance. The sum of the factored loads shall not exceed the structural resistance and the soil resistance.” (2) Refer to Foundations (Pile Buck Inc. The sum of the factored loads shall be less than the design strength 1-1 . c. b. This publication is not intended for hydraulic structures. Deep foundations are literally braced (supported) column elements transmitting structure loads down to the subgrade supporting medium. Guidance for construction of deep foundations is provided only in minor detail. “Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods” and Association of Drilled Shaft Contractors (ADSC) Publication. wind load QWL. Other foundation structures may be designed as discussed below: (1) Shallow foundations will be designed using TM 5-8181. however. Procedures for Foundation Design of Buildings and Other Structures (Except Hydraulic Structures). and quality verification of the deep foundation. Scope General information with respect to the selection and design of deep foundations is addressed herein. This publication applies load factors for design (LFD) of the structural capacity of deep foundations. 5. Purpose This publication presents data. and methods for use in planning. The LFD may be defined as a concept which recognizes that the different types i of loads Qi that are applied to a structure have varied probabilities of occurence. Table 1-1 describes a general design methodology.” (2) Guidance for construction of drilled shafts is available in FHWA-HI-88-042. Applicability These instructions are applicable to all HQUSACE elements and USACE comands. “Soils and Geology. References Appendix A contains a list of references used in this publication. The value of Fi depends on the uncertainty of the load.

.

.

Driven piles are classified by the materials from which the pile is constructed. Types of Deep Foundations Deep foundations are classified with respect to displacements as large displacement. while nondisplacement piles are constructed in situ and often are called drilled shafts.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 6. Augered cast concrete shafts are also identified as drilled shafts in this publication. i. small displacement. depending on the degree to which installation disturbs the soil supporting the foundation (Table 1-2). and nondisplacement.e. Large displacement and small displacement piles are fabricated prior to installation and driven into the ground. timber.. Table 1-2 Types of Deep Foundations a. concrete. Large displacement piles. 1-4 . or filled or unfilled steel pipe.

The full bending resistance of timber pile splices may be obtained by a concrete cover (Figure 1-1a) (Pile Buck Inc.” for other details.” Steel piles are vulnerable to corrosion. These consist of a corrugated steel shell driven into the ground using a mandrel. Since the concrete is under continuous compression. (c) Timber piles are normally treated with creosote to prevent decay and environmental attack. These are generally used for comparatively light axial and lateral loads where foundation conditions indicate that piles will not be damaged by driving or exposed to marine borers. or a spiral. particularly in saltwater. (2) Precast concrete piles. (4) Steel piles. A mandrel is a heavy. transverse cracks tend to remain closed. Pipe piles may be driven either “open-end” or “closed-end. experience indicates they are not 1-5 . prestressed piles are usually more durable than conventionally reinforced piles. The shell consists of sections with variable diameters that increase from the tip to the pile head. soil condition. (3) Raymond step-tapered piles. Reinforced concrete piles are constructed with an internal reinforcement cage consisting of several longitudinal bars and lateral ties. or break when overdriven. Such piles have an indefinite life when constantly submerged or where cut off below the groundwater level. Timber piles can broom at the pile tip or head. The splice will provide the tensile strength required during driving when the resistance to driving is low. Some factors that might affect the performance of timber piles are the following: (a) Splicing of timber piles is expensive and timeconsuming and should be avoided. Prestressed concrete piles are constructed using steel rods or wire strands under tension as reinforcement. Influential factors for precast concrete piles include splices and steel points. and driving equipment. (a) Various splices are available to connect concrete piles. 1992) for additional splices. Refer to Federal Specifications TT-W-00571J. These piles include conventionally reinforced concrete piles and prestressed concrete piles. (d) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 25 provides physical specifications of round timber piles. however. Refer to “Foundations” (Pile Buck Inc. The mandrel is withdrawn after the shell is driven and the shell filled with concrete. Raymond step-tapered piles are predecessors of drilled shafts and are still popular in the southern United States. thus. (b) Tips of timber piles can be protected by a metal boot (Figure 1-1b). Overdriving typically occurs when the dynamic stresses on the pile head exceed the ultimate strength of the pile.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 (1) Timber piles. Other transition splicers are available to connect timber with cast concrete or pipe piles. Overdriving is the greatest cause of damage to timber piles. rigid steel tube shaped to fit inside the shell. split. 1992). Timber pile splice and boot (b) Special steel points can be attached to precast precast piles during casting of the piles and include steel H-pile tips or cast steel shoes (Figure 1-2). Figure 12a illustrates the cement-dowel splice. individual hoops. Figure 1-1. Pile driving is often decided by a judgment that depends on the pile. “Wood Preservation: Treating Practices. These are generally H-piles and pipe piles.

than timber piles and can withstand rough handling. Criteria are presently unavailable for computing the depth at which a driven. both axially and in bending. (b) Steel pipe piles. open-end pile will plug. (a) Steel H-piles. H-piles may not be suitable when tolerance is small with respect to location and where absolute plumbness is required. soft rock. Commonly used steel pipe piles are listed in Appendix B together with properties and dimensions. and cause minimal displacement of the surrounding soil while being driven. or 1-6 . Table 1-3 lists commonly available H-piles together with properties and dimensions. If the soil inside the pipe is removed during driving. the pipe becomes plugged and acts as a closed-end displacement pile. Hardened and reinforced pile tips should be used where large boulders.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 1-3. open-end piles in cohesionless soil will cause less soil displacement and compaction. If the soil inside the pipe is not removed during driving. This type can carry larger loads. Thus. coarse gravel. Schematics of H-piles and pipe piles are presented in Figure 1-3. Steel pipe piles are generally filled with concrete after driving to increase the structural capacity. Steel pile splices Figure 1-2. and soft rock with minimum damage. H-piles can be driven into dense soil. H-piles can bend during driving and drift from planned location. Concrete pile splice and boot significantly affected by corrosion in undisturbed soil. dense gravel. or hard debris may damage the pile. and in cohesive soils will cause less heaving of adjacent ground and nearby piles. In cases where the foundation contains boulders. Splices are commonly made with full penetration butt welds or patented splicers (Figure 1-3a).

Examples of uncased shaft are given in the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Manual of Concrete Practice (1986). Boreholes are caused where soil is weak and loose. cost of load testing program. stiff soils where loss of ground is not significant. Refer to Foundations (Pile Buck Inc. A cost analysis should also be performed that includes installation. Deep foundations transmit structural loads to deep strata that are capable of sustaining the applied loads. with or without casing. These are sometimes driven with the objective of increasing the density of loose. This pile consists of a drilled shaft with a concrete cylinder cast into a borehole. cohesionless soils and reducing settlement. locally available practices. and loss of ground into the excavation is significant. (5) Compaction piles. and other elements that depend on different types of deep foundations. and bearing capacity in hard soil or dense sand. Adequate safety factors are therefore used to avoid excessive movement that would be detrimental to the structure that is supported and to avoid excessive stress in the foundation. The base is not perfectly flat because the shaft is drilled first.” Large shafts greater then 36 inches in diameter are often called caissons. and by pile or shaft structural capacity in rock. lateral. The hole is usually bored with a short flight or bucket auger. A cased shaft is made by inserting a shell or casing into almost any type of bored hole that requires stabilization before placing concrete. but one or the other is usually dominant depending on the size. relative dimensions. 7. the open-end pile permits inspection after removal of the plug material and ensures that the load will be transferred directly to the load-bearing stratum. Piles with a heavy taper are often most effective in deriving their support from friction. Relevant codes and standards should be consulted with respect to allowable stresses. Selection of Deep Foundations Deep foundations provide an efficient foundation system for soils that do not have a shallow. or uplift forces and overturning moments which cannot otherwise be resisted by shallow footings. The bottom of the casing should be pushed several inches into an impervious stratum to seal the hole and allow removal of the drilling fluid prior to completion of the excavation and concrete placement. and soil characteristics. The limiting design criterion is normally influenced by settlement in soft and moderately stiff soil. Selection of a deep foundation requires knowledge of its characteristics and capacity. Uncased shafts may be constructed in firm. Information adequate for reaching preliminary conclusions about types of driven piles or drilled shafts to be selected for a project is given in Table 1-4. time delays. Other terms used to describe the drilled shaft are “pier” or “caisson. Splices are commonly made by full penetration butt welds or fillet wells (Figure 1-3b) or patented splicers. a. Nondisplacement may be categorized as follows: (1) Uncased shafts. load. Such unstable boreholes require stabilization by the use of slurry or slurry and casing. 1-7 . The term “pile” is commonly associated with driven deep foundations of relatively small diameter or cross section. Nondisplacement piles. Figure 1-4 illustrates a typical uncased drilled shaft with an enlarged base. This procedure of installing drilled shafts can be used as an alternative to the uncased and cased shafts discussed previously. cost of a pile cap. stable bearing stratum. Characteristics.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 other obstructions. These foundations derive their support from skin friction along the embedded length and by end bearing at the tip (base). The capacity of deep foundation is influenced by several factors: (1) Design limits. Capacity. Drilled shafts are not subject to handling or driving stresses and therefore may be designed only for stresses under the applied service loads. Careful inspection is required during installation. and shaft continuity should be verified by a combination of load tests and nondestructive testing as described in Chapter 6. Both factors contribute to the total ultimate pile capacity. and advantages and disadvantages. application. b. then the belling tool rotates in the shaft. Accurate predictions of load capacity and settlement are not always possible. A special type of nondisplacement deep foundation is the uncased auger-placed grout shaft. (4) Pressure-grouted shafts. hollow-stem auger to the required depth and filling the hole bored by the concrete grout under pressure as the auger is withdrawn. Shafts can be installed in wet sands using drilling fluid. Driven piles or drilled shafts are often used to resist vertical inclined. If an impervious stratum does not exist to push the casing into. Loss of ground could occur if the diameter of the hole is decreased because of inward displacement of soft soil or if there is caving of soil from the hole perimeter. the drilled shaft does not cause major displacement of the adjacent ground surface. Information in the table provides general guidelines in the selection of a type of deep foundation. (2) Cased shafts. the concrete can be placed by tremie to displace the drilling fluid. This shaft is constructed by advancing a continuous-flight. 1992) for additional information. Normally. b. (3) Drilling fluid shafts. This table lists major types of deep foundations with respect to capacity.

Dimensions and Properties (AISC 1969) 1-8 .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table 1-3 Standard H-piles.

These analyses are given in Chapter 3. unless the tip is supported by stiff clay. Drilled shaft details (1 in. or rock.5 inch of displacement. Figure 1-5 illustrates an example of the vertical axial load displacement behavior of a single pile or drilled shaft The load-displacement behavior and displacements that . thus increasing the diameter increases the load-carryin g capacity. = 25.4 mm) (2) Skin resistan mobilization. the cost of constructio n may be optimized by theselection of rigid shaftswithout underreams and with length/diameter ratios less than 10. For a drilled shaft that sustains no axial load. Lateral load capacity of a pile or drilled shaft is directly related to the diameter. T lateral load capacity of driven piles may be he increased by increasing the number of pile s 1-9 .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 1-4. dense sand. The selected shaft dimension s should minimize the volume of concrete required and maximiz e constuction efficiency. correspond to ultimateload are site specific and depend on the results of analyses. (3) Lateral loads. while end bearing may not be fully mobilize d until displacements ex ceed 10 to 20 percent of the base diameter or underream for drilled shafts. Full skin resistance is typically mobilized ce within 0.

Drilled shafts typically support many permanent onshore structures such as administratve buildings. dormitories. a pil e anchored as shown in Figure 1-6h can be used. though less efficient in resisting lateral loads. Axial-load deflection relationship (a) Figures 1-6a and 1-6b illustratepiles classified according to their behavior as end-bearing or friction piles. They are suitable for resisting large axial loads and lateral load s applied to the shaft butt (top or head) resulting fromwind forces. Groundwater conditions can be a deciding factor in the selection of driven piles rather than drilled shafts. The loads le shown are for guidance only and can vary widely from site to site . and soft soils. dry docks. Driven pile groups are typicallyused by th e Corps of Engineers to support locks. and they are considered critical where seismic or dynami c lateral loads are involved. Cylindrical shaftsare usually preferred to underreamed ones because of ease 1-10 . In order to y prevent undesirable movements of structures on shrink/swell soils. A pile embedded a significan t length into stiff clays. warehouses. (b) Piles designed primarly to resist upward forces are uplift or tension i piles (Figure 1-6c). are also less stiff and do not fail suddenly. Drilled shafts are especially suitable fo r supporting large co lumn loads of multistory structures and bridge abutments or piers. (2) Nondisplacement. Applications. and dense sands without significant end bearing resistance is usually a friction pile. these are also used for resisting uplif thrust applied to the shaft perimeter through soilt shaft interface friction and from heave of expansive soil. Often more than one type of driven pile may meet al l requirements for a particular structure. (1) Displacement. Vertical piles . and i clinics. Driven piles according to thei r application are presented in Figure 1-6. Batter piles are efficient n i resistinglateral lo ads but significantly reduce ductility of the pile group in the lateral direction. Figure 17 illustrates examp load ranges for drilled shafts in different soils. lagoons.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 and battering piles in a pile group. and the resistan to the upward force is by a combination ce of side (skin) friction and self weight of the pile. especially where excavation s cannot support fluid concrete and where the depth of the bearin g stratum is uncertain. A pile driven through relatively weak or compressible soil to an underlying stronger soil or rock is usually n a end-bearing pile. Dri en pile foundations are usually preferable v in loose. Uncase d shafts are generally excluded from consideration where artesian pressures are present. silts. (d) Piles are used to transfer lo from above water structures to below ads the scour depth (Figure 1-6f). These con flicting characteristics need to be balanced in design. Piles are also used to support structures that may be endangered b future adjacent excavations (Figure1-6g). and other offshor e applications. lakes. and other facilitie s constructed in river systems. Figure 1-5. Drilled shafts are divided into two groups: displacement and nondisplacement. c. cohesionless. resulting in a brittle failure. (c) Lateral forces are r sisted either by vertical piles in bending (Figure e 1-6d) or by batter piles or groups of vertical and batter piles (Figure 1-6e).

Othe r aspects of drilled shafts include: (a) Drilled shafts maysecure much or all of their vertical load capacity from frictional side resis tance (Figure1-7a).EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 in construction and ease in inspection. provide uplif t resistance to pullout loads. and disadvantages of drilled shafts. an resist uplift thrust from 1-11 . advantages. Table 1-5 provides further details of the applications. An enlarged base using a bell or underream may also increase the vertical load capacity.

low noise level. careful inspection necessary for casing method Best suited where small loads are to be supported Drilled Shafts 200 Shaft: # 120 Underreams: # 240 --- 0.25 f' c Compression: 0. high axial capacity. ft Optimum Length. ft Diameter Width.” C1-C12. low vibration.40 f' c Tension: 0 ACI Manual of Concrete Practice 75 30-60 Not possible to re-drive. resistant to deterioration. easy to cut. low capacities. high skin friction in sand. possible to drill through obstruction.25 f' c --- ACI Manual of Concrete Practice 300 60-100 Hard to inspect. isolated loads where soil conditions are favorable Note: Creosote and creosote treatment: “Standards for Creosoted-Wood Foundation Piles. resistant to damage from hard driving Low initial cost. vulnerable to collapse while adjacent piles are driven Best suited for medium-length friction pile Rammed concrete 60 --- 17-26 0. resistant to deterioration.09. resistant to damage from driving. Maximum Allowable Normal Stresses. difficult in forming joint Best suited where layer of dense sand is near ground surface Composite 180 60-120 Depends on materials Controlled by weakest materials --- See Note 200 30-80 Usual combinations are: cast-in-place concrete over timber or H-steel or pipe pile Auger Cast Concrete Shafts 60 24 --- 0.40 f' c Tension: 0 ACI Manual of Concrete Practice 40-100 Easy to inspect. psi Maximum Allowable Bending Stresses. $ 1 in. easy to handle.25 f' c Compression : 0. high lateral capacity. can eliminate caps Best suited for large axial lateral loads and small.25 f' c --- ACI Manual of Concrete Practice 40 --- Construction difficult when soils unfavorable. Vol 04. D 3200 Steel: ASTM Annual Book of Standards. easy to cut. Butt: # 23 Step tapered: # 17 Steel: 9. resistant to damage from hard driving Resistant to deterioration.000 200-400 Fast construction. Vol 01. displacement pile. displacement pile. difficult to splice.000 Concrete: 0. no displacement. A 252 1-12 . American Wood-Preservers Institute (1977-1979) Concrete: ACI Manual of Concrete Practice Timber: ASTM Annual Book of Standards. vulnerable to damage from hard driving EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Pile Type Driven Piles Cast-in-place concrete placed without mandrel Maximum Length. low initial cost Disadvantages Difficult to splice. in.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table 1-4 Characteristics of Deep Foundations Material Specifications Standards Maximum Load tons Optimum Load tons Advantages 150 150 30-80 Butt: 12-18 Steel shell: 9.04. high load capacity. cave-in prevented by shell Easy to inspect.000.25 f' c --- ACI 318 Soil: 3. long lengths at low initial cost No displacement. not possible to form base in clay Hard to inspect. thick Concrete: 0. difficult to inspect Field inspection of construction critical. capable of being re-driven. Vol 01.01. resistant to decay. large bearing area.000 Rock: 7. D 2899. no noise or vibration. displacement pile. psi Remarks Best suited for medium-length friction pile Cast-in-place concrete driven with mandrel Tapered: 40 Step tapered: 120 Tapered: 15-35 Step tapered: 40-60 Tip: 8.

Costs will depend on driving rig rental. Drilled shafts. isolated structures and may justify piles that can be installed using light. Costs are also influenced by downtime for maintenance and repairs. inadequate clearance for pile driving. supplies. (1) Driven piles. (b) The shaft may pass through relatively soft. Driven piles are often undesirable in congested urban locations because of noise. Jetting is the injection of water under pressure. and can extend to depths of 200 feet or more. Consideration should be given to including alternative designs in contract documents where practical. typically 10 feet or more. particularly auger-placed. Site investigation is required to complete foundation selection and design and to select the most efficient construction method. The first phase of the investigation is examination of site conditions that can influence foundation performance and construction methodology. These phases are accomplished bythe following: a. Other variables may restrict the utilization of deep foundation: (1) Access roads with limited bridge capacity and head room may restrict certain piles and certain construction equipment. Pile length is controlled by soil conditions and location of a suitable bearing stratum. e. Drilled shafts placed in weathered rock or that show lesser capacity than expected may require shaft bases to be placed deeper than anticipated. cost and freight of pile materials. dense sand. soil densification. 1-7c). Location and topography. Length. Piles exceeding 300 feet have been installed offshore. or other bearing soil overlaid by cohesive soil that will not cave when the hole is bored.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 heave of expansive soil. availability and suitability of driving equipment. An economic study should be made to determine the cost/capacity ratio of the various types of piles. fuel. and profit margin. handling. 1-7b). to preexcavate a hole and to assist pile penetration. d. (1) Driven piles. (d) Drilled shafts tend to be preferred compared with driven piles as the soil becomes harder. rock. Location and topo-graphy strongly influence selection of the foundation. and the potential for damage caused by vibration. and ground heave. Pile driving becomes difficult in these cases. Feasibility study. Prefabricated piles may also be undesirable if storage space is not available. Shafts subject to pullout loads or uplift thrust must have sufficient reinforcement steel to absorb the tension load in the shaft and sufficient skin friction and underream resistance to prevent shaft uplift movements. f. (2) The cost of transporting construction equip-ment to the site may be significant for small. and the driving vibration can adversely affect nearby structures. driving resistance. Local practice is usually an excellent guide. 1-13 local labor rates.The length of the deep foundation is generally dependent on topography and soil conditions of the site. Drilled shafts can be made to support large loads and are seldom constructed in closely spaced groups. Site and Soil Investigations The foundation selected depends on functional requirements of the structure and results of the site investigation. Drilled shafts are usually cost effective in soil above the water table and installation in cohesive soil. (e) Good information on rock is required when drilled shafts are supported by rock. insurance. A reconnaissance study should be performed to determine the requiriements of a deep . compressible deposits and develop vertical load capacity from end bearing on hard or dense granular soil (Fig. locally available equipment. many onshore areas have noise control ordinances which prohibit 24-hour pile driving (a cost impact). The seond phase is to evaluate characteristics of the soil profile to determine the design and the construction method. End-bearing capacity should be sufficient to support vertical loads supplied by the structure as well as any downdrag forces on the shaft perimeter caused by negative skin friction from consolidating soil (Fig. cutoffs. usually from jets located on opposite sides of the pile. and cost. 1-7b) or rock (Fig. splicing. and jetting. total pile weight. are often most economical if the hole can be bored without slurry or casing. 8. (c) Single drilled shafts may be constructed with large diameters. Piles up to 150 feet are technically and economically acceptable for onshore installation. Economy. Shaft length depends on the depth to a suitable bearing stratum. (2) Drilled shafts. (2) Drilled shafts. caps. pressure-grouted shafts. This length is limited by the capability of the drilling equipment and the ability to keep the hole open for placement of the reinforcement steel cage and concrete. overhead. tools. This may cause significant cost overruns. Also.

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 1-6. Driven pile applications (Continued) 1-14 .

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 1-6. (Concluded) 1-15 .

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 1-7. Load resistance of drilled shafts in various soils 1-16 .

equipment. and heave due to remolding are minimal compared with pile driving. Rigid limitations on allowable structural deformations. and Disadvantages Applications Support of high column loads with shaft tips socketed in hard bedrock. Disadvantages Inadequate knowledge of design methods and construction problems may lead to improper design. Heave and settlement are negligible for properly designed drilled shafts. 1-17 .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table 1-5 Drilled Shaft Applications. Pile caps unnecessary. Excavation possible for a wide variety of soil conditions. Provides anchorage to lateral overturning forces. consolidation. downdrag forces from settling soil. shafts not affected by handling or driving stresses. excavated soil examined to check against design assumption. underreams may be made in favorable soil to increase end-bearing capacity and resistance to uplift thrust or pullout forces. Avoids high driving difficulties associated with pile driving. penetration. underream) can be made during construction if required by soil conditions. Changes in geometry (diameter. rapid construction due to mobile equipment. Single shafts can carry large loads. careful inspection of excavated hole usually possible. cohesive soil. reasonable estimates of performance require adequate construction control. Supports high overturning moment and lateral loads when socketed into rock. Advantages. Support of moderate column loads with underreams seated on dense sand and gravel. boring tools can break obstructions that prevent penetration of driven piles. careful inspection necessary during inspection of concrete after placement difficult. noise level of equipment less than some other construction methods. small-diameter penetration tests may be made in small boreholes. Careful design and construction required to avoid defective shafts. Significant lateral variations in soils. In situ bearing tests may be made in large-diameter boreholes. Support of slopes with stability problems. Resists uplift thrust from heave of expansive soil. Support of light structures on friction shafts in firm. and pullout forces. low headroom needed. Provides lateral support for slopes with stability problems. Soil disturbance. and materials for construction usually readily available. nonexpansive. Advantages Personnel.

Failures difficult and expensive to correct. Some of these restrictions are on access. 1-18 (3) Local experience.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table 1-5 (Concluded) Disadvantages (Concluded) Construction techniques sometimes sensitive to subsurface conditions. The visual study should also determine ways to provide proper drainage of the site and allow the performance of earthwork that may be required for construction. The scope of this investigation depends on the nature and complexity of the soil. streams. Some forms of solid waste. visual inspection of the site and adjacent area.e. Enlarged bases cannot be formed in cohesionless soil. functional intent. depressions. Existence of former solid waste disposal sites within the construction area should be checked. (4) Potential problems with driven piles. location of utility lines and paved roads. b.” Special attention should be payed to the following aspects of site investigation: (1) Visual study. These parameters are frequently the consolidated-drained friction angle N for cohesionless soil. Maps may provide data on wooded areas. (2) Accessibility. concrete placement below slurry requires careful placement using tremie or pumping artesian water pressure can require weighting additives to drilling fluids to maintain stability. and cost of the structure. susceptible to “necking” in squeezing ground. The condition of existing structures prior to construction should be documented with sketches and photographs. Results of the soil investigation are used to select the appropriate soil parameters for design as applied in Chapters 2 through 5. and construction should be prepared and updated as the project progresses. rebar cage placement must be done in a careful. and evidence of earlier construction that can influence soil moisture and groundwater level. c. old car bodies and boulders. geology. load tests. The use of local design and construction experience can avoid potential problems with certain types of foundations and can provide data on successfully constructed foundations. Structural damage in nearby structures which may have resulted from excessive settlement of compressible soil or heave of expansive soil should be recorded. Soil investigation. Local building codes should be consulted. and the groundwater table elevation. and the scope of in situ soil and foundation load tests. End-bearing capacity on cohesionless soil often low from disturbance using conventional drilling techniques. caving or loss of ground in fissured or cohesionless soil. Prior experience with and applications of deep foundations in the same general area should be determined. extraction of casing is sensitive to concrete workability. A visual reconnaissance should check for desiccation cracks and nature of the surface soil. Construction may be more difficult below groundwater level. “Foundations in Expansive Soils. undrained shear strength Cu for cohesive soil. make installation of deep foundations difficult or result in unacceptable lateral deviation of driven piles. soil elastic modulus Es for undrained loading. and topographic and trafficability features of the site. and successful experience with recent innovations should be investigated. foundation designs. A detailed study of the subsurface soil should be made as outlined in TM 5-818-1.Consolidation and potential heave characteristics may also be required for clay soils and the needed parameters may be evaluated following procedures presented in TM 5-818-7. Required cost estimates and schedules to conduct the soil investigation. Guidance on determining potential problems of deep foundations in expansive clay is given in TM 5818-7. i. and local design and construction experience. underreams generally should be avoided below groundwater unless “watertight” formation is utilized for construction of underreams. location of obstructing structures and trees. Heave beneath base of shaft may aggravate soil movement beneath slab-on-grade. Site conditions. The site investigation should consider sensitivity of existing structures and utilities to ground movement caused by ground vibration and surface heave of driven piles. and size. Accessibility to the site and equipment mobility also influence selection of construction methods. soil dry unit weight. Refer to TM 5-818-1 for guidance on evaluating these parameters. Examination of the site includes history.. ponds. Other tests associated with soil investigation are: . controlled manner to avoid problems.

.

.

Variation Kcu for clay with respect to undrained shear strength and overconsolidation ratio 1-21 .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 1-8.

.

.

70 Spiral columns: 0.75 Tied columns: 0.85 Tied columns: 0. 1991) (Copyright permission.85 0.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table 2-2 Performance and Eccentricity Factors (Barker et al.20* Spiral columns: 0.78 0. Fe Spiral columns: 0.85 1.75 Tied columns: 0.70 pf Eccentricity Factor.85 Tied columns: 0. National Cooperative Highway Research Program) Type of Pile Prestressed concrete Performance Factor. Spiral columns: 0.80 Spiral columns: 0.80 Precast concrete Steel H-piles Steel pipe Timber Drilled shafts Note: pf is greater than unity for timber piles because the average load factor for vertical loads is greater than the FS.82 Spiral columns: 0. Eccentric load on a pile group 2-3 .87 0.75 Tied columns: 0.85 Tied columns: 0.70 0.80 0. Figure 2-1.

.

Limits to pile driving stresses 2-5 .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 2-2.

.

.

.

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table 2-7 Minimum Requirements for Drilled Shaft Design (Sheet 1 of 3) 2-9 .

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table 2-7 (Continued) (Sheet 2 of 3) 2-10 .

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table 2-7 (Concluded) (Sheet 3 of 3) 2-11 .

The minimum eccentricity should be the maximum permitted deviation of the shaft out of its plan alignment that does not require special computations to calculate the needed reinforcement if larger eccentricities are allowed. Reinforcement steel should be full length for shafts constructed in expansive soil and for shafts requiring casing while the hole is excavated. The maximum factored vertical working load. Under such conditions. smaller amounts of reinforcement may be used if justified on the basis of relevant and appropriate computations.25 for a shaft supporting a bridge column. are used to calculate Mmax . Table 2-7 describes evaluation of the shaft cross section and percent reinforcement steel required for adequate shaft strength under design loads. An example is worked out in Table 2-7c for FDL = 1. is required to determine the amount of reinforcement steel to resist bending. and the estimate of the maximum applied lateral load. (4) The maximum applied axial load should also include maximum downdrag forces for a shaft in compressible soil and the maximum uplift thrust for a shaft in expansive soil. bending moments. Shaft diameter should be increased if the reinforcement steel required to resist bending such that adequate voids through the reinforcement cage will be provided to accommodate the maximum aggregate size of the concrete. If bending moments and shears are not specified. is 1 percent of the total cross-sectional area of drilled shaft expected to be exposed along their length by scour or excavation. Design example. 2-12 . The full amount of reinforcing steel is not required near the bottom of the pile because bending moments are usually negligible near the pile bottom. Qw. normally recommended.05Bs when spiral cages are used. b. Mmax. Uplift thrust may develop before the full structural load is applied to the shaft.1Bs. (3) The minimum reinforcement steel. Chapter 4 discusses procedures for calculating the distribution of bending moments to determine where steel will be placed in the pile. the minimum eccentricity should be the larger of 2 inches or 0. Tmax. Eccentrically vertical applied loads can generate additional bending moments. where Bs is the shaft diameter. when tied cages of reinforcement steel are used and 1 inch or 0.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 4. and shear stresses in addition to compressive stresses from vertical loads. (1) The maximum bending moment.35 and FLL = 2. Eccentricity. a. (2) Load factors are applied to the design live and dead loads to ensure adequate safety against structural failure of the shaft. Structural Design of Drilled Shafts Most drilled shaft foundations will be subject to lateral loads.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The p-y curve method. Factors influencing behavior. and duration and frequency of loading. (2) Nature of soil response. Also. lateral seismic forces from earthquakes. The method has been used by the petroleum industry in the design of pile-supported platforms and extended to the design of onshore foundations as. Integration of the unit stresses will result in the quanity p which acts opposite in direction to y. The curve for x = x1 is drawn to indicate that the pile may deflect a finite distance with no soil resistance. steel pipe could be used with the wall thickness varied along the length. This distribution is correct for the case of a pile that has been installed without bending. bridges and large signs. the p-y curves are fully nonlinear with respect to distance x along the pile and pile deflection y. the centripetal force from vehicular traffic on curved highway bridges. Nonlinear soil response complicates the solution. The p-y method is extremely versatile and provides a practical means for design. fourth-order differential equation for the beam-column. There is no reasonable limit to the variations that can be employed in representing the response of the soil to the lateral deflection of a pile. deep foundation elements may be adequately designed by simple statis methods. Axial load. 4-1 . The method was suggested over 30 years ago (McCelland and Focht 1958). d. Batter piles are included in pile groups to improve the lateral capacity when vertical piles alone are not sufficient to support the loads. and the remote-reading strain gauge for use in obtaining soil-response (p-y) curves from field experiments. Reese. force of water flowing against the substructure of bridges. b. The stresses would have decreased on the back side of the pile and increased on the front side. Reese and his colleagues. L. The mechanisms. the computational procedure allows the detrmination of the axial load at which the pile will buckle. The soil around the pile is replaced by a set of mechanisms indicating that the soil resistance p is a nonlinear function of pile deflection y. and backfill loads behind walls. c. (1) Definition of p and y. Deep foundations must often support substantial lateral loads as well as axial loads. with the permission of Dr. The manner in which the soil responds to the lateral deflection of a pile can be examined by examined by considering the pipe pile shown Portions of this chapter were abstracted from the writings of Dr. but not frequently necessary. The dimensions of p are load per unit length along the pile. The loading on the pile is general for the two-dimensional case (no torsion or out-of-plane bending). The sketch in Figure 4-2a shows a uniform distribution of unit stresses normal to the wall of a cylindrical pile. for example by publications of the Federal Highway Administration (USA) (Reese 1984). Both normal and a shearing stress component may developed along the perimeter of the cross section. design methodology for lateral loads is more complex. If the pile is caused to deflect a distance y (exaggerated in the sketch for clarity). Two developments during the 1950's made the method possible: the digital computer for solving the problem of the nonlinear. mobilization of resistance in the surrounding soil. The difference-equation method is employed for the solution of the beam-column equation to allow the different values of bending stiffness to be addressed. are widely spaced but are considered to be very close in the analysis. boundary conditions (fixity at ends of deep foundation elements). buildings. to vary the bending stiffness with bending moment that is computed during interation b. General concept. Some causes of lateral loads are wind forces on towers. Description of the Problem a. and the corresponding curves that represent their behavior. The definitions of p and y that are presented are convenient in the solution of the differential equation and are consistent with the quantities used in the solution of the ordinary beam equation. 2. C.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Chapter 4 1 Lateral Loads 1. As shown later. The curve at x = x2 is drawn to show that the soil is deflectionsoftening. c. Soil representation. it is possible. for example. An axial load is indicated and is considered in the solution with respect to its effect on bending and not in regard to computing the required length to support a given axial 1 load. The model shown in Figure 4-1 is emphasized in this document. a. the distribution of unit stresses would be similar to that shown in Figure 4-2b. The behavior of laterally loaded deep foundations depends on stiffness of the pile and soil. As may be seen in Figure 4-1. The horizontal lines across the pile are intended to show that it is made up of different sections. While axially loaded. The solution must ensure that equilibrium and soil-structure-interation compatability are satisfied. Design philosophy. Cause of lateral loads. Nonlinear Pile and p-y Model for Soil. The definition of the quantities p and y as used here is necessary because other approaches have been used.

the deflection at point a may be small. With regard to the ultimate resistance at element A in Figure 4-3. At point b the ultimate soil resistance is reached. The horizontal force Fp against the pile can be computed by summing the horizontal components of the forces on the sliding surfaces. (a) Ultimate resistance to lateral movement. BCF. and soil in contact with the pile is represented by the surface CDEF. Figure 44 shows a p-y curve that is conceptual in nature. the element A is near the ground surface and the element B is several diameters below the ground surface. taking into account ote gravity force on the wedge of soil. Model of pile under lateral loading with p-y curves in Figure 4-3. it is assumed that the value of the horizontal force on the pile is 4-2 . The branch of the p-y curves 0-a is representative of the elastic action of the soil. The curve is plotted in the first quadrant for convenience and only one branch is shown. The branch a-b is the transition portion of the curve. For a given value of H. Figure 4-5 shows a wedge of soil that is moved up and away from a pile.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 4-1. and AEFB. The ground surface is represented by the plane ABCD. The following paragraphs will deal with the ultimate soil resistance. Consideration will be given here to the manner in which those two elements of soil react as the pile deflects under an applied lateral load. failure of the soil in shear will occur on the planes ADE. The curve properly belongs in the second and fourth quadrants because the soil response acts in opposition to the deflection. Two slices of soil are indicated. If the pile is moved in the direction indicated.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Pile deflection produced by lateral load at mudline 4-21 .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 4-17.

Pile deflection produced by moment applied at mudline 4-22 .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 4-18.

.

Slope of pile caused by lateral load at mudline 4-24 .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 4-19.

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 4-20. Slope of pile caused by moment applied at mudline 4-25 .

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97

Figure 4-21. Bending moment produced by lateral load at mudline

4-26

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97

Figure 4-22. Bending moment produced by moment applied at mudline

4-27

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97

Figure 4-23. Shear produced by lateral load at mudline

4-28

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 4-24. Shear produced by moment applied at mudline 4-29 .

Deflection of pile fixed against rotation at mudline 4-30 .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 4-25.

.

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 4-26. Soil-response curves 4-32 .

.

Graphical solution for relative stiffness factor 4-34 .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 4-27.

However. the maximum moment from the hand method and from computer agree fairly well.955 1.962 0.247 -0. The computation of the buckling load can only be done properly with a computer code.2 inches.0 3.422 0. The results showed that the groundline deflection increased about 0. lb/106) 0 0. An examination of Figure 4-27a shows that is impossible to fit a straight line through the plotted values of Es versus depth.036 inches.050 y (in. and the maximum bending moment increased about 0.567 0.0 0.51 0. an excellent procedure is to perform computations with upper-bound and lower. the computed values of maximum bending moment from the hand solution and from computer agreed remarkably well.8 1.5 4.41 1. The selection of the factor of safety to be used in a particular design is a function of many parameters. As shown in the statement about the dimensions of the pile.43 2.5 3. Es = kx will not yield a perfect solution to the problem.074 -0. as demonstrated in Figure 4-28. Alternatively. yielded an ultimate load of 52 kips. (7) Apply global factor of safety (step 7).23 -0.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 The following table shows the computation of the values of deflection and bending moment as a function of depth. therefore.91 0.) 2.4 1. The deflection corresponding to that load was about 3.70 1.29 1.05 certain that the two methods could not have been brought into perfect agreement. but the computed deflection at the top of the pile is about one-half the value from the nondimensional method.99 1. However.50 1.15 0.649 0. (6) Repeat solutions for loads to obtain failure moment (step 6).0 M (in.727 0.198 0. The effect of the axial loading on the deflection and bending moment was investigated with the computer by assuming that the pile had an axial load of AM 0.341 1. the shapes of both sets of curves are similar. the difference in the results of such computations may suggest the performance of further tests of the soil or the performance of full-scale field tests at the 4-35 . not shown here. using the above equations.696 0.933 1. As may be seen.70 0.081 0.02 -0. One can conclude that a closed convergence may have yielded a smaller value of the relative stiffness factor to obtain a slightly better agreement between the two methods.0 Ay 2.767 0.063 0. The same problem was solved by computer and results from both methods are plotted in Figure 4-28.8 2.80 1. the ability to use an axial load in the computations becomes important when a portion of a pile extends above the groundline.11 1.058 × 106 in-lb.07 -0.544 0.945 1.204 0 100 kips.379 0.738 0.07 -0.832 1. even with imperfect fitting in Figure 4-27a and with the crude convergence shown in Figure 4-27b.772 0.) 0 17 34 50 67 84 101 118 151 210 252 294 336 z 0.bound values of the principal factors that affect a solution. The results.6 0.499 0. the ultimate bending moment was incremented to find the lateral load Pt that would develop that moment. the axial load caused an increase of only about 3 percent in the values computed with no axial load. thus.2 0.2 1.075 -0.754 1. A comparison of the results may suggest in a particular design that can be employed with safety.0 1. In connection with a particular design.4 0.020 -0.0 0.636 1. but it is Depth (in.532 0.22 0.225 0.

the codes are being constantly refined to make them more versatile. In this latter case. when properly interpreted. 5. is an effective method. applicable to a wider range of problems. However. The finite element method may come into more use in time but. Status of the Technology The methods of analysis presented herein will be improved in time by the development of better methods of characterizing soil and by upgrading the computer code. employing curves at discrete locations along a pile to represent the response of the soil or distributed loading. and easier to use.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 construction site. 4-36 . can lead to better ideas about the response of the soil. at present. The solution of the difference equations by numerical techniques. it is unlikely that there will be much changein the basic method of analysis. These tests. From time to time tests are being performed in the field with instrumented piles. information on the characterization of the soil by that method is inadequate.

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 4-28. Comparison of deflection and bending moment from nondimensional and computer solutions 4-37 .

The load capacity of drilled shafts in cohesionless soils spaced less than 6B may therefore be less than the sum of the capacities of the individual shafts. b. The length of the cutoff should be determined from a flow net or other seepage analysis. Sheet pile cutoffs enclosing a pile group may change the stress distribution in the soil and influence the group load capacity. The apparent stiffness of a pile in a group may be greater than that of an isolated pile driven in cohesionless soil because the density of the soil within and around a pile group can be increased by driving. Chapter 2. Calculation of the distribution of loads in a pile group is considered in paragraph 2b. The pile group is often joined at the ground surface by a concrete slab such as a pile cap. The distribution of loads applied to a pile group are transferred nonlinearly and indeterminately to the soil. A computer assisted method such as described in Chapter 5. batter. Driving. Cyclic. Driven piles are normally placed in groups with spacings less than 6B where B is the width or diameter of an individual pile. The modulus of submerged sands should be reduced by the ratio of the submerged unit weight divided by the soil unit weight. The angle of inclination should rarely exceed 20 degrees from the vertical for normal construction and should never exceed 26½ degrees. spacing of less than 6B can be used without significant reduction in load capacity. cyclic. If pile spacing within the optimum range.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Chapter 5 Pile Groups 1. and transient loads affect the ability of the pile group to resist the applied forces. Fixing the pile rather than pinning into the pile cap usually increases the lateral stiffness of the group. Displacements can double in some cases. the load capacity of groups of driven piles in cohesionless soils can often be greater than the sum of the capacitites of isolated piles. The elastic soil modulus Es and the lateral modulus of subgrade reaction E1s relate lateral. Boreholes prepared for construction of drilled shafts reduce effective stresses in soil adjacent to the sides and bases of shafts already in place. A ridgid cap can be assumed if the stiffness of the cap is 10 or more times greater than the stiffness of the individual piles. Factors Influencing Pile Group Behavior Piles are normally constructed in groups of vertical. Recommended factors of safety for pile groups are also given in Table 3-2. 2. Battered piles should be avoided where significant negative skin friction and downdrag forces may occur. 1985). The pile group as a whole may not reflect this increased stiffness because the soil around and outside the group may not be favorably affected by driving and displacements larger than anticipated may occur. f. is recommended for a detailed solution of the performance of driven pile groups. Stiffness of pile cap. Battered piles are used in groups of at least two or more piles to increase capacity and loading resistance. g. Exceptions include using drilled shafts as retaining walls or to improve the soil by replacing existing soil with multiple drilled shafts. because driving can compact sands and can increase skin friction and end-bearing resistance. The net pressure acting on the cutoff is the sum of the unbalanced earth and water pressures caused by the 5-1 . Nature of loading. vibratory. A fixed connection between the pile and cap is also able to transfer significant bending moment through the connection. and rotational resistance of the pile-soil medium to displacements. d. Factors considered below affect the resistance of the pile group to movement and load transfer through the pile group to the soil. or repeated static loads cause greater displacements than a sustained static load of the same magitude. Drilled shafts. The thickness of the pile cap must be at least four times the width of an individual pile to cause a significant influence on the stiffness of the foundation (Fleming et al. A rigid cap can usually be assumed for gravity type hydraulic structures. Water table depth and seepage pressures affect the modulus of cohesionless soil. Interaction effects between adjacent piles in a group lead to complex solutions. Batter piles should be avoided where the structure’s foundation must respond with ductility to unusually large loads or where large seismic loads can be transferred to the structure through the foundation. The stiffness of the pile cap will influence the distribution of structural loads to the individual piles. a. The fixity of the pile head into the pile cap influences the loading capacity of the pile group. Batter. Figure 5-1a. a. or a combination of vertical and batter piles. as generally true for massive concrete caps. b. dynamic. Sheet pile cutoffs. e. Driven piles. For end-bearing drilled shafts. The minimum vertical embedment distance of the top of the pile into the cap required for achieving a fixed connection is 2B where B is the pile diameter or width. c. axial. because these foundations can be constructed with large diameters and can extend to great depths. Static. Figure 5-1b. Drilled shafts are often not placed in closely spaced groups. paragraph 4. Design Considerations This chapter provides several hand calculation methods for a quick estimate of the capacity and movement characteristics of a selected group of driven piles or drilled shafts for given soil conditions. and the moment. Soil modulus. A group of fixed piles can therefore support about twice the lateral load at identical deflections as the pinned group. Fixity.

Deep foundations where spacings between individual piles are less than six times the pile width B cause interaction effects between adjacent piles from . such as a concrete cutoff. Interaction effects. Groups of deep foundations cutoff. will transfer the unbalanced earth and water pressures to the structure and shall be accounted for in the analysis of the pile group. Rigid cutoffs.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 5-1. Steel pile cutoffs should be considered in the analysis as not totally impervious. 5-2 h. Flexible steel sheet piles should cause negligible load to be transferred to the soil.

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table 5-1 Equivalent Mat Method of Group Pile Capacity Failure in Soft Clays where 5-6 n = number of piles in the group .

.

.

.

.

.

Simplified structure showing coordinate systems and sign conventions 5-12 .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 5-4.

Set of pile resistance functions for a given pile 5-13 .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 5-5.

.

In making the computations.005.3 & 3. It 5-15 . Table 5-4 shows the movements of the origin of the global coordinate system when equation 5-19 through 5-21 were solved simultaneously.3 % 141. Therefore. The subsurface soils at the site was further assumed that the pile heads were free to rotate.4.2 cos 14 &14. The forces P1 .3 sin 14 ’ 24.9 ft&kips OK Figure 5-7.2 % 14. Ph = 21 kips. That diagram is shown in Figure 5-7. and 22.0 kips OK EFh ’ 15. As noted earlier. The resolution of the loads at the origin of the global coordinate system resulted in the following service loads: Pv = 46 kips. The loadings were such that the pile response was almost linear so that only a small number of iterations were Figure 5-8. A value of the submerged unit weight of 46 pounds per cubic foot as employed and the value of g50 was estimated to be 0.2 % 94. and M = 40 foot-kips (some rounding was done).5) & (14.5 ’ 115.4 & 5. Ps .3 sin 14) (1. (6) Verify results. and moments are shown in Table 5-5.5 ) % ( 97. There was a considerable range in the undrained shear strength of the clay and an average value of 3 kips per square foot was used in the analysis.2 ’ 99. The flexural rigidity EI of the piles was computed to be 5. loads.4. the assumption was made that all of the load was carried by piles with none of the load taken by passive earth pressure or by the base of the footing. the loadings shown in Table 5-3 were used in the preliminary computations. the factor of safety must be in the loading.5 ) ’ & 36.6.5 kips. The surface of the backfill is treated to facilitate a runoff. The curve is shown in Figure 5-8.6 ’ 52.2 sin 14 ’ 15.56 × 109 pounds per square inch.2 % 13. The computed pile-head movements. Axial load versus settlement for reinforced concrete pile required to achieve converenge. Interaction diagram of reinforced concrete pile consist of silty clay. P2 . A field load test was performed at the site and the ultimate axial capacity of a pile was found to be 176 kips.2 ) (1. respectively. The computed loading on the piles is shown in Figure 5-9 for Case 4.9 % 23. Computer Program PMEIX was run and an interaction diagram for the pile was obtained. and weep holes are provided so that water will not collect behind the wall.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 with no fine particles. The water table was reported to be at a depth of 10 feet from the soil surface. The water content averaged 20 percent in the top 10 feet and averaged 44 percent below 10 feet. The moment of inertia of the gross section of the pile was used in the analysis. 4. The following check is made to see that the equilibrium equations are satisfied.7 kips OK EM ’ & (24.3 cos 14 % 97.2 % 97. 18. E Fv ’ 24.2 cos 14) ( 1. An analysis was made to develop a curve showing axial load versus settlement. and wP (shown in Figure 5-6) were computed as follows: 21.

1980). Further checks on compatibility can be made by using the pile-head loadings and Computer Program COM622 to see if the computed deflections under lateral load are consistent with the values tabulated in Table 5-5.16 0.054 inch. While such methods are instructive. One check can be made at once.4 × 10-4 1. 1 2 3 4 0. If the assumptions made in performing the analyses are appropriate. One method is closely akin to the use of efficiency formulas.203 Rotation rad 9 × 10-5 1. the retaining wall is in equilibrium. the piles could probably support a wall of greater height.004 0.19 Table 5-4 Computed Movements of Origin of Global Coordinate System Case Vertical movement v in. the results of the analyses show the foundation to be capable of supporting the load. there is ample evidence to show that soils cannot generally be characterized as linear.005 0.012 Horizontal movement h in. c.5 times service load 2 times service load 2.5 40 60 80 100 service load 1. The theory of elasticity has 5-16 been employed to take into account the effect of a single pile on others in the group. homogeneous. ft-kips Comment Note: Pv /Ph = 2.5 times service load moment.08 0. Two approaches to the analysis of a group of closely spaced piles nder lateral load are given in the following paragraphs. a value in reasonable satisfied. kips Pv 1 2 3 4 46 69 92 115 Ph 21 31. No firm conclusions can be made concerning the adequacy of the particular design without further study. Banerjee and Davies 1979) that assume a linear response of the pile-soil system.6 × 10-4 8.12 0. Referring to agreement with the value in Table 5-5. elastic materials.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table 5-3 Values of Loading Employed in Analyses Case Loads. Excellent agreement was obtained between their computed results and results from field experiments (Matlock et al.5 42 52. . an axial load of 97. A further check can be made to see that the conditions of compatibility are Figure 5-8. Solutions have been developed (Poulos 1971. 0.4 × 10-5 Thus.008 0. and the other method is based on the assumption that the soil within the pile group moves laterally the same amount as do the piles. As a matter of fact. Bogard and Matlock (1983) present a method in which the p-y curve for a single pile is modified to take into account the group effect.2 kips results in an axial deflection of about 0. Closely spaced piles.

.

.

5. Maxtrix methods are used to incorporate position and batter of piles as well as piles of different sizes and materials. a rigid pile cap. Program CPGA provides a threedimensional stiffness analysis of a group of vertical and/or battered piles assuming linear elastic pile-soil interaction. the groudline deflection was 0. Computer Assisted Analysis A computer assisted analysis is a reasonable alternative for obtaining reliable estimates of the performance of pile groups. STRUDL. Plan and evaluation of foundation analyzed in example problem 5-19 . Computer program CPGG displays the geometry and results of program CPGA. b. c. If a single pile is analyzed with a load of 50 kips. Program CPGD (in development stage at WES) includes viscous damping and response-spectrum loading to determine pile forces and moments. Several computer programs can assist the analysis and design of groups. Therefore. CPGC. the solution with the imaginary large-diameter single pile was more critical.1 kips per square inch. A finite element computer program such as STRUDL or SAP should be used to analyze the performance of a group of piles with a flexible base. d. a. Computer program (Smith and Mlakar 1987) extends the rigid cap analysis of program CPGA to provide a simplified and realistic approach for seismic analysis of pile foundations. CPGD. Computer program CPGC develops the interaction diagrams and data required to investigate the structural capacity of prestressed concrete piles (WES Instruction Report ITL-90-2). CPGA. and a rigid base (WES Technical Report ITL-89-3).EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 The deflection and stress are for a single pile. Figure 5-10.355 inch and the bending stress was 23.

These methods are nondestructive and usually permit the tested piles or drilled shafts to be used as part of the foundation. The pile velocity component models depend on soil damping charactertistics where the relationship between soil resistance and velocity is linear and the slope of such relationship is the damping constant. (1) Computer program GRLWEAP. A pile can also be damaged during extraction. and theother depends on pile velocity. Unfortunately. Such problems result from inadequate information of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions provided to the contractor. Most problems with drilled shafts are related to construction deficiencies rather than design. Hammer selection is simplified by using the hammer data file that contains all the required information for numerous types of hammers. Piles driven into soils with variable stratification that show driving records containing erratic data. A wave equation analysis is recommended. Analyses by wave equation and pile driving are presented. The distribution of soil resistance between skin friction and end bearing. and to avoid unnecessary overdesign of the foundation. inadequate reinforcement. inadequate clean-out including the presence of water in the excavation prior to concrete placement. Refer to paragraph 4. Foundation Quality Construction can cause defects in driven piles or drilled shafts. Pile displacement dependent resistance models static soil behavior.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Chapter 6 Verification of Design 1. and other complications during concrete placement. which is the quake. Table 6-1 illustrates an example procedure for verifying pile design. a. Wave Equation Analysis of Pile Driving. a. restrikes. Failure to reach the prescribed tip elevation or penetration rate also indicates pile damage. indicate possible pile damage. is also required. GRLWEAP models the pile driving and soil system by a series of elements supported by linear elastic springs and dashpots with assumed parameters. Figure 6-1. This analysis may be accomplished using program GRLWEAP (Goble et al. Typically 2 to 5 percent of the production piles should be driven as indicator piles. Drilled shaft failures may result from neglecting vertical dimensional changes in shrinking and swelling soil as those described in TM 5-818-7. 1988). licensed to WES. Information required to use this program includes indentification of the hammer (or ram) and hammer cushion used. 2. End-bearing piles may have all of the soil resistance in end 6-1 . and a sudden decrease in driving resistance or interference with nearby piles as indicated by sound or vibration. Other indicators include drifting of the pile off location. The penetration resistance in blows/feet (or blows/inch) measured when the pile tip has been driven to the required depth can be used to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity and verify design. Each dashpot and spring represent a pile or soil element. which should be altered depending on local experience. which cannot be explained by the construction method. Chapter 6. A simple guide for selection of soil input parameters to model the soil resistance force is provided as follows: (a) The soil resistance force consists of two components. pile driving analysis (PDA) with the wave equation. at the start of construction at locations specified by the design engineer or at suspicious locations to confirm the capability of the driven piles to support the structure. Indicators of problems with drilled shafts. for estimating the behavior of pile driving and confirming pile performance. and it is assumed to increase linearly up to a limiting deformation. Table 6-2 gives recommended soil parameters. Wave equation analysis. Program GRLWEAP and user’s manual with applications are available to offices of the Corps of Engineers. and pile load tests can determine the ability of the pile to carry design loads. This chapter describes methods commonly used to verify the capability of the foundation to support a structure. for guidance on load tests. Driven Piles Piles can be bent or sheared during installation and can cause a reduction in pile capacity. erratic driving unexplained by the soil stratification. one depends on pile displacement. The quality of the foundation should be verified to ensure adequate structural integrity. except for the simplest projects when adequate experience and data already exist. Indicators of problem with driven piles. PDA should also be performed during the driving of indicator piles and some static load tests performed to calibrate wave equation analyses. and soil input parameters. specifically when soil layers have variable density or strength or when there is no significant end bearing resistance. which depend on the pile and soil bearing strata. to limit displacements of the structure to within acceptable levels. Field test procedures such as standard penetration tests. Piles can also undergo excessive tensile stresses during driving. Deformation beyond the quake requires no additional force. an installed deep foundation is mostly below the ground surface and cannot be seen. description of the pile. to carry the required load without a bearing capacity failure. b. Wave equation analyses can relate penetration resistance to the static ultimate bearing capacity. Quake and damping constants are required for both skin friction and end-bearing components.

(b) A bearing-capacity graph is commonly determined to relate the ultimate bearing capacity with the penetration resistance in blow/feet (or blows/inch). Sound judgment and experience are required to estimate the proper input parameters for wave equation analysis. Each site is unique and often has unforeseen problems. Static load tests can be significantly reduced for sites where dynamic test results are reliable. The driving force can be adjusted by the contractor to maintain pile tensile and compressive stresses within allowable limits. using the PDA and Case methods to determine actual bearing capacity that includes soil freeze and relaxation. The penetration resistance measured at the pile tip is compared with the bearing-capacity graph to determine how close it is to the ultimate bearing capacity. Changes may be required in the testing program. A wave equation analysis should be performed prior to pile driving as a guide to select properly sized driving equipment and piles to ensure that the piles can be driven to final grade without exceeding the allowable pile driving stresses. Complete additional wave equation analysis using actual hammer performance and adjust for changes in soil strength such as from freeze or relaxation. quakes u . 2 3 4 5 6 7 bearing. Soil. Determine Qu . intact shale. Restrike the piles after a minimum waiting period. (2) Analysis prior to pile installation. particularly on large projects where savings can be made in foundation costs by use of lower factors of safety. or changes in pile driving. Additional piles should be dynamically tested during driving or restruck throughout pile installation as required by changes in soil conditions. load requirements. and an estimate of the load-displacement behavior. Drive to various depths and determine penetration resistances with the PDA using the Case method to determine the static ultimate bearing capacity Qu . at locations specified by the design engineer using driving criteria determined by the wave equation analysis.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table 6-1 Procedure for Verifying Design and Structural Integrity of Driven Piles Step 1 Procedure Complete an initial wave equation analysis selecting soil damping constants Jc . pile. distribution of soil resistance between skin friction and end bearing and the ultimate bearing capacity Qu . (3) Analysis during pile installation. pile driving stresses and structural integrity. and driving equipment. type and length of pile. (d) GRLWEAP is a user friendly program and can provide results within a short time if the engineer is familiar with details of the pile driving operation. or rock. and driving equipment parameters used for design should be checked to closely correspond with actual values observed in the field during installation. Dynamic tests may also be inconclusive if the soil resistance cannot be fully mobilized by restriking or by large strain blows such as in high capacity soil. (c) Wave equation analysis also determines the stresses that develop in the pile. while friction piles may have all of the soil resistance in skin friction. These stresses may be plotted versus the penetration resistance or the ultimate pile capacity to assist the contractor to optimize pile driving. typically 2 to 5 percent of the production piles. Use the proposed pile and driving system. (a) Hammer efficiencies provided by the manufacturer may overestimate energy actually absorbed by the pile in the field and . hammer efficiency. Drive indicator piles. usually 1 day. Perform CAPWAPC analysis to calibrate the wave equation analysis and to verify field test results. The analysis should be performed by 6-2 Government personnel using clearly defined data provided by the contractor. piles. Waivers to driving indicator piles and load testing requirements or approval for deviations from these procedures must be obtained from HQUSACE/CEMP-ET. Adjust driving criteria as needed to reduce pile stresses and to optimize pile driving. The contractor can then determine when the pile has been driven sufficiently to develop the required capacity. Perform static load tests to confirm the dynamic test results.

Significant cementation may not occur in several weeks. Strength regain is increased with time. Densification of sands during driving contribute to a buildup of pore pressure. (b) Results of wave equation analysis may not be applicable if soil freeze (setup) occurs. Results of the PDA and static load tests described below and proper inspection can be used to make sure that design parameters are realistic and that the driven piles will have adequate capacity. 6-3 . A bracket analysis is recommended for diesel hammers with variable strokes. after the soil freeze or setup. Saturated sensitive clays and loose sands may lose strength during driving which can cause remolding and increasing pore water pressure. Results of the PDA and ststic with variable strokes. Schematic of wave equation model may lead to an overestimate of the bearing capacity. but a reduction in pore pressure after driving and cementation that increases with time over a period of several weeks to months can contribute substantially to pile capacity. Significant error in estimating ahmmer efficiency is also possible for driving batter piles. Coral sands may have exceptionally low penetration resistance during driving.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 6-1.

The required data may be measured and pile performance evaluated in fractions of a second after each hammer blow using pile driving analyzer equipments. . The velocity v (t) is obtained by integrating the acceleration. The system includes two strain transducers and two accelerometers bolted to the pile near its top. and therefore. Table 6-2 Recommended Soil Parameters for Wave Equation (Copyright permission. This method uses the force F (t) and acceleration ä (t) measured at the pile top as a function of time during a hammer blow.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 (c) Penetration resistance is dense.05 (0. Bb is the effective tip (base) diameter.54) 0. Driving stresses in the pile shall not exceed allowable stress limits. or long-term changes in soil characteristics are considered.15 (0. The oscilloscope monitors signals from the transducers and accelerometers to indicate data quality and to check for pile damage. Pile driving analysis. Rausche. (2) Case Method. Goble. The Case method (Pile Buck. strip chart recorder.10 (2. Inc. The printer also documents input and output selections. and any other methods approved by the Government design engineer.50) 0. or clay stone can dramatically increase during driving. 6-4 (1) PDA equipment. Inc.90) Tip 0. and ultimate pile capacity. The resubmittal should include field verification using driving and load tests. seconds/ft (seconds/m) Soil Cohesionless Cohesive 1 Quake Skin u .54) Selected tip quake should not be less than 0. modem for transmitting data to a distant office or analysis center. friable shale. and a computer. which feed data to the pile driving analyzer equipment. (a) The strain transducers consist of four resistance foil gauges attached in a full bridge.16) 0. Driving equipment and piles shall be selected with sufficient capacity to overcome driving resistance or driving periodically delayed to allow pore water pressures to increse. Digital computations of the data are controlled with a Motorola 68000 microprocessor with output fed to a printer built into the pile driving analyzer. structural integrity. PDA is also useful when restriking piles after some time following pile installation to determine the effects of freeze or relaxation on pile performance. PDA can be performed routinely in the field following a schematic arrangement shown in Figure 6-2. The CAPWAPC analytical method is also applied with results of the PDA to calibrate the wave equation analysis and to lead to reliable estimates of the ultimate static pile capacity provided soil freeze.50) 0. confirms input data required for the wave equation analysis. (c) Data can be sent from the pile driving analyzer to other equipment such as a plotter. (e) Analysis of the bearing capacity and performance of the pile by wave equation analysis can be contested by the contractor and resolved at the contractor’s expense through resubmittals performed and sealed by a registered engineer. while an optional plotter can plot data. pile driving stresses.10 (2. final submerged sand. fissured. The tape recorder stores the data. apparently from dilation and reduced pore water pressure. (b) The piezoelectric accelerometers measure pile motion and consist of a quartz crystal that produces a voltage proportional to the pressure caused by the accelerating pile mass. Improvements in electronic instruments permit the measurement of data for evaluating hammer and driving system performance. inorganic silts or stiff. 1988) developed at Case Institute of Technology (now Case Western Reserve University) is the most widely used technique. A “relaxation” (decrease) in penetration resistance occurs with time after driving. Likins and Associates.30 (0. Piles driven into soils with freeze or relaxation effects should be restruck at a later time such as one or more days after driving to measure a more realistic penetration resistance for design verification.15 (0. oscilloscope.05 inch. The computer can be used to analyze pile performance by the Case and CAPWAPC methods. inches (mm) Tip1 Bb / 120 Bb / 120 Skin 0. The CAPWAPC method quakes and damping factors. 1988) Damping Constants Jc . (d) The pile shall be driven to a driving resistance that exceeds the ultimate pile capacity determined from results of wave equation analysis or penetration resistance when relaxation is not considered. relaxation. b. The PDA and its transducers were developed to obtain these data for the Case method. pipe piles should be plugged.

.

(a) The CAPWAPC method is begun using a complete set of assumed input parameters to perform a wave equation analysis. Qu and the dynamic (velocity dependent) D components are of the capacity. (f) The driving force must be sufficient to cause the soil to fail. and to confirm the determination of Qu calculated using the Case method. exceeds the quake (soil compression) required for full mobilization of soil r esistance. This is an analytical method that combines field measured data with wave equation analysis to calculate the static ultimate bearing capacity and distribution of the soil resistance. A proper correction can be made by adding the skin friction resistance that was unloaded to the mobilized soil resistance. Approximate damping constants Jc have already been determined for soils as given in Table 6-2 by comparing Case method calculations of static capacity with results of load tests. and the pile load-displacement behavior calculated by the CAPWAPC method may be used to evaluate the damping constant Jc .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 t1 is often selected as the time at the first maximum velocity. otherwise. quakes and soil resistances required in the Case method. Qu . ultimate capacity is only partially mobilized and the full soil resistance will not be measured. J c can be fine tuned to actual soil conditions if load test results are available. The CAPWAPC method is often used as a supplement to load tests and may replace some load tests. The upper shaft friction may unload if the pile top is moving upward before the full resistance is mobilized. is replaced by a velocity that is imposed at the top pile element. Piles may be restruck after a waiting period such as 1 day or more to allow dissipation of pore water pressures. (c) Proper calculation of Qu requires that the displacement obtained by integration of the velocity at time t1. The hammer model. R is the sum of the static soil (displacement dependent). which is used to calculate the pile velocity at the top. The imposed velocity is made equal to the 6-6 . (3) CAPWAPC method. Selection of time t1 corresponding to the first maximum velocity is usually sufficient. (e) Proper calculation to static resistance requires that freeze or relaxation effects are not present. v(t1). Distribution of soil resistance. (b) Static soil capacity Qu can be calculated from R by Qu ’ R & Jc (2 Zp Vtop & R) (6-2) where Vtop is the velocity of the wave measured at the pile top at time t1. (d) A correction for ealy skin friction unloading causing a negative velocity may be required for long piles with high skin friction.

to optimize pile driving. (c) Dynamic tests with PDA and the CAPWAPC method provide detailed information that can be used with load factor design and statistical procedures to reduce factors of safety and reduce foundation cost. to reduce construction cost. and to improve construction quality. 6-7 . Sonic techniques may be used to ascertain homogeneity of the foundation. The CAPWAPC method calculates the force required to give the imposed velocity. 3.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 velocity determined by integration of the acceleration. Drilled Shafts Drilled shafts should be constructed adequately and certified by the inspector. The detailed information on hammer performance. The soil input parameters are subsequently adjusted until the calculated and measured forces and calculated and measured velocities agree as closely as practical such as illustrated in Figure 6-3. Actual static load test results can be simulated within 10 to 15 percent of computed results if the available static resistance is fully mobilized and time dependent soil strength changes such as soil freeze or relaxation are negligible. to reduce pile stresses. (b) A simulated static load test may be performed using the pile and soil models determined from results of a CAPWAPC analysis. The velocity is calculated and then compared with the velocity measured at the pile top. Sonic wave propagation with receiver embedded in the concrete is the most reliable method for detecting voids or other defects. but the pile can still be used as part of the foundation. PDA can also be used to simulate pile load test to failure. Large shafts supporting major structures are sometimes tested to ensure compliance with plans and specifications. A large strain test may be conducted by dropping a heavy load onto the head of the shaft using a crane. while actual piles loaded to failure may not be suitable foundation elements. and the pile material can be provided to the contractor to optimize selection of driving equipment and cushions. The pile is incrementally loaded. and structural integrity is more thoroughly confirmed with the PDA method because more piles can be tested by restriking the pile than can be tested by applying actual static loads. Static load tests are commonly performed on selected shafts or test shafts of large construction projects to verify shaft performance and efficiency of the design. The CAPWAPC method is applicable for simulating static and dynamic tests. The foundation will be of higher quality. The CAPWAPC method may also be started by using a force imposed at the pile top rather than an imposed velocity. and the force and displacements at the top of the pile are computed to determine the load-displacement behavior. driving system. This calculated force is compared with the force measured at the pile top. Striking a drilled shaft as ina large strain test with PDA and wave equation analysis is recommended for analysis of the ultimate pile capacity and loaddisplacement behavior as decribed above for driven piles.

and any seepage. Characteristics to be observed and determined include determined include location of the 6-8 various strata. Example results of CAPWAPC analysis a. “Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods” and ADSC (1989) report. Soil classification provided by all available boring logs in the construction area should be correlated with the visual description of soil or rock removed from the excavation. These details can be used to modify excavation procedure and improve efficiency in the event of problems as well as to provide a complete record for later reference. The observer should also determine if the soil profile is substantially different from the one assumed for the design based on knowledge of the plans. (a) Excavation details such as changes in the advance rate of the boring tool and changes in the soil cutting. The design engineer should be at the construction site during boring of the first holes to verify assumptions regarding the subsurface soil profile and periodically thereafter to check on requirements for any design modifications. and previous geotechnical analysis. Any observed groundwater levels should also be recorded.” Construction and quality control include the following: (1) Borehole excavation. and bottom heave should be recorded. groundwater observations. Performance control. “Drilled Shaft Inspector’s Manual. location and nature of the bearing stratum.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 6-3. Complete details of a drilled shaft construction control and an example of quality control forms may be found in FHWA-HI-88-042. Continuous monitoring is essential to ensure that the boreholes are properly prepared to minimize loss of soil friction and end-bearing capacity and that the concrete mix is placed to achieve a continuous adequate shaft. specifications. .

Concrete slump should be greater than 6 inches and the amount of concrete placed in the excavation for each truck should be recorded. a liner or casing should be in place to protect against fall-in. admixtures. Casing should be clean. or boulders). smooth. (b) The excavation should be checked for proper length. (2) Placement of reinforcement. Excessive overruns or any underruns observed during concrete placement will require an investigation of the cause. mix proportions. Any unusual occurrence that affects shaft integrity should be described. The properties of the concrete mix and placement method must be closely monitored to avoid defects in the shaft. time of initiation and completion of the boring. Fresh air may be pumped through hoses extending to the bottom. including details of the tremie used to place the concrete. Electronic calipers may be used if the excavation was made with slurry or the hole cannot be entered for visual inspection. Determine any evidence of pervious lenses and groundwater. and underream dimensions. and the soil is in the correct bearing stratum. and he should be provided with adequate air supply. The cage should be checked for placement in the specified position and adequately restrained from lateral movement during concrete placement. The cage should be supported with the specified horizontal stirrups or spirals either tied or welded in place as required to hold bars in place and prevent misalignment during concrete placement and removal of casing. (c) Slurry used during excavation should be tested for compliance with mix specifications after the slurry is mixed and prior to placing in the excavation. Any lateral deviations from the plan location and unintentional inclination or batter should be noted on the report and checked to be within the required tolerance. diameter. A record of the type of cement. and hoisting equipment. Minimum diameter of casing for personal inspection is 2 feet. dry. squeezing. cased. or slurry). The lapse of time since excavation of the borehole and method of concrete placement. problems encountered during excavating (e. water has not collected on the bottom of open boreholes. An alternative to downhole inspection is to utilize ADSC drilled shaft inspectors manuals. Extreme safety precautions must be taken if an inspector enters an excavation to ensure no fall-in of material. Provided that all safety precautions have been satisified. the underream diameter can be checked by placing the underream tool at the bottom of the excavation and comparing the travel of the kelly when the underreamer is extended to the travel when it is retracted in the barrel of the underream tool.g. A small diameter test boring from the excavation bottom can be made and an undisturbed sample recovered to test the bearing soil. caving. and description of each soil stratum. In the event of entry.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Other important data include type of excavation (e. A plot of the expected quantity calculated from the excavation dimensions and the actual quantity should be prepared to indicate the amount and location of the concrete overrun or underrun. communications and lifeline. Depth of water in an open borehole should be less than 2 inches. and number of bars. should be recorded. The minimum spacing between bars should be checked to ensure compliance with specifications for adequate flow of concrete through the cage. (3) Concrete placement. and time loaded on the truck should be provided on the delivery ticket issued by the concrete supplier. quantities.. These tests are described in Table 6-3 and should be performed by the Government and reported to construction management and the designer. cobbles. seepage. size.g. and undeformed. The reinforcement cage should be assembled prior to placement in the excavation with the specified grade. estimates of location of changes in the soil strata. (d) The bottom of the excavation should be checked before placement of the reinforcement cage and concrete to ensure that all loose soil is removed.. 6-9 . and the location of the bearing stratum.

200 mesh screen so that sand particles are retained on the screen. Routine inspection with nondestructive tests (NDT) using wave propagation shall be performed to check the quality of the installed drilled shafts. The tip of the funnel is fitted into the clear measuring tube and water sprayed from a wash bottle on the screen. Place the balance arm into the fulcrum and move the rider on the balance arm to balance the assembly. The 10-minute gel strength is determined in a similar manner except that 10 minutes is allowed to pass before the tube is lowered over the scale. The content mixture is vigorously shaken. The sand particles are washed into a marked tube by fitting the large end of a funnel down over the top of the screen holder. expensive. The scale is vertically mounted in the container. Wipe excess slurry from the cup and lid. The percent volume of sand is read from the marked measuring tube after the sand has settled. Place a finger over the bottom chute of the funnel and fill the funnel with slurry through a screen at the top of the funnel until the slurry level reaches the bottom of the screen (1 quart capacity). Routine tests performed as part of the inspection procedure are typically inexpensive and require little time. The tube is allowed to settle for 1 minute and the shear strength recorded on the scale reading at the top of tube . Read the specific gravity from the scale on the balance. A specified amount of slurry is mixed in a marked tube. Tap the edge of the cup to break up any entrained air or gas. Additional special tests as indicated in the following paragraphs are performed if defects are suspected in some drilled shafts. The slurry is allowed to flow from the funnel through the chute and number of seconds required to drain the funnel is recorded. Viscosity 30 to 50 sec Marsh funnel – Shear strength 0.5 to 12 2 % maximum by volume Indicator paper API method - b. Time measured is the viscosity. The initial strength is determined by filling a container about 3 inches in diameter to the bottom line on a scale with freely agitated slurry. then inverting the screen and funnel assembly.03 psf to 0. A thin metal tube is lowered over the scale and released.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table 6-3 Specifications for Bentonite Slurry Supplied During Excavation Property Density Not less than necessary to bore shaft and less than 70 lb/cu ft Mud density – Test Method Constant volume sample cup with lid connected to a balance gravity arm is filled with slurry so when placing the lid some slurry is forced out of a hole in the lid.4 to 10 N/m2) Shearometer – pH Sand 9. Special tests to determine defects. A pH electric meter of pH paper may be used. however.2 psf (1. 6-10 (1) Routine inspection tests. are often time consuming. and all of it is then poured through a No. The most common routine NDT is to externally vibrate the drilled shaft by applying a sudden load as from a hammer or heavy weight dropped from a specified height. Nondestructive tests. Access tubes may also be installed in the shaft for down-hole instrumentation to investigate the concrete between access tubes. Refer to FHWA-HI-88-042 . Signals from the wave are recorded by transducers and accelerometers installed near the top of the shaft or embedded in the concrete at some location in the length of the shaft. and performed only for unusual situations.

Experienced personnel and proper equipment are also required to ensure that drilling is done correctly and on time. even though it cannot be considered a routine test for NDT. (b) The wave pattern of large displacements caused by dropping sufficiently large weights from some specified height can be analyzed by the PDA procedure and CAPWAPC method to determine the ultimate bearing capacity and load-displacement behavior. Coring can also detect defects that appear to be severe but are actually minor. (a) Drilling is much faster than coring. are plugged at the lower end to keep out concrete. (b) Coring can determine the amount of concrete recovery and the concrete samples examined for inclusions of soil or slurry. These tubes usually extend full length. One tube can check the quality of concrete around the tube or multiple tubes can check the concrete between the tubes. Drilled shafts that are suspected of having a defect may be drilled or cored to check the quality of the concrete. Various instruments can be lowered down the access tubes to generate and receive signals to investigate the quality of the concrete. and the hole may run out the side of the shaft or might run into the reinforcement steel. For example. (3) Drilling and coring. The embedded receivers provide a much reduced noise level that can eliminate much of the requirement for signal processing. An experienced operator can determine the quality of the concrete such as discontinuities and major faults if the length of the shaft is known. costly. but less information is gained. Compression tests can be performed to determine the strength of the concrete samples. (2) Access tubes and down-hole instruments. A change in the signal as the instruments are lowered indicates a void or imperfection in the concrete. and sometimes misleading. A caliper can measure the diameter of the hole and determine any anomalies. (c) A gamma-ray source can be lowered down one tube and a detector lowered down to the same depth in another tube to check the density of concrete between the source and detector. (d) Defects of large size such as caused by the collapse of the excavation prior to concrete placement or if concrete is absent in some portion of the shaft can be detected by drilling or coring. The cores can also be checked to determine the concrete to soil contact at the bottom of the shaft. This test can also be performed on a drilled shaft with only a single tube using a probe that contains the receiver separated by an acoustic isolator. is plotted. and Caiserman 1978). The direction of drilling is difficult to control. where v is the o maximum velocity at the head of the drilled shaft and Fo is the applied force. A single tube can be used to check the quality of concrete around the tube. Information below an enlarged section cannot be obtained. The force-time and velocity-time traces ofo the vibration recorded on the oscilloscope caused by a dynamic load can be interpreted by an experienced technician to determine discontinuities and their location in the concrete. (c) Holes bored in concrete can be checked with a television camera if such an instrument is available. Drilling is to make a hole into the shaft without obtaining a sample. (d) Forced vibrations induced by an electrodynamic vibrator over a load cell can be monitored by four accelerometers installed near the shaft head (Preiss.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 for further information. Coring is boring and removal of concrete sample. (b) An acoustic transmitter can be inserted in a fluidfilled tube installed in a drilled shaft and a receiver inserted to the same depth in an adjacent tube. A portion of a borehole can also be packed to perform a fluid pressure test to check for leaks that could be caused by defects. (c) Vibration from a hammer blow measured with embedded velocity transducers (geophones) can confirm any possible irregularities in the signal and shaft defects. Defects can be missed such as when the sides of a rock socket are smeared with remolded and weak material. Drilling and coring can indicate the nature of the concrete. 6-11 . coring can indicate weak concrete or poor material. The curve of vo /Fo . and are fastened to the rebar cage. The transducers are inexpensive and any number can be readily installed and sealed in epoxy-coated aluminum cases on the reinforcing cage with no delay in construction. Metal or plastic tubes can be cast longitudinally into a drilled shaft that has been preselected for special tests. Weber. The drilling rate can infer the quality of concrete and determine if any soil is in the shaft. (a) The PDA procedure as discussed for driven piles may also be used for drilled shafts. but the volume of concrete that is checked is relatively small and drilling or coring is time consuming. (a) A probe that delivers a sonic signal can be inserted down a tube and signal receivers inserted in other tubes. or poor contact with the end bearing soil or rock in the region of the core.

Tests conducted to failure without instrumentation determine the ultimate pile capacity Qu .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 but the remaining shaft could be sound and adequately supported by the soil. but do not indicate the separate components of capacity of end bearing Qbu and skin resistance Q . c. tests conducted to failure without internal instrumentation. and from previous experience. Proof tests do not determine the ultimate capacity so that the pile is often designed to support a higher load than necessary and can cause foundation costs to be greater than necessary. will determine the distribution of load carried by skin friction as a function of depth and will also determine the end-bearing capacity when conducted to failure. Load tests should be conducted early after the site is prepared and made accessible. and tests conducted to failure with instrumentation. Disadvantages include increased design time to allow for load tests and testing conditions and data extrated from a test site used in the design may not simulate actual construction conditions such as excavation. Advantages of completing the testing program prior to construction include discovery of potential and resolution of problems. The costs of load tests should be compared with potential savings when using reduced safety factors permitted with the tests. (2) Soil condition. The type and significance of a structure could offset the added cost of load tests for a complex foundation when the consequences of failure would be catastrophic. Limitations of proof tests. Some subsurface investigations may indicate unusual or highly variable soils that are difficult to define. (1) Application. c. Drilled shafts are often constructed in relatively large sizes and load tests are often not economically feasible. Testing should not interfere with construction. wave equation and pile driving analysis. An alternative to load tests is to construct the superstructure and to preload the structure to determine the integrity of the foundation. The only positive way to prove the integrity of a suspected drilled shaft is to perform a load test. groundwater. Load tests consist of applying static loads in increments and measuring the resulting pile movements. These tests are most frequently performed to assist in the design of major structures with large numbers of piles where changes in length. Chapter 6. Proof tests are not conducted to a bearing capacity failure of the pile or drilled shaft but usually to twice the design load. Some aspects of load tests that need to be considered are: a. (4) Location. for example. which are designed to prove that the pile can safely hold the design load or to determine the design load. Coral sands. Problems may also occur if different contractors and/or equipment are used during construction. Categories of load tests. and type of pile and installation method can provide significant cost savings. (2) Preload. determination of the appropriate type. Load tests are also used to verify capacity calculations and structural integrity using static equations and soil parameters. 4. Proof tests are not adequate when the soil strength may deteriorate with time such as from frequent cyclic loads in some soils. The contractor must wait for results before methods and equipment can be determined and materials can be ordered. Tests with internal su instrumentation. but not always economically feasible because they are expensive. Load Tests Field load tests determine the axial and lateral load capacity as a function of displacements for applied structural loads to prove that the tested pile or drilled shaft can support the design loads within tolerable settlements. (5) Timing. Factors to be considered before considering load test are: (1) Significance of structure. size. Results of load tests can be used to reduce the FS from 3 to 2 and can increase the economy of the foundation when performed during design. Soil parameters can be determined by laboratory and in situ tests. shall be performed for drilled shafts when economically feasible such as for large projects. (3) Availability of test site. Many load tests performed today are “proof” tests. determination of the optimum installation procedure. and fill. such as strain gauges mounted on reinforcement bars of drilled shafts or mounted inside of pipe piles. Load tests of driven piles should be performed after 1 or more days have elapsed to allow 6-12 . This test must be halted immediately if one or more drilled shafts show more settlement than is anticipated. can cause cementation that can degrade from cyclic loads. Selecting and timing load tests. Load tests are always technically desirable. Test piles should be located near soil test borings and installed piezometers. length and size of the piles. b. Replacing a suspected drilled shaft is often more economical than performing the load test. Load tests. Types of load tests performed are proof tests. Load tests as described in paragraph 4.

Loads are removed in decrements equal to the load increments after 1 hour at the maximum applied load. the Osterberg cell is welded to the bottom of the reinforcing cage. (3) Repeated load test. except for tests in cohesive soil where the waiting period should not be less than 14 days. Two methods are used to load test drilled shaft: the Quick Load Test Method described in ASTM D 1143 standard. This option is recommended to evaluate the ultimate pile capacity. and inserted carefully into the hole. concrete is pumped to fill the hole to the desired level and the casing is pulled. but this test may not provide enough time for some soils or clays to consolidate and may underestimate settlement for these soils. Procedures for load tests are presented: (1) Quick load test. Residual stresses may significantly influence results. After concrete has reached the desired strength. Load is applied in increments of 25 percent of the design load and held until the rate of settlement is not more than 0. Load is reapplied in increments of 50 percent of the design load allowing 20 minutes between increments until the previous maximum load is reached. 100 and 200 percent of the design load for rebound measurements. The upward movement is a function of the weight of the drilled shaft and the friction 6-13 . The cell consists of inflatable cylindrical bellow with top and bottom plates slightly less than the diameter of the shaft. The standard load test is initially performed up to 150 percent of the design load. (b) After drilling the shaft. (5) Drilled shaft load test using Osterberg Cell. The upward movement of the shaft is measured by dial gauge 1 placed at the top of the shaft (Figure 6-4). Additional load is then applied and removed as described in ASTM D 1143. As pressure increases. Downward movement is measured by dial gauge 2 attached to the top of the inner pipe above the point where it emerges from the outer pipe through the hydraulic seal. A preferred option of the standard load test is to reload the pile in increments of 50 percent of the design load until the maximum load is reached.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 dissipation of pore water pressures and consideration of freeze or relaxation. Load is added until continuous jacking is required to maintain the test load (plunging failure) or the capacity of the loading apparatus is reached. Fluid used to pressurize the cell is mixed with a small amount of water . The quick load test described as an option in ASTM D 1143 is recommended for most applications. Load tests are necessary so that the design engineer knows how a given drilled shaft would respond to design loads. with the inner pipe attached to the bottom and the outer pipe connected to the top of the cell (Figure 6-4). d. These two pipes are separated by a hydraulic seal at the top with both pipes extended to the top of the shaft. The load is then removed in decrements of 50. Loads may then be added at 10 percent of the design load until plunging failure or the capacity of the equipment is reached. (a) Unlike the Quick Load ASTM test method which applies the load at the top of the drilled shaft. Axail load tests. However. A minimum waiting period of 7 days is therefore required following installation before conducting this test. (4) Tension test. The cyclic load test will indicate the potential for deterioration in strength with time from repeated loads. the cell is pressurized internally to create an upward force on the shaft and an equal and opposite downward force in end bearing. The outer pipe is used as a conduit for applying fluid pressure to the previously calibrated cell. the cell is grouted by pumping a carefully monitored volume of grout through the inner pipe to fill the space between the cell and the bottom of the hole. the Osterberg cell test method applies the load to the bottom of the shaft. The cell is connected to double pipes. The standard load test takes much longer and up to several days to complete than the quick load test and will measure more of the consolidation settlement of compressible soils than the quick load test procedure. It is also used to grout the space between the cell and the ground surface and create a uniform bearing surface. The inner pipe is used as a tell-tale to measure the downward movement of the bottom of the cell. This test is useful to determine deterioration in pile capacity and displacements from cyclic loads. and the Osterberg Cell Method. (2) Standard load test.miscible oil. lifted by crane. whichever comes first. Additional load increments are applied until twice the design load is reached. Axial compressive load tests should be conducted and recorded according to ASTM D 1143. This is a proof test if no further testing is performed. Axial tension tests may be conducted according to ASTM D 3689 to provide information on piles that must function in tension or tension and compression. The load is applied in increments of 10 to 15 percent of the proposed design load with a constant time interval between load increments of 2 minutes or as specified.01 inch/hour but not longer than 2 hours. When the grout is set. neither the standard test nor the quick test will measure all of the consolidation settlement. allowing 20 minutes between load increments. the inner pipe moves downward while the outer pipe moves upward. After proper installation and testing.

The test pile should be loaded laterally to failure after the last loading cycle. to determine a suitable range of probable ultimate capacity. A deflection criterion may consist of loading the piles to a predetermined deflection and then using that load level for the cyclic load test.000 tons of surface load. The support of a pile could change from friction to end bearing or the reverse depending on the strata. At that point the test is considered complete.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 and/or adhesion mobilized between the surface concrete and the surrounding soil. whichever is larger) (Figure 6-4) to eliminate the influence of shaft movement during the test. Tests should be conducted as close to the proposed structure as possible and in similar soil. (4) The sequence of applying loads is important if cyclic tests are conducted in combination with a monotonic lateral load test. Failure may occur in end bearing or skin friction. The methods given in Table 6-4 give a range of Qu from 320 to 467 kips for the same test data. Loads should be carried to failure.movement curve in skin friction can be plotted from the test data to determine the ultimate load of the drilled shaft. (c) The dial gauges are usually attached to a reference beam supported by two posts driven into the ground a sufficient distance apart (i. Consolidation of a cohesive layer supporting the tip load may also cause the load to be supported by another layer. 6-14 . Table 6-4 illustrates four methods of estimating ultimate capacity of a pile tested to failure. Three methods should be used when possible. The cyclic reduction factor used in design can be verified if the test pile is loaded for approximately 100 cycles. Lateral load test. the test piles would be cyclically loaded from zero loading to the load level of the cyclic load test. thus testing two adjacent piles. (6) Analysis of capacity. Dial gauge readings of lateral deflection of the pile head should be made at a minimum at each zero load level and at each maximum cyclic load level. The load level for the cyclic test may be the design load. e. This may be done by first selecting the load level of the cyclic test using either load or deflection guidelines. Layered soils may cause the test piles to have a different capacity than the service piles if the test piles have tips in a different stratum. (2) Lateral load tests may be conducted by jacking one pile against another. (7) Effects of layered soils.e.. Osterberg cells can be constructed as large as 4 feet in diameter to carry a load equivalent to 6. Using the cyclic load level. The last loading cycle to failure can be superimposed on the initial loading cycle to determine the lateral load-deflection curve of the pile to failure. Some aspects of the lateral load test are: (1) Monotonic and cyclic lateral load tests should be conducted and recorded according to ASTM D 3966. The load downward-deflection curve in end bearing and the load upward. This test is used to verify the stiffness used in design. depending on local experience and preference. The difference in reading between dial gauge 1 and dial gauge 2 at any pressure level represents the elastic compression of the concrete. 10 feet or two shaft diameters. This procedure should be repeated for the required number of cycles. (3) Groundwater will influence the lateral load response of the pile and should be the same as that which will exist during the life of the structure.

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure 6-4. Typical Osterberg cell load test (from Osterberg 1995) 6-15 .

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table 6-4 Methods of Estimating Ultimate Pile Capacity from Load Test Data 6-16 .

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table 6-4 (Concluded) 6-17 .

“User’s Guide: Computer Program for SoilStructure Interaction Analysis of Axially Loaded Piles (CAXPILE).1 Soil Mechanics TM 5-818-1 Soils and Geology. Vicksburg. 1975. 6300 Georgetown Pike.S.S. U. MS. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station 1989.S.S. “Background Theory and Documentation of Five University of Texas Soil-Structure Interaction Computer Programs. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 1992. “User’s Guide: Pile Group Analysis (CPGA) Computer Program. 1988 FHWA-DP-66-1 Manual on Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundation. McLean. U. U. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station 1975.” Miscellaneous Paper K-75-2. Suite 225. 2 Federal Highway Administration . DC 20001. MS. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station 1990. Philadelphia. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 1986 U.” Instruction Report ITL-87-2 (Revised). Required Publications Departments of the Army and the Navy NAVFAC DM-7. 1989. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station 1984. Vicksburg. 1985 FHWA-HI-88-042 Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods.S. 444 North Capitol Street NW. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. “User’s Guide: Pile Group/Concrete Pile Analysis Program (CPGC) Preprocessor to CPGA Program. MS. Virginia 22101 A-1 .S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station 1992. 1984 (Feb).S. MS. “User’s Guide for Concrete Strength Investigation and Design (CASTR) in Accordance with ACI 318-89. U.S. U.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Appendix A References and Bibliography A-1. Office of Implementation.” Instruction Report ITL-90-2. 1978 FHWA-RD-83-059 Allowable Stresses in Piles. Department of Transportation FHWA-DP-66-1 (Revision 1) Manual on Design and Constuction of Driven Pile Foundations. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. U. MS. April 1986 FHWA-RD-IR-77-8 User’s Manual for the Texas Quick-Load Method for Foundation Load Testing. Procedures for Foundation Design of Buildings and Other Structures (Except Hydraulic Structures) TM 5-818-7 Foundations in Expansive Soils TM 5-849-1 Pile Driving Equipment 1 FHWA-RD-85-106 Behavior of Piles and Pile Groups Under Lateral Load. U.S. 1990. Vicksburg. U. Vicksburg. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 1989.S. 5801 Tabor Avenue. Vicksburg. Washington. 14th edition.” Technical Report ITL-89-3. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. PA 19120.” Instruction Report K-84-4. 1983 1 Naval Publications and Form Center. 1977 FHWA-TS-78-209 Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test Performance and Design. Standard Specification for Highway Bridges Standard Specification for Highway Bridges Federal Specifications TT-W00571J Wood Preservation: Treating Practices 2 U. U.S.

09. 1 E. Box 280379. Philadelphia. Columns. Dimension Stone.” ACI Report No. Cone and Friction-Cone Penetration Tests of Soil ASTM D 3689 (1990) Individual Piles Under Static Axial Tensile Load ASTM D 3966 (1990) Piles Under Lateral Loads ASTM D 4546 (1990) One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of Cohesive Soils Wood American Society for Testing and Materials American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1989. Redford Station. American Society for Testing and Materials American Society for Testing and Materials. Manufacture and Installation of Concrete Piles. 1977-1979. “Standards for Creosoted-Wood Foundation Piles. 318-89.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 3 American Concrete Institute 1986 American Concrete Institute. Quasi-Static. P. Dallas. 3 American Concrete Institute 1985 American Concrete Institute. “SteelStructural. Chicago. “Ultimate Strength Design Handbook. IL.01. 1989. 1986. “Use of concrete in Buildings: Design. American Society for Testing and Materials American Society for Testing and Materials. “Soil and Rock (II): D4943-latest.” ASTM Vol 01. “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete. Geosynthetics.” ACI Report No. “Soil and Rock.O. Volume I: Slabs. 3 ASTM D 1586 (1992) Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils ASTM D 2435 (1990) One-Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soils ASTM D 2487 (1993) Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes ASTM D 2899 (1986) Method for Establishing Design Stresses for Round Timber Piles ASTM D 3200 (1986) Establishing Recommended Design Stresses for Round Timber Construction Poles ASTM D 3441 (1986) Deep. Vol 01.” First Edition. Manual of Steel Construction. “Allowable Stress Design.” 1945 . Geosynthetics. 1985. 3 American Concrete Institute 1974 American Concrete Institute. 1916 Race Street. Tubing.04. Pressure Vessel. 1974. MI 48219 4 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). SteelPiping. 1989. Railway. Box 19150. American Society for Testing and Materials American Society for Testing and Materials. Wacker Drive. Manual of Steel Construction. 543R-74. IL. 1 E. PA 19103 A-2 American Wood Preservers Institute 1977-1979 American Wood Preservers Institute. American Institute of Steel Construction 1989 American Instiute of Steel Construction (ASIC). American Concrete Institute 1989 American Concrete Institute. and Related Topics. Reinforcing. 4 American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM A 252 (1993) Specification for Welded and Seamless Steel Pipes ASTM D 25 (1991) Specification for Round Timber Piles ASTM D 1143 (1987) Piles Under Static Axail Compressive Load 3 American Concrete Institute (ACI). “Load and Resistance Factor Design.” Manual of Concrete Practice.” ASTM Vol 04. “Drilled Shaft Inspector’s Manual.” ACI Report No. 1986.O. SP 17. TX.” First Edition.”ASTM Vol 04. Specifications. Association of Drilled Shaft Contractors 1989 Association of Drilled Shaft Contractors (ADSC). Wacker Drive. Detroit.” 9th Edition. P. 1984. “Recommen-dations for Design. American Institute of Steel Construction 1986 American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Chicago. Fitting. Parts 3 and 4.08.

International Conference of Building Officials 1991 International Conference of Building Officials. Precast and Prestressed Concrete Institute 1988 Precast and Prestressed Concrete Institute.” Unpublished Dissertation. The Institute of Civil Engineers.” Proceedings. 1971 (Feb). London. B. B. Broms 1964a Broms. Board. J. Vienna. The Pressuremeter and Foundation Engineering.. M. C1-C12. Box 1056. R. FL. Broms 1964b Broms. New York.O. Transportation Research Cox. Broms 1965 Broms. FL. D. Houston.C. A-3 . Balkema. Suite 405. R. and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms. et al. No. American Society of Civil Engineers. C.” Seventeenth Edition. NY. Vancouver. 1978. “Manual for the Design of Bridge Foundations. 1988 Pile Buck.. Baguelin. 1983 (Apr).. Box 1056. 1979 (May). VA. “Recommended Practice for the Design of Prestressed Concrete Columns and Walls. “Recommended Practice for Planning. L. Vol 33. Rotterdam/Boston. T. and Matlock. Canadian Geotechnical Society 1985 Canadian Geotechnical Society. W. 1992 Pile Buck.. “Three-Dimensional Analysis of Framed Structures with Nonlinear Pile Foundations. 2101 Constitution Avenue. Chapter 13. NY. New York. and Shields. 1965.” Proceedings. pp 123-156. P. 1991. Vol 91. Washington. Reese. H.” Pile Buck Annual. Whittier. Inc. Trans Tech Publications. Reese. DC. H. PCI Journal. 1964b. NY. A. Jézéquel. 1985. 6th Annual Offshore Technology Conference Paper No. pp 79-99.. 1988. 1991 Barker. L. and Davies.” National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 343. L. 801-1030 W.” Research Report 117-3F. 1964a. “Field Testing of Laterally Loaded Piles in Sand. C. and Grubbs. pp 1-69. New York. M. and Grubbs 1974 Cox. F. OTC 2079.. B. NY. T. Center for Highway Research. Project 3-5-68-117.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division. TX. Bowles 1968 Bowles. New York. and Shields 1978 Baguelin. American Society of Civil Engineers.” 2nd Edition. “Procedures for Analysis of Laterally Loaded Pile Groups in Soft Clay. J. 1984. University of Texas at Austin. Pile Buck. BiTech Publishers Ltd.Vol 90. Jupiter. Bryant 1977 Bryant. “Testing Methods of Driven Piles. API Recommended Practice 2A (RP 2A). Bogard and Matlock 1983 Bogard. Barker et al..” 5360 South Workman Mill Road. Foundation Analysis and Design.” Foundations.. NY. B. Designing. K. 4. Bieniawski 1984 Bieniawski. pp 56-95.. “Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual. Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling. B. Inc. A-2. 1988.” PCI Committee on Prestressed Concrete Columns. “Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils. Vol 90.O.” Proceedings. CA. Inc. K. P. pp 101108. 1977. 1987 (Apr). Awoshika and Reese 1971 Awoshika.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Old Gallows Road. Jupiter.” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division. A. “Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soil. 1992. R.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division. Banerjee and Davies 1979 Banerjee. TX pp 459-472. “Uniform Building Code. 1991. “Analysis of Some Reported Histories of Laterally Loaded Pile Groups. and Reese. 1974. McGraw-Hill. B. “Design of Laterally Loaded Piles. American Society of Civil Engineers. Geothechnical Practice in Offshore Engineering. “Analysis of Foundation with Widely Spaced Batter Piles. pp 297-318. E. G. University of Texas at Austin. D. Georgia Street. Appendix A. B. Pile Buck. pp 27-63. Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunneling. Jézéquel. American Society of Civil Engineers. Related Publications American Petroleum Institute 1987 American Petroleum Institute. Z. B. Austin. F. “Design of Pile Foundations. Inc. P.

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. M.” Proceedings 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Designing of Pile Foundations. Pile Engineering. Atlantic. 4535 Emery Industrial Parkway. NY. P.” Highway Research Record. G. Rausche. D. B. and Sulaiman. 1976 (May). 1977 Kuthy. Kuthy et al. University of Michigan Press. “Lateral Load Capacity of Piles. T. I. Construction. R. No.SM2. W.. Zienkiewica. S. M. American Society of Civil Engineers. GRLWEAP Wave Equation Analysis of Pile Driving. 1977. Cambridge. 1322 HØ vik.. 1981. SM4. “Theortical t-z Curves.” p 67. B. T.. Transportation Research Board. Jr. No. “Hyperbolic Stress-strain Response: Cohesive Soils. Kraft. pp 1-26. NY. A. 1977. Hetenyi 1946 Hetenyi. Offshore Soil Mechanics. Rausche.. G. T. A-4 Cambridge University Engineering Department. C. Deere 1968 Deere. V. American Society of Civil Engineers. and Kagawa. I. P. and Chiu 1980 Donald. V. Sydney. K. CA. Canada.” Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice. Vol 93. Japan. Ray. “Road Bridge Substructure Design Guide and Explanatory Notes. Ltd. ” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division. H. A. Coyle and Sulaiman 1967 Coyle. Vol 107. Innovations in Foundation Construction. R. L. George and Wood 1977 George. New York. J. L. Donald. J. Davisson 1970 Davisson. Vol 89. University of Toronto Press. Balkema. pp 15211541. 1980. Sloan. ” Proceedings. “Rules for the Design. 1968. D. R. F. “Friction Capacity of Piles Driven into Clay. NY. New York. Fleming et al. American Society of Civil Engineers. Chapter 1.. M. 1972. MA. and Robinson. Inc. Focht. M. New York. Goble. DC. pp 243-246. Beams on Elastic Foundation. GA. “Load Transfer for Axially Loaded Piles in Clay. 1970. Scotland. T. New York. and Inspection of Offshore Structure. et al. SM6. and Wood. 1966. A. 1967. M. et al. Available from GRL... Cleveland. 1981. and Amarasinghe. Washington.” Proceedings Symposium on Deep Foundations. 1963. “Lateral Load Capacity of . MI. American Society of Civil Engineers.” Proceedings Lecture Series. pp 1543-1561. 1977. NY. (GRL). H. Focht. Vol 107. and Kenney. Stagg and O. NY. “Skin Friction for Steel Piles in Sand. M. 1985. Rotterdam/Boston. C. Inc. H. Glasgo. New York. 1946. and Chiu. and Reese. American Society of Civil Engineers..” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division.. Horvath and Kenney 1979 Horvath.”General Lecture. 2101 Constitution Avenue. I. “Uniform Building Code.” Proceedings International Conference on Sturctural Foundations on Rock. 1985 Fleming. Norway. New York. 1979. Likins and Associates. “Design of Laterally Loaded Piles. Montreal. Toronto ONM5S1A6.” Whitter. Kraft. Illinois Section...” Veritasveien 1. Davisson 1972 Davisson. G. “Shaft Resistance of Rock Socketed Drilled Piers.. Ann Arbor. “Geological Considerations.” Proceedings. Australia. M. “Theoretical Analyses of Rock-socketed Piles. C. 1991. L. Jamiolkowski 1977 Jamiolkowski. W. E. H. 1988 Goble. 1988. International Conference of Building Officials 1991 International Conference of Building Officials. Davisson and Robinson 1965 Davisson. and Kagawa 1981 Kraft. “Bending and Buckling of Partially Embedded Piles. 1965. pp 261278. R. No. M.” Discussion Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Coyle and Reese 1966 Coyle. T. Likins and Associates. S. NY. Ray.. M. American Society of Civil Engineers. Tokyo. K. Japanese Road Association 1976 Japanese Road Association. Vol 92.. Sloan. Blackie and Son. Det norske 1977 Det norske. “High Capacity Piles. OH. K. 63a George Street. A. 1977 (Apr). and Amarasinghe 1981 Kraft. Hansen 1963 Hansen.

Kubo 1965 Kubo.” Proceedings. G. Paper No. Pile Foundations in Engineering Practice. H. New York. NY.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division. 1975. G. “Design and Performance of Deep Foundations. “Behavior of Lateally Loaded Piles: II Pile Groups. J. M. American Society of Civil Engineers. H. H. Paper No.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. New York State Department of Transportation. Purdue University. Pile Foundation Analysis and Design. Nordlund 1963 Nordlund. “Soil Modulus for Laterally Loaded Piles.” Proceedings ASCE Specialty Conference on Rock Engineering for Foundations and Slopes. Houston..” report for U. Poulos 1971 Poulos. TX. Meyerhof 1976 Meyerhof. H. 1977. Poulos and Davis 1980 Poulos. pp 245-256.” Proceedings. J. “Bearing Capacity of Piles in Cohesionless Soils. Wiley. McCelland and Focht 1958 McCelland. 1981. TX. 1971. Vol 89. American Society of Civil Engineers. R. OTC 3871. Aurora. “Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay. J. New York. Vol 97.. CO. Albank. E. NY.. pp 577-594. 1963. 1980. No. Ghazzaly. H. and Focht. 1961. B. G. and Sharma. OTC 1204. L. W. 2838. M.” Proceedings. Matlock 1970 Matlock. University of Texas at Austin. 12th Annual Offshore Technology Conference.. Houston. O. “Analysis of Three-Dimensional Pile Groups with Nonlinear Soil Response and Pile-Soil-Pile Interaction. Prakash and Sharma 1989 Prakash. TX. B.” Proceedings. New York. 1970. Wiley. SM5. 1980 (May). “Field Tests of the Lateral Load Behavior of Pile Groups in Soft Clay. TX.. University of Florida. No. Osterberg 1995 Osterberg. 2nd Annual Offshore Technology Conference. New York. “Foundation Analysis of Offshore Pile-Supported Structures. A-5 . Geotechnical Practice in Offshore Engineering. pp 733-751. Department of Transportation. American Society of Civil Engineers. O. H.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering.. France. G. GT3. 1958.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Vertical Pile Groups. CO. Peck 1976 Peck. S. Matlock and Reese 1961 Matlock. and Davis. American Society of Civil Engineers.” Research Report 47. Meyerhof 1983 Meyerhof. pp 1049-1086. Sixth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. pp 275-279. “Rock Foundations for Structures. Vol II. Vol 109. Lam 1981 Lam.S. International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Paris. W. O’Neill 1983 O’Neill.” Transactions. McCelland 1972 McCelland. H. Boulder.” Unpublished thesis. pp 197-228. “Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations. O’Neill. and Ha. G. 1980 Matlock.. “Computer Program of Analysis of Widely Spaced Batter Piles. H. NY. “Scale Effects of Ultimate Pile Capacity.” Proceedings. Specialty Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth Supported Structures.” Proceedings. Vol 2. 1995. “Group Action in Offshore Piles. Austin. pp 797-806. A. C. 1983 (Apr). O. American Society of Civil Engineering. pp 91-97. Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division. L. 1976. Houston. Montreal. Matlock et al. P. R. Paper No. American Society of Civil Engineers.” Proceedings 9th Annual Offshore Technology Conference.” Final Report D629 to Florida Department of Transportation from Department of Civil Engineering. B. K. Vol 123. I. et al. “An Investigation of Pile Capacity Design Procedures. by J. 6. 1972 (Jun). 1965. Federal Highway Administration. Vol 102.. Engineering Research and Development Bureau. Ltd.” Proceedings. Ghazzaly. American Society of Civil Engineers . 1976. “Experimental Study of the Behavior of Laterally Loaded Piles. Nottingham and Schmertmann 1975 Nottingham. Fifth International Conference. pp 1-36. and Reese. Osterberg. and Ha 1977 O’Neill. L. “The Osterberg CELL for Load Testing Drilled Shafts and Driven Piles. 1989. G. D. Vol 2. B.. 1976. and Schmertmann.

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Preiss. Moscow.. E.” Report No. Long Beach. R. U. F. and Smith. No. American Society of Civil Engineers. New York. 1957. No. 8.” Proceedings. 4th Annual Symposium on Engineering Geology and Soil Engineering. Seed and Reese 1957 Seed. Cox. Vol 122. L. W. “Lumped Parameter Seismic Analysis of Pile Foundations. H. L.” Transactions. Reese. F.. “Behavior of a TwoA-6 . C. C. “Analysis of Deformation of Vertically Loaded Piles. Barking. 1968. No. W. Cox. R. and Koop 1974 Reese. L. pp 235-250. SM1. J. 1975. C. R.. R. L. pp 633-649. American Society of Civil Engineers.” Proceedings. Reese 1984 Reese. and Reese. p 310. S. pp 731-753. H. W. C. Roorkee. American Society of Civil Engineers. C. and Caiserman. and Welch. Reese and Wright 1977 Reese. Bureau of Engineering Research. TX. TX. Houston. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol 104.” Vol 1. TX.” Journal of the Structural Division. “The Action of Soft Clay Along Friction Piles.” Transactions. Reese and Matlock 1956 Reese. M. Symposium on Bearing Capacity of Piles. and Matlock. F. H. 1987. Vicksburg.” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. Reese and Matlock 1966 Reese. S. C. and Koop 1975 Reese. Special Publication No. L. C.S.. Austin. C. and Caiserman 1978 Preiss. O’Neill. Paper No.. 1975 (Feb). pp 61-73. Federal Highway Administration. G. Vol 96. “Static and Dynamic Analysis of Pile Foundations.. pp 1077-1100. 1966 (Apr). O’Neill. and Matlock. ID. Central Building Research Institute. Cox. 1970 (Jan). Vol 20. Cox. 1956. J650-87008/2495. W. B. Weber.” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. Scott 1969 Scott. R. CA. C. 7th Annual Offshore Technology Conference. D. GT12. “Lateral Loading of Deep Foundations in Stiff Clay. pp 1465-1488. “Field Testing and Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Stiff Clay.” Proceedings Eighth Texas Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. L.. “Integrity Testing of Bored Piles and Diaphragm Walls. C. Vol 94. 29. C. C. C. Paper No. University of Texas. Reese. and Mlakar. An Introduction to Soil Mechanics and Foundations. Implementation Division. pp 18-38. Saul 1968 Saul. 1966. New York. pp 672-690. “Analysis of a Bridge Foundation Supported by Batter Piles. OTC 2312.. Handbook on Design of Piles and Drilled Shafts Under Lateral Load. GT7. F.” Proceedings. England.” Proceedings. Dimensional Pile Group Under Inclined and Eccentric Loading. and Wright. 1978. Part II. NY. pp 473-485. U.. and Koop. “Non-Dimensional Solutions for Laterally Loaded Piles with Soil Modulus Assumed Proportional to Depth. Reese and Welch 1975 Reese. Department of Transportation. Offshore Exploration Conference.. FHWAIP-84-11. South African Institution of Civil Engineers. 1974. L. and Koop. P. OTC 2080. 5th Annual Offshore Technology Conference.. pp 191-196. “Drilled Shaft Manual . p 360. pp 123-140. Reese. Ripple Road. Applied Science Publishers Ltd. No. A. H. L. Weber. Reese 1966 Reese. Randolph and Wroth 1978 Randolph. L. “Generalized Analysis of Pile Foundations. American Society of Civil Engineers. 1978. Reese 1964 Reese.. Department of Transportation. M.. 1964 (Feb). Houston. W. P. NY. L. E.” Proceedings. “Load versus Settlement for an Axially Loaded Pile. K. 1984 (Jul). Essex.Construction Procedures and Design for Axial Loading.. 1969. Implementation Package 77-21. D. C. “Analysis od Laterally Loaded Piles in Sand. 1977. and Smith 1970 Reese. L. and Wroth. MS..” Proceedings. Smith and Mlakar 1987 Smith.. Vol 101.

J. 1972. M. N. New York. American Society of Civil Engineers. C. UK. “Design of Pile Foundations.. and Kulhawy. New York.” Contract Report B-49 (6). Tomlinson 1987 Tomlinson. Washington.” U. Houston.” Research Report No. 42. Stewart and Kulhawy 1981 Stewart. 2101 Constitution Avenue. H. V. Vicksburg. 1977.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division. A. P. R. American Society of Civil Engineers. “Behavior of Drilled Shafts in Axial Uplift Loading. F. “Laterally Loaded Behavior of Drilled Shafts. OTC Paper 1718.S. Foundation Design and Construction. 4th Annual Offshore Technology Conference. A. A-7 . Austin. University of Texas at Austin. L. TX. N.. Center for Highway Research. Syracuse. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering.. Ithica.” Port 77 Conference.. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 1971.” National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis of Highway Practice. Vesic 1977 Vesic. “Load-Movement Characteristics of Piles. J. P. “A New Way to Predict Capacity of Piles in Clay. 35-65-89.. and Kulhawy. “Breakout Resistance of Object Embedded in Ocean Bottom. SM9. Cornell University. Fourth Edition. NY. H. NY. Wolff 1990 Wolff. and Reese. NY. C. Vijayvergiya 1977 Vijayvergiya. J. 1980. Paper No. 128 Long Acre. F. Transportation Research Board.” Proceedings. Tomlinson 1980 Tomlinson. London WC2E 9AN. 1977. 1981. 1990. J. Viewpoint Publications. No. 1980. V. S. Jr. 1972 (May). M. A. and Focht. DC. “Experimental Investigation of the Uplift Capacity of Drilled Shaft Foundations in Cohesionless Soil.” Geotechnical Engineering Report 80-2. 1987. TX. F. MS. NY. S. Vijayvergiya and Focht 1972 Vijayvergiya. Welch and Reese 1972 Welch. Vol 97. Vesic 1971 Vesic.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Stewart and Kulhawy 1980 Stewart. pp 11831205. “User’s Guide: Pile Group Interference Probabilistic Assessment (CPGP) Computer Program. J. Pile Design and Construction Practice. Pitman Publishing Limited. T. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.

Refer to ASTM A 252 for material specifications. S is the elastic section modulus. 1 Chapter 2. use designation PPBo x tw where Bo is the outside diameter in inches and tw is the wall thickness in inches. I is the moment of inertia. and r is the radius of gyration. Inc. “Manual on Design and Construction of Driven Piles Foundations. Dimensions and Properties. For reference to a particular member. inches3. A ’ Btw ( B° & tw ) . the greater is the resistance to collapse. and determined by I = Ar2.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Appendix B Pipe Piles B-1. (1988) or FHWA-DP-66-1 (Revision 1). References are listed in Appendix A. The higher the number. The source of this information is Pile Buck. The External Collapse Index in the last column is a nondimensional function of the diameter to the wall thickness ratio and is for general guidance only. inches. the crosssectional area of the tube.”1 Data from this table are used for analysis of design stresses in stell piles. Table B-1 lists the dimensions and properties for design of some of the more commonly used sizes of pipe piles. in applications of tabuluar members. inches2. B-1 . inches4.

71 3.43 20. 1 E.62 2.3 61.9 87. 3.0192 External Collapse Index ! 3.5 78.73 3.1 41.0190 .438 .0188 .66 14.76 3.81 2.48 3.7 72.0184 .2 16. 2 r in.25 6.81 2.250 Area A in.39 3.78 19.0223 .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table B-1 Dimensions and Properties for Design of Pipe Piles Designation and Outside Diameter in.5 50.6 58.3 12.12 14.172 .3 85.65 18.1 86.81 2.62 2.81 2.0 72.01 4.0192 .72 3.51 12.1 70.69 3.219 .1 11.81 2.0 15.1 51.70 3.2 23.0224 .23 40.172 .0191 .67 3.62 2.120 .0182 .2 73.73 7.75 3.0 83.5 81.47 3.9 14.109 .81 2.81 2.6 80.81 2.09 10.9 76.0212 .0214 .21 24.49 3.2 75.3 91.50 3.47 3.81 2.15 4.81 2. Wacker Drive.6 74.0 80.17 4.00 26.52 5.2 39.04 31.0215 .141 .0210 .0185 .39 13.03 12.150 .62 2.156 .64 5.0217 .19 5. (Sheet 1 of 4) B-2 .500 Note: Metric properties of pipe piles are available from the American Institute of Steel Construction.890 2.24 38.6 56.88 24.2 82.75 3.4 62 83 116 135 163 214 247 279 324 409 515 588 719 50 67 76 109 131 148 172 199 224 260 414 480 605 781 951 1.46 3.81 2.9 18.81 2.4 29.00 5.279 .0203 .3 12.63 Area of Exterior Surface ft2/ft 2.62 2.3 64.31 5.62 2.5 11.81 Inside CrossSectional Area in.21 21.49 3.3 13.6 86.2 11.72 5.0219 .75 3.62 2.0187 .188 .9 66.230 .203 .1 13.81 2.0 84.125 .9 35. .2 74.8 13.1 10.109 .80 6.5 84.7 79.5 16.5 73.4 25.0218 .8 75.2 18.3 71.46 3.62 2.76 3.8 84.62 2.0208 .68 3.5 83.18 15.1 85.78 17.45 5.320 1.62 14.344 .20 34.2 9.74 3.0219 .2 14.66 3.1 66.24 54.64 4.62 2.98 17.179 .8 71.63 25.48 3.188 .1 16.85 15. Chicago.0223 .0189 .150 .23 18.81 2.45 3.54 19.0193 .48 3.49 3.1 87.307 .5 70.164 .6 11.8 86.6 21.120 .4 80.7 19.07 5.0205 .0186 .8 74.0221 .62 2.0220 .0221 .70 5.72 4.74 3. 4 Section Properties l in.4 74.0 16.24 22.6 28.0188 .74 in.81 2.74 3.8 85.6 14.6 69.62 2.219 .134 .1 56.76 3.46 3.84 28.37 4.81 2.164 .7 Inside Volume yd3/ft .5 83.06 7.48 48. IL 60601.3 14.2 72.9 76.4 45.365 .2 73.25 9.9 15.98 16.9 73.0197 .6 85.0 12.25 7.380 PP10-3/4 .81 2.0 100 105 114 126 137 152 161 189 212 8.94 6. PP10 Weight per Foot lb 11.180 1.28 9.65 3.179 .60 10.81 2. S 3 Wall Thickness in.141 .0191 .18 10.250 .62 2.70 21.230 .72 3.5 53.24 7.60 8.05 18.

8 47.1 50.760 (Sheet 2 of 4) PP12-3/4 .42 in.11 8.96 5.2 108 108 108 107 106 106 106 105 105 104 103 102 123 123 122 122 122 121 121 121 120 120 119 118 117 115 115 114 113 112 111 108 Inside Volume yd3/ft .95 14.1 21.5 4.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table B-1 (Continued) Designation and Outside Diameter in.3 18.375 .52 8.11 24.5 43.56 53.73 22.14 3.94 6.00 9.0274 .344 .0 12.34 3.06 20.5 98.77 45.86 18.14 3.18 4.50 9.150 .07 7.438 .39 4.0 39.34 3.0278 .230 .7 67 78 94 142 161 186 235 296 344 443 616 784 30 45 56 78 88 103 118 134 155 196 286 368 526 684 776 848 1.0313 .0272 .16 4.58 27.500 B-3 .19 4.0295 . 2 r in.9 92.2 12.17 4.14 3.0309 .44 4.34 3.0267 .42 8.17 38.38 37.0 24. PP12 Weight per Foot lb 16.312 Area A in.20 4.4 16.164 .46 4.39 4.6 15.14 3.46 4.0317 .45 4.330 .34 3.98 17.219 .250 .14 3.0273 .20 30.0294 .82 11.34 3.7 15.00 5.281 .179 .19 20.134 . S 3 Wall Thickness in.98 7.0274 .58 6.2 87.170 1.406 .18 4.6 26.98 22. 4 Section Properties l in.58 49.33 4.34 3.14 3.05 9.4 20.0300 .33 Area of Exterior Surface ft2/ft 3.6 18.39 6.25 5.60 23.8 30.7 16.75 33.72 25.34 3.0308 .156 .0291 .14 3.14 3.3 21.172 .80 7.0277 .46 4.41 4.6 29.188 .4 14.18 4.0310 .43 4.6 32.0261 .34 3.34 3.4 56.52 57.14 3.5 16.8 106 118 122 128 134 140 146 158 177 192 214 236 248 258 279 300 321 362 14.3 11.8 23.0 112 116 122 131 141 147 159 178 196 86.45 43.34 3.9 13.0 40.250 .34 3.9 23.44 4.17 6.125 .0269 .37 4.98 21.34 3.22 27.6 19.179 .23 10.281 .0288 .010 1.0316 .6 37.4 98.6 15.0313 .230 .203 .31 5.34 3.45 4.13 4.42 4.91 31.14 3.42 41.47 4.4 24.0297 .34 3.1 21.188 .14 3.34 3.7 27.34 Inside CrossSectional Area in.203 .36 4.37 35.134 .38 4.5 19.34 3.0277 .141 .350 1.17 4.312 . 4.109 .1 33.85 18.04 23.0311 .45 4. .0312 .19 4.0279 External Collapse Index ! 5.14 4.0270 .14 3.150 .34 3.59 65.0303 .2 20.172 .6 13.48 6.03 25.9 19.40 4.16 4.34 3.65 6.55 28.72 16.45 4.34 3.0285 .0305 .0264 .0315 .

0373 .230 .95 10.10 9.0488 .19 4.0379 .0 21.188 .57 5.59 5.7 49.8 29.4 65.0345 .4 23.19 4.19 4.156 .3 69.0378 .23 33.80 9.47 7.08 30.25 36.53 6.88 4.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table B-1 (Continued) Designation and Outside Diameter in.9 11.312 B-4 .60 5.7 36.19 4.460 28 33 39 52 60 67 78 98 124 144 185 264 362 (Sheet 3 of 4) PP16 .55 8.134 .60 5.3 48.17 50.75 34.0493 .34 10.5 27.67 3.19 4.59 5.07 25.5 40.9 30.67 3.19 4.0481 .3 32.84 6.67 3.60 5.80 4.88 25.87 4.210 .6 29.0355 .219 .88 4.27 in.203 .0491 .0358 .16 8.219 .17 54.188 .0375 . 4 Section Properties l in.0381 .4 13.87 22.19 23.19 4.0365 .203 .73 29.0368 . S 3 Wall Thickness in.09 22.134 .141 .67 4.84 20.78 7.2 148 148 147 147 146 146 146 145 145 144 144 143 142 139 138 135 134 133 194 194 194 193 193 192 192 191 190 190 189 187 186 Inside Volume yd3/ft .4 140 147 157 163 179 186 195 209 216 225 236 255 285 344 373 429 457 484 210 221 235 256 268 278 292 314 338 354 384 429 473 20.5 26.67 3.25 31.375 .3 61.0377 .14 6.44 67.59 5.19 4.19 4.58 5.78 72.0496 .88 4.8 12.172 .90 4.86 4.17 52.71 41.74 29.230 .3 42.9 15.67 3.0373 .0499 . 4.250 .39 27.150 .2 42 49 59 66 89 101 117 147 163 185 215 277 395 691 835 1.71 23. .90 9.89 4.57 63.78 5.0478 External Collapse Index ! 5.67 3.91 30.89 4.9 32.40 26.19 4.67 3.58 5.1 22.438 .281 .6 59.83 4.5 34.0494 .19 4.67 3.0348 .16 8.5 39.1 10.82 4.19 Inside CrossSectional Area in. PP14 Weight per Foot lb 19.79 4.74 42.67 3.4 12.42 27.164 .179 .93 32.67 3.85 4.172 .250 .19 4.67 3.67 3.02 7.2 6.2 53.8 36.0485 .0372 .56 5.469 .280 1.67 3.47 8.0370 .281 .3 27.05 47.130 1.67 3.1 18.2 33.8 16.68 7.0380 .67 3.67 3.1 14.87 4.61 5.90 4.48 9.1 26.0498 .0341 .91 38.0495 .3 44. 2 r in.179 .82 36.500 Area A in.344 .0 33.0 53.7 19.2 25.0500 .150 .0489 .9 21.77 8.89 4.141 .67 3.90 4.0376 .55 Area of Exterior Surface ft2/ft 3.61 5.

4 22. 5.19 4.19 4.19 4.130 (Sheet 4 of 4) B-5 .19 4.469 .375 . . S 3 r in.19 Inside Volume yd3/ft .500 Area A in.58 72.3 519 562 649 691 732 64.5 487 617 874 1.3 81.0474 .0470 .1 86.438 .52 62.000 1.0462 .0458 . 4 Section Properties l in.54 5.79 82.49 5.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table B-1 (Concluded) Designation and Outside Diameter in. External Collapse Index ! 16.48 Area of Exterior Surface ft2/ft 4.50 5. PP16 (cont'd) Inside CrossSectional Area in.2 184 183 180 178 177 Wall Thickness in.3 91. 2 Weight per Foot lb 57.0455.77 in.80 77.344 .4 21.8 70.53 5.9 18.9 24.

2F7. S(1) input in program as 0.3. Input data.2 F6.2.3 10 10a 10b 10c I5 11F6. 6) NCA ( <12) T(M.NC. The main routine feeds in the input data.3I5 3I5.F7. Table C-1 Input Data Line Input Parameters Format Statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 TITLE NMAT I J NEL K DX GWL LO IQ DB IJ 20A4 2I5. calculates the effective overburden stress. and determines whether the load is axial down-directed.3F10.1). 5. The main routine also prints out the computations. pullout.I5 12 12a 12b I5 E13. AXIal Load-Transfer. 9) (Omitted unless K = 3. 8. a.2F6. T(M.5 8 2I5 9 F6. or if uplift/downdrag forces develop from selling or consolidating soil.E13. The last line is NEL NMAT) RFF GG (Omitted unless K = 7.2.NMAT) M IE(M) (Line 8 repeated for each element M and number of soil IE(M).2 C-1 . 4.3 11 11a 11b I5 2F10.11) (Input for each curve M = 1..3 I5 I3.3. SOILP DS E50 (Omitted unless K = 2.F6.3 E13. An iteration scheme is used to cause the calculated applied loads at the top (butt) to converge within 10 percent of the input load applied at the top of the shaft. Organization Program AXILTR.2.3. Input data are illustrated in Table C-1 with descriptions given in Table C-2.0. 5. Subroutine BASEL calculates the displacement at the base for given applied down-directed loads at the base. at least a top and bottom term required) 7 7F10.00) (Omitted unless I = 5) NCC ( <12) FS(N) ZEPP(N) NCUR (Input on new line for each N = 1.NCA S(M) (Input on new line for each M = 2.3F6. Subroutine SHAFL evaluates the load transferred to and from the shaft for relative displacements between the shaft and soil. Start with 1.NMAT) ALPHA (Omitted unless I = 6) ( input for each material MAT = 1. 9) LLL MAT GS EO WO PS CS CC C PHI AK PM (Lines 5 repeated for each material M = 1.11. consists of a main routine and two subroutines.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Appendix C Computer Program Axiltr C-1.NCC) (Omitted unless J = 0) NC ( >1) EP(M) ZEP(M) (Input on new line for each M = 1..

but maximum 19 for PARAMETER statement = 40 applied to total (undrained) or effective (drained) shear strength for skin Magnitude of reduction factor friction resistance = 0 = 1 (usually used for drained strength) = 1 = sin ( x=/L). ft = 2 = 0. x = depth.6 = 3 = 0.3 = 5 = Permits maximum skin friction input as a function of depth. repeat on new line for each M = 1. top of shaft at ground surface Number of points for shaft load-displacement behavior (usually 12. ft (usually 0. shaft compression increment. ft.5 or 1. L = shaft length.0 ft) Depth to groundwater level.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table C-1 (Concluded) Line Input Parameters Format Statement 13 14 15 R(M) S(M) (Omitted unless K = 6.0) Table C-2 Description of Input Parameters (Continued) Line Parameter Description 1 2 TITLE NMAT NEL DX GWL LO Name of problem Total number of materials Total number of elements Thickness of each element.45 = 4 = 0. load.5.2 I5 NON (Omitted unless XA < 0.IJ) STRUL SOILP XA F10.F15. psf (see line 11) = 6 = is input for each material (see line 7) Option for elastic shaft modulus = 0 shaft modulus input = 1 shaft modulus set to near infinity IQ IJ 3 I J (Sheet 1 of 3) C-2 . ft Amount of output data = 0 Extensive data output used to check the program = 1 Shaft load-displacement behavior and detailed load distribution-displacement response along shaft length for input top load prior to and following soil distribution-displacement response along shaft length for input top load prior to and following soil movement (load transfer.3 3F15. and shaft movement at given depth = 2 Shaft load-displacement behavior and load distribution-displacement response along shaft length for input top load prior to and following soil movement = 3 Shaft load-displacement behavior and load distribution-displacement response along shaft length for input top load on shaft following soil movement Total number of shaft increments (shaft length/element thickness).

.T(M. Table 3-9. use 1.11) S(M) 10c (Sheet 2 of 3) C-3 . Ray.1). . 5. ft Strain at 1/2 maximum deviator stress. Equation 3-35 Input data for shaft load-transfer curves (k = 3. 0. Ray..05.75. used when option I = 6. 0. Line 3 Number of element Material number of soil. Table 3-5. only 10 values required from S(2). Equation 3-24 or N c = 7 = 1 General shear failure.0 in code.. psf Swell index Compression index Cohesion. Ray. percent Swell pressure. = undrained strength for total stress analysis. etc.0 if not known Shear modulus G. Ray. 4... and Kagawa = 9 Reese and Wright Kraft.05.0 Movement in inches for all of the T(M. 1. and Kagawa Pressure on top layer of soil exerted by surrounding structure.3. and Kagawa model. if S(M) in the code is okay (0.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table C-2 (Continued) Line Parameter Description K Option for load-transfer functions (see Figure 3-22) SOILP DS DB 4 5 E50 LLL Base Shaft = 0 Consolidation Seed and Reese = 1 Vijayvergiya Seed and Reese = 2 Reese and Wright Seed and Reese = 3 Consolidation Input (see line 10) = 4 Vijayvergiya Input (see line 10) = 5 Reese and Wright Input (see line 10) = 6 Input (see line 13) Input (see line 10) = 7 Consolidation Kraft. 0. psf Diameter shaft. ft Diameter base. and Kagawa = 8 Vijayvergiya Kraft. 0.15. 0.1). Equations 3-26. S(1) = 0. fill. Equation 3-10 or N c = 9 Number of material Specific gravity Initial void ratio Initial water content. Equation 3-34 Option for type of shear failure at base = 0 Local shear failure. psf.S(11). 0.. < 12 Skin friction ratio of developed shear strength/maximum mobilized shear strength of each shaft load-transfer curve. psf.2.5 inches) 6 MAT GS EO WO PS CS CC C PHI AK PM 7 ALPHA 8 M IE(M) RFF GG 9 10 10a 10b NCA T(M.45. 6) Total number of shaft load-transfer curves to input. MAT Hyperbolic reduction factor R for Kraft.0.. the first value T(1. psf (program sets PM = PS if PM input < PS) Reduction factor a for each material MAT. 0.1. 1.T(M. effective cohesion c' or zero for effective stress analysis Angle of shearing resistance .23..1) = 0. 11 values required for each load-transfer curve. Equation 3-35.11) curves. 0. = 0 for total stress analysis Coefficient of lateral earth pressure Maximum past pressure..

(2) The program can accommodate up to 18 points of the load-displacement curve.” These data are printed in output file. The shaft is underdreamed of two layers. psf Depth for the elastic modulus of shaft at point M. uplift.DAT for plotting by graphic software. (The first displacement is 0. Table C-4 illustrated input data required to determine performance of a 2-feet-diameter drilled shaft 50 feet long constructed in an expansive clay soil of two layers. line 2 Base displacement.0 displacement is approximated as the overlying soil weight and already input in the program Structural load. > 1 Elastic modulus of shaft at point M. <12. ft Number of the shaft load-transfer curve input M in line 10. (3) The input data are placed in a file.TXT. NMAT = 2. the base load for 0. psf Depth of the active zone for heave. NMAT = 2.0 inches and already input in the program) Base load for displacement R(M). Application The pullout. and shear strength. pounds Pressure on top layer on soil exerted by surrounding structure. Pullout and uplift. 11b.0 program goes to line 15 below Execution stops if 0. program goes to line 1 if > 0 13 13a 13b R(M) S(M) 14 14a 14b 14c STRUC SOILP XA 15 NON (Sheet 3 of 3) (1) The program is set to consider up to a total of 40 soil types and 100 soil elements. (2) Load-depth data for a given applied load on the pile top are placed in file LDSP. Output data. The accuracy of these solutions can be increased by using more soil layers. pressure on adjacent soil at the ground surface. = 0.DAT for plotting by graphic software.NCC) Input data for shaft elastic modulus as function of depth. maximum past pressure. in. (3) Displacement-depth data for a given applied load on the pile top are placed in file MDEP. which increases control over soil input parameters such as swell pressure.TXT. applicable to the maximum skin friction for point N (Repeat 11a.DAT for plotting by graphic software. Table C-3c provides a description of calculations illustrated in Table C-3b. pounds. 11c for each N = 1. “LTROUT. (1) Load-displacement data are placed in file LDCOM.. program interpolates the elastic modulus between depths Total number of terms of elastic modulus and depth. and depth of the active zone for heave input for each problem for evaluation of specific load distribution-placement computations Structural vertical load on top of shaft. psf Depth for the maximum skin friction for point N.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table C-2 (Concluded) Line Parameter Description 11 NCC 11a 11b 11c 12 NC EP(M) ZEP(M) FS(N) ZEPP(N) NCUR 12a 12b Input data for maximum skin friction as a function of depth Total number of maximum skin friction terms to input. fill. Results of the computations by AXILTR are printed in LTROUT. < 0. The shaft is underdreamed C-4 . ft. Figure C-1 provides and example layout of soil types and elements used in AXILTR.01 yields load-displacement behavior for zero soil movement. for point N. etc. a. “DALTR. This capacity may be altered by adjusting the PARAMETER statement in the program. and downdrag capabilities of AXILTR are illustrated by two example problems. b. program interpolates maximum skin friction between depths Maximum skin friction f-.” illustrated in Table C-3a. C-2. a saturated soil profile is assumed when comp uting soils movement.TXT illustrated in Table C-3b. ft (An elastic modulus and depth term are required at least at the top and bottom of the shaft) Input data for base displacements if K = 6 (The number of input terms or R(M) and S(M) equals IJ -1.

3 for the surface and deeper soils. if settlement is limited to 0.7 inch.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 two soils is 0. respectively. (3) Results. The results are plotted in Figure C-2 for a pullout force of 300. Soil shear strength is assumed not to change significantly from the previous example. Table C-6 illustrates input data required to solve for the performance of the same drilled shaft and soil described in the previous example problem. Two points for the elastic modulus of the shaft concrete were input into the program.000 pounds. (a) Total and base ultimate bearing capacity is about 1. C-5 . but the soil is wetter with a much lower swell pressure. Refer to Figure C-1 for a schematic representation of this problem. which is representative of an FS of approximately 2. Option to input the reduction factor α’s are 0. Option to input the reduction factor " (I = 6) was used. respectively (Figure C-2a). which may raise the skin friction. and Kagawa skin friction and the Vijayvergiya base load-transfer models (K = 8) were selected. while the soil heaves more than 11 inches at the ground surface (Figure C-2c).TXT” are shown in Table C-5. The alpha skin friction and local shear base capacity models are selected. because both pullout and uplift forces must be resisted. This shoft is subject to a 150-kip load in addition to the downdrag forces from the settling soil. Base and total capacity is 250 and 600 kips. is a combination of the shapes indicated in Figures 3-15 and 3-16. respectively. The alpha skin friction and local shear bearing-capacity models are selected similar to the previous example. Schematic diagram of soil and pile elements with a 5-foot-diameter bell. Figure C-1. (1) Bearing capacity.9.200 and 550 kips. Soil beneath the shaft is nonexpansive. (1) Bearing capacity.55 and 0. The Kraft.5 inch. A high " was selected because expansive soil increases pressure against the shaft. Results of the computation placed in files “LTROUT. (2) Load-transfer models. Ray. The selected " 's for the b. (c) The shaft will heave approximately 0. Figure C-2b. (b) The distribution of load with depth. Downdrag. The shaft is subject to a pullout force of 300 kips.

10X.E13.F7. Output Data a. M=1.2 I5.0.5) NO OF SOIL I5. 11 ARE MOVEMENT (IN.2.0 2(7F10.F6.3 I5.F6.3. BASE LOAD(LB) > FOR POINTS I5 F10.3 IS INCHES 11 (If I = 5 NO OF SKIN FRICTION-DEPTH TERMS (<12)? ARE SKIN FRICTION (PSF) DEPTH(FT) CURVE NO If J = 0) E SHAFT (PSF) AND DEPTH(FT): (If K = 6) BASE DISPLACEMENT(IN. 6) NO.2.2 F13.2.3X.3 10 (If K = 3.).LLL = 1 MAT GS EO WO (%) PS(PSF) CS CC CO(PSF) PHI K PM(PSF) NEL= DX= IQ (SHAFT INC)= J= FT FT K= FT GWL= IJ (NO. OF LOAD-TRANSFER CURVES(<12)?= For each curve 1 to NCA: CURVE RATIO SHR DEV.2F6.I5. 4.) FOR LOAD TRANSFER M= I5 I5 11F6.3.27. F7.LOADS= SOILP= FT Format Statement 20A4 I5.I5 b.I5 PSF I5.1) POINT BEARING(LB)= POUNDS Format Statement F13.I5.3. Output Calculations Line 1 2 3 Input Parameters BEARING CAPACITY= DOWNWARD DISPLACEMENT (Omitted unless LO = 0.I5 5 6 7 8 9 (If I = 6) ALPHA = ELEMENT (If K = 7.F7. 9) REDUCTION FACTOR= SHEAR MODULUS= F6.2 F10.3 I5 I5 I3.F6.I5 12 4(E13.F10.2 (Sheet 1 of 3) Table C-3 (Continued) C-6 . 5.3.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table C-3.3F6.I5.2X.2.I5.F6.LLL = 0 Or GENERAL SHEAR FAILURE AT BASE .F10.0. 8. 9) E50 LOCAL SHEAR FAILURE AT BASE . 5.2.2 F10.2) 13 F10. Repeat of Input Data (See Table C-1) Line 1 2 Input Parameters TITLE NMAT= LO= I= DS= DB= (If K = 2.2 3 4 E13.

pounds Displacement at top of shaft.5.2 F13. inches Number of iterations to complete calculations Load at top of shaft..2 F13.1) DEPTH LOAD TRANS FT LB 5E13.. ft Load transferred at given depth along shaft. pounds Incremental shaft compression at given depth. DOWNWARD DISPL POINT BEARING DEPTH LOAD TRANS TOTAL LOAD COM OF INCR TOTAL MOVMT INTER TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT BASE LOAD BASE MOVEMENT End-bearing capacity.2X.2 I5 F7. inches 5 (Sheet 2 of 3) C-7 . inches Load at bottom of shaft.5 c.E13.2. 2F15. pounds Displacement at bottom of shaft. pounds Total load on shaft at given depth.4.0. pounds Depth.5 INCHES NEGATIVE UPWARD DISPLACEMENT TOP LOAD LB TOP MOVEMENT INCHES BASE LOAD LB BASE MOVEMENT INCHES E13. inches Shaft-soil relative movement at given depth.2 STRUC LOAD (LB) SOILP (PSF) (Line 14 of Table C-2) BELL RESTRAINT(LB)= ACTIVE DEPTH (FT) (If STRUL < 0. Table C-2) FIRST ESTIMATE OF PULLOUT RESTRAINT(LB)= LOAD-DISPLACEMENT BEHAVIOR (If LO <2) EFFECTS OF ADJACENT SOIL INITIAL BASE FORCE(LB)= (If LO = 0) BASE FORCE(LB)= DISPLACEMENT (INCHES)= ITERATIONS= DEPTH(FT) LOAD(LB) SHAFT MVMT(IN) SOIL MVMT(IN) FORCE= POUNDS F13.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Line Input Parameters Format Statement 4 (Omitted unless LO = 0. pounds Load-displacement behavior for zero soil movement in downward direction for IJ points Load at bottom of shaft prior to shaft load-transfer calculation.2 F8.0 See Line 14.2F10.5.F12.I5 TOP LOAD LB TOTAL LOAD COM OF INCR LB TOTAL MOVMT INCHES INCHE S 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 TOP MOVEMENT INCHES BASE LOAD LB BASE MOVEMENT 4E13. Description of Calculations Line Program Prints Description 1 2 3 4 BEARING CAP.5 F10.

8 relative to total pile capacity. pounds Total number of iterations to converge to solution Depth. pounds Load-shaft movement distribution for given structural load Effects of soil movement considered in load-displacement behavior Initial calculation of force at bottom of shaft prior to iterations Displacement at bottom of shaft after 100 iterations.5 inches at 10 feet of depth. (c) The shaft will settle approximately 1 inch. pounds Pressure applied on top of adjacent soil. The results are plotted in Figure C-3 for a downward applied load of 150 kips. The soil is heaving near the ground surface. pounds Shaft displacement. (a) Total and base ultimate bearing capacity (Figure C-3a) is about 550 and 880 kips. pounds after 100 iterations. Maximum settlement is about 3. Base and total capacity is about 200 and 500 kips. The Seed and Reese skin friction and Reese and Wright base load-transfer models were selected (K = 2). if settlement is limited to 0. psf Depth of soil beneath ground surface subject to soil heave. (3) Results.5 inch. inches Force at bottom of shaft.) SOIL MVMT(IN.) 15 16 (Sheet 3 of 3) (2) Load-transfer models. feet Load at given depth. Two points for the elastic modulus of the shaft concrete were input into the program. while the soil settles about 2 inches at the ground surface (Figure C-3c). inches 9 10 11 12 13 14 LOAD-DISPLACE EFFECTS OF ADJ INITIAL BASE DISPLACEMENT FORCE= ITERATIONS DEPTH(FT) LOAD(LB) SHAFT MVMT(IN. which leaves the calculated displacement load relationships nearly linear. respectively. ft Restraining resistance of bell. C-8 . which counters the settlement from downdrag. Results of the computation placed in file LTROUT. The FS is approximately 1.TXT are illustrated in Table C-7. respectively. (b) The distribution of load with depth (Figure C3b) is representative of downdrag indicated in Figure 321. pounds Initial calculations of pullout resistance prior to iterations for structural loads less than zero. inches Soil movement. The load on the shaft base is nearly 300 kips or double the applied load at the ground surface.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table C-3 (Concluded) Line Input Parameters Format Statement 6 7 8 NEGATIVE UPWARD Same as item 5 STRUC LOAD(LB) SOILP(PSF) ACTIVE DEPTH BELL RESTRAINT FIRST ESTIMATE Load-displacement behavior for zero soil movement in upward direction for IJ points Load applied on top of shaft. The program does not add the vertical plunging failure liens to the curves in Figure C-3a.

Plotted output for pullout and uplift problems (Continued) C-9 .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure C-2.

600E+05 2 4.333E 08 50.0 4. (Concluded) Table C-4 Listing of Data Input for Expansive Soil.8 2 2.900 1.2 .0 -300000.2 2000. 10000. 13. 0.0 40.0 .0 . 16 5.0 . 4000.68 .TXT EXPANSIVE SOIL 2 50 1. 0 2 0.0 50.9 50 2.1 0.333E 08 .00 . .1 . -1. File DATLR.65 . 7000.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure C-2.1 .9 1 1 41 2 50 2 .7 2. 6000. . 6 0 8 0 1 2.0 4800.37 0.0 30.0 C-10 .

Plotted output for drowndrag problem C-11 .EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure C-3.

EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Figure C-3. (Concluded) C-12 .

92817E+06 0.12587E+01 0. 4000.433E+09 0.33139E+00 0.26781E+00 0.16817E+06 0.84256E+00 0.24017E+06 0.99065E-01 0.58421E+06 0.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table C-5 Listing of Output for Pullent and Uplift Problem EXPANSIVE SOILS 2 NEL= 50 DX= 2 IQ (SHAFT INC)= J= 0 2.900 SHEAR MODULUS= 50.37979E+01 (Sheet 1 of 3) C-13 .82982E+06 0.37 0.00 0.10 0.12108E+07 TOP MOVEMENT INCHES 0.97601E+06 0. 40 41 42 .32977E+01 0.68 2.00 POUNDS 0.10432E+01 0.00 0. .17714E+00 0.10641E+07 0. LOADS)= 16 0.10946E+06 0.20627E+01 0. 6000.31494E+06 0.11815E+07 0.LLL= MAT 1 2 ALPHA= ELEMENT 1 2 .11521E+07 0. 50 GS 2.54978E+06 BASE MOVEMENT INCHES 0.46172E+06 0. 0.20 0.34507E+06 0. 100000.20758E+01 0.23526E+00 0.17694E+01 0.45773E+06 0.28017E+01 0.43236E+06 0.10934E+07 0.40301E+06 0.22688E+06 0.37365E+06 0.14388E+01 0.52042E+06 0.90000 NO OF SOIL 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 WO(%) 30.00 13.10 0 PS(PSF) 4800.00 FT (NO.95401E+00 0.37719E+00 0. PHI 0.15855E+00 0.00 K 0.44915E+00 0.66509E+00 0.17323E+01 0.00 FT K= 8 NMAT= LO= I= DS= DB= 6 1.80 0.25624E+06 0.11801E+01 0. REDUCTION FACTOR = 0.70 2.00 FT 50 IJ SOILP= GWL= 40.75826E+00 0.00 PM(PSF) 7000.69 BASE LOAD POUNDS 0.433E+09 BEARING CAPACITY= DOWNWARD DISPLACEMENT TOP LOAD POUNDS 0.28432E+01 0. .14978E+01 0.10054E+07 0.9000 CS 0.00 PSF LOCAL SHEAR FAILURE AT BASE .50996E+00 0.160E+06 E SHAFT(PSF) AND DEPTH(FT): 0.00 FT 5.10 CC 0.32256E+01 0.13882E+06 0.19753E+06 0.71040E+06 0.42061E+01 549778.59070E+00 0.36930E+01 0.65 EO 0.11228E+07 0.24323E+01 0.20 CO(PSF) 2000.34430E+06 0.28559E+06 0.10347E+07 0.24192E+01 0.49107E+06 0.

00000E+00 0.56958 -5.) -11.87055 -0.31 BASE MOVEMENT INCHES 0.40078E+06 -0.00 1.00 8.38985E+06 -0.84549 -0.) -0.45543E+06 -0.59519 -7.00 16.44 -449443.69610E+06 -0.00000E+00 0.44450E+06 -0.00 5.37138E-02 -0.94514 -10.82904 -0.69610E+06 -0.41089E+00 -0.22575 -7.55704E-01 -0.00 15.00000E+00 0.25600E+01 -0.69610E+06 -0.43357E+06 -0.72980 -8.35706E+06 -0.87985 -0.00 44915.83746 -0.34613E+06 -0.19976 (Sheet 2 of 3) C-14 .82469 SOIL MVMT(IN.61240E+06 -0.00 11.69610E+06 -0.36799E+06 -0.84936 -0.10000E-01 -0.01600 -5.00000E+00 0.21806E+06 -0.49865 -6.00000E+00 0.68793E+05 -0.00 14.32427E+06 -0.37892E+06 -0.85313 -0.00000E+00 -0.76401 -3.12800E+01 -0.81920E+02 -0.46636E+06 -0.00 2.82093E+02 -0.51200E+01 -0.00000E+00 ACTIVE DEPTH(FT) 50.48822E+06 -0.47729E+06 -0.00 9.00000E+00 0.86387 -0.87385 -0.16401E+03 SOILP(PSF) 0.85681 -0.00000E+00 0.78911E+00 -0.16384E+03 LOAD-DISPLACEMENT BEHAVIOR INITIAL BASE FORCE(LBS)= DISPLACEMENT(INCHES)= DISPLACEMENT(INCHES)= DISPLACEMENT(INCHES)= INTERATIONS= 262 -788275.41171E+06 -0.16000E+00 -0.64000E+00 -0.10770E+00 -0.00000E+00 0.00000E+00 0.00000E+00 0.87685 -0. BELL RESTRAINT(LB)= FIRST ESTIMATE OF PULLOUT RESTRAINT(LB)= TOP MOVEMENT INCHES -0.69610E+06 STRUC LOAD(LB) -300000.00 BASE LOAD POUNDS 0.40960E+02 -0.86039 -0.00000E+00 0.00000E+00 0.44 541894.02274 -6.47223 -3.67843 -9.31134E+05 -0.00 7.6525 FORCE= FORCE= FORCE= -66776819 POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS -532357.2475 -0.94 DEPTH(FT) 0.16708E-01 -0.14531E+01 -0.11899E+06 -0.18590E+05 -0.00000E+00 0.00000E+00 0.00 3.43689E+05 -0.00 12.32000E+00 -0.25 -0.69610E+06 -0.33520E+06 -0.83330 -0.52931E+01 -0.10413E+02 -0.69610E+06 -0.38024E+06 -0.29706E-01 -0.80000E-01 -0.88276 -0.07648 -3.20653E+02 -0.77014 -4.69610E+06 -0.41124 -4.42264E+06 -0.92906 -8.00 10.15537 -4.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table C-5 (Continued) NEGATIVE UPWARD DISPLACEMENT TOP LOAD POUNDS -0.00 13.20480E+02 -0.21160E+00 -0.00 4.20000E-01 -0.41133E+02 -0.40000E-01 -0.84152 -0.27331E+01 -0.49915E+06 SHAFT MVMT(IN.00 6.00 LOADS(LB) -0.86726 -0.10240E+02 -0.00000E+00 0.4975 -0.

92078 -0.71047 -0.54287E+06 -0.62386E+06 -0.62887 -0.81570 -0.00 48.20953 -1.48680 -2.61049E+06 -0.20443 -0.45506 -1.67922 -0.70510 -0.00 50.00 49.59633 -0.00 19.54610 -0.50642E+06 -0.73771 -0.00 38.00000 (Sheet 3 of 3) C-15 .00 21.77591 -0.58401E+06 -0.61992E+06 -0.66077 -0.66969 -0.06611 -0.91153 -1.00 -2.54103E+06 -0.46897E+06 -0.00 29.00 36.62027E+06 -0.60701E+06 -0.62444E+06 -0.62304E+06 -0.00 25. -0.10306 -1.52416E+06 -0.66969 -0.00 43.55675E+06 -0.61073E+06 -0.) 17.53194E+06 -0.32673 -1.26128 -0.67439 -0.75970 -0.48799E+06 -0.79153 -0.73222 -0.71902 -0.75422 -0.76515 -0.00 26.00 35.61710E+06 -0.57183 -0.00 44.69448 -0.81105 -0.00692 -0.28080 -2.15300 -0.44994E+06 SOILP(PSF) 0.74696 -1.78641 -0.79655 -0.00 20.71587 -0.00 24.00 34.72129 -0.00 37.82024 -0.77713 -0.78120 -0.) SOIL MVMT(IN.39155 -0.94538 -2.60360E+06 -0.00 46.00 -0.74872 -0.51008E+06 -0.00 39.00 33.57566E+06 -0.00 30.55380E+06 -0.54447 -0.72674 -0.32363 -0.66515 -0.00 41.68929 -0.10692 -0.62465E+06 -0.59556E+06 -0.58613E+06 -0.59498 -1.74321 -0.61621E+06 -0.00 42.65655 -0.00 31.56473E+06 -0.00 45.00 23.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table C-5 (Concluded) DEPTH(FT) LOADS(LB) SHAFT MVMT(IN.03049 0.46514 -0.00 40.59487E+06 -0.08927 -1.52101E+06 -0.69977 -0.62223E+06 -0.80148 -0.55516 -0.77056 -0.00 27.00 18.00 32.00 STRUC LOAD(LB) 0.00 28.61390E+06 -0.00 22.84428 -0.57119E+06 -0.65250 ACTIVE DEPTH(FT) -1.68420 -0.60381E+06 -0.80632 -0.70805 -2.00 47.

0 16 5.00 13.1 2000. 4000.37 0.10 0. LOCAL SHEAR FAILURE AT BASE .55000 WO(%) 30.333E 08 50. .0 150000.0 .100E-01 0 PS(PSF) 1200.05 0.0 40.8 2. PHI 0.00 FT 5. 6 0 2 0.0 50.0 -1. .3000 CS 0.0 4.1 0.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table C-6 Listing of Data Input for Settling Soil SETTLING SOIL 2 50 1. 0. 0.10 (Sheet 1 of 4) C-16 . .010 0 2.65 . .65 EO 0. Table C-7 Listing of Output for Downdrag Problem SETTLING SOILS NMAT= LO= I= DS= DB= E50= 6 2 2 J= 0 2.00 FT (NO.68 2.55 1 1 41 2 50 2 2 4.0 0 1 2 2 0.333E 08 .LLL= MAT 1 2 ALPHA= GS 2.00 30.1 .00 0.0 . 4000.0 50 2. 10000. 10000.70 2.10 CO(PSF) 2000.00 FT NEL= 50 DX= IQ (SHAFT INC)= K= 8 1. 6000. LOADS)= 16 0.05 .00 K 0.68 .00 PM(PSF) 4000.80 0.00 PSF 0.3 1200.7 2.05 CC 0. 13.00 FT 50 IJ SOILP= GWL= 40. 4000. 6000.37 0.05 .

22688E+06 0.52042E+06 0.43236E+06 0.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table C-7 (Continued) ELEMENT 1 2 . 50 NO OF SOIL 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 E SHAFT(PSF) AND DEPTH(FT): 0.57771E+00 0.47316E+06 0.11193E+01 0.88412E+06 TOP MOVEMENT INCHES 0.63896E+00 0.18170E+01 0.12507E+01 0.69319E+00 0.49107E+06 0.00 POUNDS BASE LOAD POUNDS 0.86977E+00 0.67864E+06 0.25624E+06 0.64929E+06 0.53187E+06 0.31494E+06 0.24071E+00 0.43825E+06 0.28559E+06 0.16695E+01 0.56122E+06 0.79606E+06 0.22727E+01 0.10707E+01 0.19682E+01 0.81401E+00 0.21085E+01 0.24405E+01 50.42854E+00 0.13882E+06 0.433E+09 0. .16389E+01 0.69 DOWNWARD DISPLACEMENT TOP LOAD POUNDS 0.21231E+01 (Sheet 2 of 4) C-17 .50252E+06 0.17945E+01 0.19753E+06 0.14904E+01 0.33163E+00 0. .61993E+06 0.73735E+06 0.46172E+06 0.40301E+06 0.53108E+00 0.85477E+06 0.82541E+06 0.46787E+00 0.12061E+01 0.76671E+06 0.59058E+06 0. 40 41 42 .00 0.34430E+06 0.13461E+01 0.75193E+00 0.54978E+06 BASE MOVEMENT INCHES 0.70800E+06 0.93992E+00 0.37365E+06 0.13862E+01 0.36209E+00 0.99228E+00 0.16817E+06 0.15259E+01 0.19481E+01 0.433E+09 BEARING CAPACITY= 549778.10946E+06 0.

55152E+05 0.33096E+04 0.41042E+02 -0.26423E+01 -0.91661E-01 0.45500E+02 0.50205E-03 0.77802E-03 0.16392E+02 SOILP(PSF) 0.34046E+04 0.00000E+00 0.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table C-7 (Continued) NEGATIVE UPWARD DISPLACEMENT TOP LOAD POUNDS -0.86571E+05 0.40000E-01 -0.34038E-01 -0.40500E+02 0.35756E+04 0.34500E+02 0.44486E+05 0.40225E+00 -0.20480E+02 -0.96786E+05 0.86027E-01 0.35018E+04 0.51200E+01 -0.36937E+06 STRUC LOAD(LB) 150000.36937E+06 -0.83516E-01 0.44 LOAD-DISPLACEMENT BEHAVIOR BASE MOVEMENT INCHES 0.72225E+00 -0.00000E+00 0.83805E-03 0.43900E-03 0.38437E-02 -0.40775E-03 0.64239E-01 -0.86852E-03 0.11821E+06 -0.13623E+01 -0.69008E-03 0.35550E+04 0.35500E+02 0.21272E+06 -0.00000E+00 0.34378E+04 0.69689E+05 0.32524E+04 0.32804E+04 0.42500E+02 0.39500E+02 0.10322E+02 -0.69052E+05 -0.51577E+05 0.35976E+04 0.00000E+00 0.36937E+06 -0.44463E+05 -0.36937E+06 -0.53386E-03 0.00000E+00 0.00 BASE LOAD POUNDS 0.31375E+06 -0.34741E+04 0.00000E+00 ACTIVE DEPTH(FT) 50.12447E+00 -0.90075E-01 0.36937E+06 -0.00000E+00 0.37500E+02 0.35181E+04 0.00000E+00 0.40968E+05 0.36937E+06 -0.31500E+02 LOAD TRANS POUNDS 0.90853E-01 0.36210E+04 0.82732E-01 0.33717E+04 0.94267E-01 ITER 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 (Sheet 3 of 4) C-18 .00000E+00 0.32000E+00 -0.46500E+02 0.92499E-01 0.93368E-01 0.63064E-03 0.25600E+01 -0.35358E+04 0.84928E-01 0.40960E+02 -0.71913E-03 0.87256E-01 0.76641E+05 0.37000E+04 0.80789E-03 0. BELL RESTRAINT(LB)= POINT BEARING(LB)= TOP MOVEMENT INCHES -0.44500E+02 0.84425E-01 0.16384E+03 37465.89931E-03 TOTAL MVMT INCHES 0.83231E+05 0.81920E+02 -0.00000E+00 0.87917E-01 0.32500E+02 0.10026E+06 0.93347E+05 0.82002E+02 -0.20000E-01 -0.22746E+00 -0.80000E-01 -0.00000E+00 0.59815E-03 0.83108E-01 0.38500E+02 0.18937E-01 -0.36459E+04 0.41500E+02 0.73389E+05 0.43500E+02 0.00000E+00 0.10240E+02 -0.47500E+02 0.10000E-01 -0.00000E+00 0.34571E-03 0.12800E+01 -0.89327E-01 0.00 44915.83955E-01 0.33400E+04 0.36937E+06 -0.35107E+04 TOTAL LOAD POUNDS 0.37665E-03 0.33500E+02 0.36722E+04 0.19877E+05 -0.48500E+02 0.36937E+06 -0.36937E+06 -0.64000E+00 -0.47043E-03 0.66129E-03 0.62371E+05 0.00000E+00 0.74844E-03 0.86625E-01 0.85461E-01 0.36937E+06 -0.79921E+05 0.89943E+05 0.00000E+00 0.16000E+00 -0.66017E+05 0.58750E+05 0.56589E-03 0.00000E+00 0.48022E+05 0.00000E+00 -0.88607E-01 0.36500E+02 0.20562E+02 -0.10377E+06 COM OF INCR INCHES 0.96 DEPTH FEET 0.52023E+01 -0.49500E+02 0.

12941E-02 0.38093E+04 0.10584E-02 0.12588E+00 0.14485E+06 0.15270E+06 0.36703E+04 0.18949E+06 0.12946E+06 0.45000E+01 0.40850E+04 0.19500E+02 0.10261E+00 0.13317E+00 0.22908E+06 0.22453E+06 0.19802E+06 0.11454E+06 0.11920E+00 0.96188E-03 0.44749E+04 0.17647E-02 0.98179E-01 0.42860E+04 0.35879E+04 0.16891E-02 0.12765E+00 0.18109E+06 0.12500E+02 0.41821E+04 0.21554E+06 0.12568E+06 0.28500E+02 0.18030E-02 0.11608E+00 0.15417E-02 0.13129E+00 0.99369E-03 0.41490E+04 0.14696E-02 0.25000E+01 0.85000E+01 0.13287E-02 0.35487E+04 0.21110E+06 0.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table C-7 (Continued) 0.11581E-02 0.19594E-02 0.11500E+02 0.39110E+04 0.96159E-01 0.20500E+02 0.97153E-01 0.16874E+06 0.13705E+00 0.19198E-02 0.29500E+02 0.38337E+04 0.17268E-02 0.39661E+04 0.18527E+06 0.42506E+04 0.13636E-02 0.20670E+06 0.27500E+02 0.12247E+00 0.13509E+00 0.38588E+04 0.10629E+00 0.50000E+00 0.44355E+04 0.13111E+00 0.22001E+06 0.11246E-02 0.39947E+04 0.14097E+06 0.12257E-02 0.12192E+06 0.20235E+06 0.37135E+04 0.12082E+00 0.11821E+06 0.10145E+00 0.15500E+02 0.11091E+06 0.11918E-02 0.15055E-02 0.40542E+04 0.10033E+00 0.11027E+00 0.11458E+00 0.16468E+06 0.10732E+06 0.75000E+01 0.45152E+04 0.13327E+06 0.37581E+04 0.18500E+02 0.43222E+04 0.43970E+04 0.10259E-02 0.11167E+00 0.11762E+00 0.23500E+02 0.16518E-02 0.13711E+06 0.42159E+04 0.14340E-02 0.19994E-02 0.26500E+02 0.10500E+02 0.12416E+00 0.24500E+02 0.10913E-02 0.43592E+04 0.13500E+02 0.93042E-03 0.65000E+01 0.15667E+06 0.95000E+01 0.10380E+00 0.15000E+01 0.25500E+02 0.36284E+04 0.10758E+00 0.17694E+06 0.16500E+02 0.10503E+00 0.55000E+01 0.13905E+00 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 (Sheet 4 of 4) C-19 .45562E+04 0.22500E+02 0.17500E+02 0.10891E+00 0.35000E+01 0.99237E-01 0.21500E+02 0.95197E-01 0.12945E+00 0.15781E-02 0.16066E+06 0.17282E+06 0.38845E+04 0.37857E+04 0.14876E+06 0.18805E-02 0.16148E-02 0.14500E+02 0.19374E+06 0.13987E-02 0.39382E+04 0.18416E-02 0.12598E-02 0.30500E+02 0.40241E+04 0.41166E+04 0.

15721E+06 0.34678E+06 0.00 47.00 2.31941E+06 0.00 25.00 33.00 5.00 41.00 43.00 30.00 11.30480E+06 0.00 SOIL MVMT(IN.77876 0.00 13.00 3.91355 0.94412 0.00 37.00 20.98598 0.85868 3.93852 0.28288E+06 SOILP(PSF) 0.) 2.32491E+06 0.10165 1.36137E+06 0.51098 2.00 17.14278 0.25929E+06 0.17108E+06 0.96395 0.00 45.36901E+06 0.22283E+06 0.88069 0.53398 3.31441 1.31762E+06 0.30304E+06 0.38324E+06 0.00 27.19367E+06 0.98295 0.17909E+06 0.92340 0.87195 0.05346 -0.86645 0.00 16.47082 3.16451E+06 0.88373 0.06850 2.58423 0.51146 3.90669 0.00 29.00 19.37595E+06 0.38207E+06 0.33949E+06 0.58505 2.97082 2.10222 -0.35595E+06 0.00 31.75408 2.24373 2.00 50.94135 0.00 12.00 SHAFT MVMT(IN.31211E+06 0.05836 3.21554E+06 0.89651 0.00 49.97793 0.27224 -0.98450 0.24471E+06 0.00 38.33403E+06 0.27387E+06 0.15857 3.89323 0.92655 0.32672E+06 0.00 48.97612 0.13064 -0.48152 1.00 35.93563 0.47778 3.00 42.36866E+06 0.00 14.00 44.96503 0.39019E+06 0.91690 0.94946 0.00 36.96827 0.00 26.53233 3.54040 3.00 32.34864E+06 0.38025 2.00 10.00 23.88684 0.29749E+06 0.32392 3.51109 3.40946 3.19578 -0.86121 0.89000 0.16181 -0.86589 2.28116E+06 0.98740 0.14992E+06 0.96170 0.87771 0.94683 0.20933 3.00 15.15238 2.38165 0.00 9.00 6.) 0.00 34.20096E+06 0.00 22.29575E+06 0.31033E+06 0.00 39.97967 0.03305 -0.97033 0.38861E+06 0.43333 3.34133E+06 0.92018 0.23257 -0.00 24.91014 0.37554E+06 0.00 28.97425 0.89985 0.80157 1.35407E+06 0.98875 0.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Table C-7 (Concluded) INITIAL BASE FORCE(LB)= ITERATIONS= 81 DEPTH(FT) 0.63568 2.04679 -0.23013E+06 0.24058 3.00 1.07650 -0.97853 3.00 21.29018E+06 0.96614 0.93267 0.00 46.90325 0.69 LOADS(LB) 0.97232 0. 355177.17124 -0.00 STRUC LOAD(LB) 0.00000 (Sheet 5 of 4) C-20 .98134 0.64396 1.00 4.26658E+06 0.00 40.23742E+06 0.95204 0.36248E+06 0.95455 0.25200E+06 0.95700 0.86380 0.86917 0.31409 3.00 8.33220E+06 0.95420 1.28845E+06 0.85868 ACTIVE DEPTH(FT) -1.92964 0.20852E+06 0.95938 0.00 18.39292E+06 0.00 7.01524 0.18638E+06 0.87480 0.

The value of the constant showing the increase or decrease in soil resistance as a function of the angle of batter may be obtained from the line in Figure D1. (2) compute groundline deflection as if the pile were vertical. positive or negative. D-1 . The correction for batter is made as follows: (1) enter Figure D1 with the angle of batter. of course. Kubo used model tests in sands and full-scale field experiments to obtain his results. and obtain a value of the ratio. The method outlined is obviously approximate and should be used with caution. it could be desirable to perform a field test on a pile installed with a batter. (3) multiply the deflection found in (2) by the ratio found in (1). and (5) use the modified strength found in (4) for the further computations of the behavior of the pile that is placed on a batter. (4) vary the strength of the soil until the deflection found in (3) is obtained. The “ratio of soil resistance” was obtained by comparing the groundline deflection for a battered pile with that of a vertical pile and is. If the project is large.EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 Appendix D Modification of p-y Curves for Battered Piles a. References are listed in Appendix A. Awoshika and Reese tested 2-inch diameter piles in sand. Kubo (1965) and Awoshika and Reese (1971)1 inves-tigated the effect of batter on the behavior of laterally loaded piles. based purely on experiment. 1 b.

Modification ofp-y curves for battered piles (after Kubo (1965).EI 02C097 01 Jul 97 D-2 Figure D1. and Awoshika and Reese (1971)) .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful