Deep @® Foundation 5 Caisson Foundations 12.1 INTRODUCTION Wells, which are also known as caissons, have been in use for foundations of bridges and other important structures since the Roman and Moghul periods in India. Moghuls in particular used wells for the foundations of their monuments, including Taj Mahal which is a standing testimony to the skill of mankind in the earlier days. In modern times, however, one ofthe earliest use in India is that for an aqueduct for the upper Ganges Canal constructed in the earlier part of the 19th century. With the advent of pneumatic sinking in 1850 AD, and discovery of better materials ike reinforced concrete and steel, use of wells as foundations of bridges gsined popularity Well foundations have been used for most of the major bridges in India, Materials commonly used for construction are reinforced concrete, brick or stone masonry. Use of well of caisson foundations is equally popular in the United States of America and other western countries. ‘The size of caisson used for the San Francisco Oakland Bridge is 29.6 x 60.1 m in seetion and 74 mm depth, 12.2. TYPES OF WELLS OR CAISSONS There are thrce types of eaissons. They are: 1, Open caissons. 2. Pneumatic caissons. 3. Box caissons. Open Caissons ‘The top and bottom of the caisson (Fig, 12.1) is open during construction, They may have any shape in plan as round, oblong, oval, rectangular, etc, They are of cellular construction and the provision of cells reduces the cost of construction, The open-end caisson usually has 4 cutting edge, The cutting edge is first fabricated at the site and the first segment of the shaft is built on it, The soil inside the shaft is removed by grab buckets and the segment is sunk vertically. Another segment is added to the top and the process of sinking is continued by excavating the soil inside. After the required depth is reached, concrete is placed under water on the open bottom as a seal540 Advanced Foundation Engineering to a depth that will contain the hydrostatic uplift pressure so as to avoid blowing in of the bottom when the water inside the caisson is pumped out, When the concrete seal is completely ccured, the water in the caisson can be pumped out Dredging wells sealed at bottom after completion of sinking Advantages 1. The caisson can be constructed to great depths, 2. The construction cost is relatively low. Disadvantages 1. The clearing and inspection of bottom ofthe caisson cannot be done. 2. Concrete seal placed in water Fig. 12.1 Open caisson will not be satisfactory. 3. The rate of progress will be slowed down if boulders are met during construction, Pneumatic Caissons In the case of pneumatic caissons (Fig. 12.2), the working chamber atthe bottom of the caisson is Kept dry by forcing out water under air pressure, Air locks are provided at the top, The caisson is sunk as the excavation proceeds. Upon reaching its final depth, the working chamber is filled with concrete Airlocks Advantages 1, Control over the work and reparation of foundation for the sinking of caisson are better since the work is done inthe dry. 2. ‘The caisson can be sunk vertically as careful supervision is possible. 3. ‘The bottom of the chamber can be sealed effectively with concrete as itcan be placed dry. 4, Obstruction to sinking, such as Fig. 12.2 Pneumatic caisson boulders, etc. canbe removed easily Disadvantages 1, Construction cost is quite high. 2. ‘The depth of penetration below water is limited to about 35 m (3.5 ky/em*). Higher pressures are beyond the endurance of the human body. Box Caissons Inthecase ofbox caissons (Fig, 12.3) the bottom is closed. This type ofcaissonis firstcaston landand then towed to the site and then sunk on toa previously levelled foundation base. It is sunk by filling inside with sand, gravel, concrete or water. The box type of caisson is also called as floating caisson.Deep Foundation 5: Caisson Foundations 541 Advantages 1, The cost of construction is relatively low. 2, Itcan be used where the construction of other types of caissons are not possible. Disadvantages 1, The foundation base shall be prepared in advance of sinking, 2. Deep excavations for seating the caissonsat the required depth is very difficult below water level, 3. Due care has to be taken to protect the foundation from scour, Dredged bed Fig. 12.3 Box caisson 4. The bearing capacity ofthe base should be assessed in advance. 12.3 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF WELL FOUNDATIONS Introduction ‘Two types of soils are considered in the stability analysis of well foundations. They are cohesionless and cohesive soils. This chapter deals withthe lateral stability of well foundation only. The vertical bearing capacity of deep foundations dealt with in Chapter 9 is also applicable to well foundations, and as such this aspect of the problem is not considered here, Statement of the Problem ‘A well foundation used for a bridge pier shall carry both vertical and lateral loads. Vertical loads comprise of dead and live loads. The dead loads include the weights of superstructure and substructure. The vertical line loads are brought on to the structure due to the passing of vehicles over the bridge. The lateral loads are caused due to braking or traction of vehicles, water current, wind, earth quakes, ete. The lateral forces might act at different points on a pier, Dut their effect can be simulated by considering an equivalent force acting at bearing level Figure 12.4 shows a typical rectangular well foundation with all the external load and the resisting, forces acting on the well in cohesionless soil. The external loads are, Wr = the vertical load atthe bearing level of pier whieh includes loads of super structure (excluding the pier) and the live loads acting on it, Scour level = Fig, 12.4 Stability analysis of well ‘foundation in cohesionless soils542. Advanced Foundation Engineering ~ ‘weight of pier and well (considering relief due to buoyancy), juivalent lateral load acting at the bearing level at height £7 above the maximum scour level under ultimate lateral load [P,= FyP, where, F;= load factor, P,= design lateral load] ‘The external forces are resisted by the soil surrounding the well. Since the well is a massive one ‘with depth /width ration (D/B) normally not exceeding a value of 3, itis assumed to rotate as a rigid body about a point O lying on the base of the well on the axis passing through well. When the well rotates asa unit passive pressure develops in the front and active pressure at the back, and the active pressure is normally neglected in the analysis since it is quite small compared to the magnitude of the passive pressure. The high lateral pressure that develops atthe bottom of the back of the wall is assumed to be resisted by a line load Fat the bottom of the well, ‘Two cases are considered: 1, Stability analysis of wells in cohesionless soils. 2. Stability analysis of wells in cohesive soils. ‘The principle of analysis in both the cases are based on the principles enunciated by Broms (1964) for short piles. In both the cases itis required (o determine the depth of embedment of the well (grip length) under ultimate lateral load conditions. With a suitable factor of safety, the movement or rotation of the well at the bearing level should be within the permissible limits ‘The analysis is based on limit equilibrium conditions, Some experimental work has been done by Kapur on model wells (1971) in cohesionless soil on the stability analysis of wells. But there is no way of checking the validity of these methods since field tests are not available to verify his findings. However, some of his findings are briefly mentioned in this chapter. He has also developed equations based on dimensional analysis to compute slopes of wells at working loads in cohesionless soils. 12.4. LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM METHOD OF DETERMINING THE GRIP LENGTH OF WELLS IN COHESIONLESS SOILS Experimental works of Kapur (1971) on instrumented model wells indicate that the passive pressure distribution on the front face of the well is parabolic, however, under limit equilibrium condition, it is reasonable to assuime that the passive pressure increases linearly with depth. It has also been found out that the passive pressure increases linearly with depth. It has also been found out that the passive earth pressure coefficients for wells are greater than those applicable for plane strain conditions. In order to simplify the procedure, Broms (1964) recommends that the maximum earth pressure which develops at failure may be taken as equal to three times the passive earth pressure calculated by Rankine’s earth pressure theory. He has used this approach for the computation of ultimate lateral resistance of piles with D/B ratio greater than 3 (D = depth, B = diameter of piles). For rigid foundations with D/2B ratio less than 3, Broms (1987), recommends as follows, Let, Kp Kp = Rankines passive earth pressure coefficient three dimensional passive earth pressure coefficient, We, may write R, = mp a2)——— Deep Foundation 5: Caisson Foundations 543 The value of depends according 10 Broms (1987) on the D/B ratio, and his recommendations are DIB ratio Value of m = resisting forces acting on a well embedded in Fe = cobesive soil. Broms (1964) assumes a maximum Ada “| Intra soil reaction ofc, perunitarea where, is undrained shear strength, which remains constant with depth, He has assumed the soil reaction as zero up toa depth equal o 1.5 times the width of pile whichis applicable only to small diameter piles. In the case of well foundations: for bridges, the grip length is considered below the maximum scour level ands such there is no ip necessity to consider er0 soil reaction below this depth. The forces that act on a wellincohesive Fig, 12,6 Stabilty analysis of @ well foundation soils are shown in Fig. 12.6 embeded in cohesive so i546 Advanced Foundation Engineering We may write the following equations 9¢,LD (ay Fy= a6, DL (2.12) Ry= WE, (2.13) Where, 6, © undrained shear strength of soil, = adhesions factor. ‘Taking moments about O we have 1 1 PD +My, = 5 *9¢yLD?+ 5 ae, DLB + (W-ae,DL)ey (2.14) "D+ May = 3 *9C4LD? + 5 acy ‘Simplifying Eq. (12.4), wehave 2(0,D+ Mg, Wea) D (12.15) aL [9D+a(B-e)] where, Mg HP, = the ultimate lateral loa. esmay be taken as equal to B/6 under ultimate lateral load condition, The adhesion factor o.may be selected according to consistency of the soil as explained in Chapter 8. Equation (12.15) can be solved by choosing such value of D which balances both sides of the equation. 12.6 DETERMINATION OF SCOUR DEPTH IN COHESIONLESS SOILS Ithas been stated earlier that the grip length D for the well foundation of a bridge pier is the depth below the scour level. Methods or procedures for predicting scour depth vary and one requires sound engirieering judgement based on hydraulic and hydrological information, engineering geology and records of performance of adjacent structures for this purpose. Scour that may occur at a bridge site can be categorised as follows: 1. General scour that would occur in the stream without the bridge, 2. ‘The scour that would occur atthe bridge site because of the constriction in waterway caused by the bridge and the approach embenkment, 3. The local scour that occurs because of distortion ofthe flow pattern in the immediate vicinity of the bridge piers and abutments, General Scour ‘The depth of scour is normally measured from the high flood level (HFL). No reliable method is available for estimating the depth of scour. The formula that is commonly used for estimating the «8/9D+a(8-a)] wehave, P, ‘Substituting all the values known, we have 2 {2040 +204 «266-1930 x5 or ssa fppeodlan- 2S) 2(204D + 3602) 3835(0D + 2.835) ‘The solution ofthis equation gives D = 6 m, Ifthe evcentricity. eis taken as equal to B/3, the srip length D = 4.5 m., Possibly itis safer to use e, = B/6.