(V7 b) DESIGN OF DRILLED SHAFTS IN EXPANSIVE CLAYS (14) by Michael W. O'Nei1T University of Houston 1. Definition of a Drilled Shaft. 1.1. A drilled shaft is a type of pile that is formed by drilling a hole in the soil and backfilling the hole with concrete that is usually reinforced. A typical drilled shaft is depicted in Fig. The shaft may be cylindrical or it may have an enlarged base to increase its capacity. The enlarged base is usually formed by a reaming or belling bucket attached to the end of the Gril] stem on a rotary drilling rig. 1.2. Sizes of drilled shafts vary. The cylindrical portion typically is 12 inches in diameter or larger (smaller drilling augers are not commonly kept in stock by contractors), and the base is typically 36 inches in diameter or larger. Sizes of both the cylindrical shaft and base are normally specified in increments of 6 inches (beginning with 12 inches) to avoid requiring con tractors to fabricate odd-sized drilling tools. Also, it is usually cost- effective to specify as few separate shaft and enlarged base ("bell") sizes as possible on a given project where many small drilled shafts are being installed to avoid unnecessary delays in changing drilling tools. 1.3. The largest drilled shafts are often called drilled caissons and have shaft diameters of several feet, bell diameters in excess of 30 feet, and are constructed to depths exceeding 100 feet. 1.4. Like a driven pile, a drilled shaft resists an applied compressive load (Fig. 1) through a combination of skin friction along the cylindrical position of the shaft (or merely “shaft") and end bearing. The capacity of ashaft is determined by computing the shaft resistance Q, and end bearing capa~ city Q, independently and adding the two components, as illustrated in Fig. 1. 2. Construction of Drilled Shafts. 2.1, Three basic construction techniques (and a number of variations thereupon) are available for installing drilled shafts. In order to properly assess Qs and Qg, it is desirable to determine which of the techniques will be used, since the construction procedure will significantly affect the capacity “of the shaft, both for compression loading and for uplift loading that can occur in expansive soil profiles. 2.2 The three techniques are illustrated in Fig. 2: (a) (Illustrated in Fig. 2a) Drill the hole and directly backfill with concrete and steel without the use of drilling aids (generally the most desirable procedure, especially when the time between drilling and concreting is held to a minimum to prevent sloughing and/or drying of the soil at the wall of the borehole); (b) (I1lus- trated in Figs. 2b and 2c) Drill the hole with an auger underneath a drilling slurry (to penetrate caving soils such as sands) until a stratum of imperme- able clay is reached, seal the borehole in that clay with a temporary casing, extract the drilling fluid from inside the casing, complete the drilling below the casing in “the dry," set the reinforcing steel, and fill the hole with concrete while simultaneously withdrawing the casing; and (c) (Illustrated in Fig. 2d) Orit] into or through caving soil as in b (but do not set casing or extract slurry), place reinforcing steel, and insert fluid concrete into the hole at its base through a tremie, displacing the drilling slurry directly with the fluid concrete. Technique c is usually: limited to the construction of straight-sided shafts. With Technique b it is possible to trap drilling fluid between the temporary casing and the soil that is not removed when the caging is withdrawn, thus reducing skin friction. Technique c may result in 17b,-2-the entrapment of fluids and soil sloughings at the base that cannot be deter- mined by inspection; however, Technique c when executed properly results in good soil-to-concrete contact along the shaft, equivalent to Technique a. 2.3. Two major concerns during construction are that the drilled shaft is installed in the soil strata intended and that the structural integrity of the shaft is maintained. These require close inspection of the installation pro- cess, which includes verification of hole dimensions, inspection of cuttings, verification of a sound contact at the base of the shaft if the shaft is com pleted in the dry, testing for adequate concrete slump (at least six inches), and looking for evidence that soil has intruded into the concrete section. This evidence is usually indirect, such as visible loss of ground or sudden downward movement of reinforcing steel, but it may also go undetected during installation. Since structural integrity is of major concern, remote post- installation testing may be desirable for all major caissons or on representa~ tive drilled shafts for a small project. 2.4. One promising method of remote post~installation testing is illus- trated in Fig. 3. This involves casting one or more geophones in shafts to be tested and subjecting the top of each shaft to a vertical impulse. Wave arrival times, direct and reflected, are measured with an oscilloscope, and compared with those that would be expected in a perfect shaft. Significant deviations indicate the precence of major defects such as soil intrusions. Ovher methods (mostly appropriate for major caissons) include electronic logging through tubes precast in the concrete and coring. 3. Load Transfer and Design in Non-Expansive Soils. 3.1, In a non-expansive soil (Fig. 4) an applied load Q, is resisted by upward-directed unit side shear and end bearing. Near the surface the load transferred may be low due to reduced lateral pressures between the soil andconcrete. For a distance of one or two diameters above the base load transfer is also reduced, as depicted in Fig. 4, because the base pressure tends to pull the soil down along the bottom part of the shaft. This restricts the relative movement that can occur between the shaft and soil and so restricts load transfer. 3.2. Along the remaining portion of the shaft, in cohesive soils, the unit side shear load is ‘Tower than the measured undrained cohesion because of soil remolding during the drilling operation and because the suction in many overconsolidated clays (the type of soil in which most drilled shafts are installed) exceeds the suction in the concrete, with the result that water not required for hydration of the concrete is drawn into the soil surrounding the shaft, causing further softening. The effect of this phenomenon is illus- trated in Fig. 5. The magnitude of this reduction is discussed in Section 3.4. 3.3. In order for the maximum available soil shear stress to be trans- ferred from the soil to the concrete along the shaft, some displacement of the concrete must occur relative to the surrounding soil, as mentioned briefly in 3.1. The magnitude of this displacement, z. (Fig. 6), can be shown empir- ically to be approximately a direct function of the diameter of the shaft. An expression for z, that will be of use in the design of drilled shafts in c expansive soils is given in Fig. 6. Considerably larger deflections are required to mobilize full base load transfer. 3.4. Figure 7 is a concise presentation of a simple design method for drilled shafts in clay, neglecting temporarily any special requirements for expansive clays. © The procedure includes shear strength reduction (a) factors based on the shaft geometry and method of construction. Belled shafts are assigned lower a factors for compression loading than straight- 1 Tb, =d~sided shafts because of the effect of the bell on relative pile-to-soil dis- placement (among other factors), described in 3.1. Drilled shafts constructed with casing and drilling fluid, but in which the hole is completed in the dry, are also assigned reduced q factors but are assigned the. same end bearing factors as shafts constructed entirely in the dry. The equation on Fig. 7 contain the terms Ag and Ag, which refer to the entrie side area of the cylindrical portion of the shaft and the bearing area of the base, respec- tively. The term's, refers to the avarage undrained shear strength, as mea- sured in a WU triaxial compression test, along the depth of the cylindrical part of the shaft. The term c refers to the average undrained shear strength for a depth of two base diameters beneath the base of the shaft. In the event Category A.2 or B.2 is descriptive of the shaft in question and where at least half of the total depth of the cylindrical portion of the shaft is drilled in the dry, Category A.2 or B.1 q factors should be applied to the calculation of ultimate side resistance for those portions of the shaft completed in the dry. 3.5. For straight shafts completed in clay under a slurry, without the use of temporary casing, a and N. may be taken as in Category A.1; however, it is recommended that Ag be reduced by about one-half in consideration of the fact that cuttings may become randomly trapped between the base of the con- crete and the underlying soil as the concrete is first introduced into the hole. 3.6. The design value of Qr is based on the lesser of the two expressions shown in Fig. 7. The first expression is used to ensure that settlement will not be excessive for shafts with large enlarged bases. The second expression assures an overall safety factor of at least 2. 3.7. The design of drilled shafts in sand follows a procedure similar to that in clays. That procedure is outlined in Fig. 8. That procedure appliesto shafts constructed completely in the dry or by using direct slurry dis- placement. (Note that it is possible to construct drilled shafts in sands in the dry under favorable conditions, which include the presence of apparent cohension or light cementation in the sand and construction restricted to zones above the water table.) End bearing in sands is restricted in Fig. 8 based on a probable base settlement of 1 inch, which is regarded as failure. Because of this it is necessary only to provide against the “failure” load, (Q;)gs im order to establish the design load. Note that the parameters in Fig. 8 do not apply for sand penetrations of more than 25 feet; Reese et al. may be consulted for recommendations regarding sand penetrations exceeding 25 feet. 4. Load Transfer and Design in Expansive Clays. 4.1, The first consideration for design of drilled shafts in expansive Clays is that the drilled shaft be safely proportioned to carry its design load in compression. The second requirement is. that the shaft not move upward excessively when the clay expands. The third requirement is that the shaft not fail tension when the clay expands. The following sections elaborate on these requirements. A numerical example is given in the Appendix. 4.2. To achieve the first requirement, the principles outlined in Section 3 are followed, except that the upper portion of the shaft should be excluded when calculating Qs for unprotected locations because expansive clays may also shrink away from the concrete during periods of dry weather. It is suggested that this “non-contributing* surface zone be considered to be 5 feet deep in moist climates and 15 feet deep in semi-arid to arid climates. 4.3. The second requirement usually (but not always) can be satisfied by providing anchorage in non-expansive soils below the zone of seasonal moisture change by extending the shaft to an adequate depth. Anchorage against the IT beuplifting loads imposed on the drilled shaft by expanding soils near the sur- face is provided by the bell or by skin friction in the extended part of the shaft or, occasionally, by both. 4.4. In order to understand the anchorage requirement, the reader's attention is directed again to Fig. 4. In the expansive soil, under the same load Q; as in the non-expansive soil, the upward-directed shear stresses f along the shaft are much higher than those in the non-expansive soil because the soil has moved upward with respect to the shaft instead of the shaft's having moved downward with respect to the soil and because the magnitude of upward movement in the soil (swelling) usually exceeds the downward movement of a shaft in non-expansive soil. Whenever the upward soil movement (plus any small downward movement from the compressional load in the shaft) exceeds z,, a limiting skin friction is assumed to be reached. The development of the upward-directed limiting skin friction is almost independent of Q, in expan- sive soils. Suggested design magnitudes are 0.4 times the undrained cohesion of the soil at average moisture content or 0.6 times the cohesion component of the UU strength after soaking at in-situ confining pressure. This limiting skin friction is assumed for design purposes to be present over the entire depth of seasonal moisture change (discussed in Sec. 4.5) for any value of Qr, except within the “zone of partial uplift," located at the bottom of the zone of seasonal moisture change. Here, the magnitude of the relative soil-to-pile movement is small (less than 2), so the limiting skin friction cannot be developed. It can be assumed for design that the upward-directed skin fric- tion varies from zero at the bottom of the zone of seasonal moisture change to the limiting value of skin friction at the top of the zone of partial uplift. The location of the top of the zone of partial uplift can be established for design purposes as the depth at which the estimated soil heave equals 2,. IT b=7~Below the zone of seasonal moisture change, the skin friction is directed downward on the shaft (for small values of Q;), but if a bell is used as an anchor, skin friction in that area should usually be neglected for design pur- poses. Finally, if a bell is provided as an anchor the soil reaction is down- ward on the shoulder of the bell. 4.5. Numerous methods exist for estimating the depth of seasonal moisture change, One such method, used by the author and depicted in Fig. 9, defines that depth as the depth at which the limits to liquidity indexes developed ‘over several seasons become constant. The arrows show the interpreted depths of seasonal moisture change in two soil formations in southeastern Texas. 4.6. Figures 10 and 11 summarize procedures for assuring adequate anchor- age and consequent assurance of minimal uplift movements in drilled shafts. Figure 10, for belled shafts, makes use of the concepts outlined in Sections 4.4 and 4.5. Since the uplift requirement is established to prevent distress in the superstructure, it can be assumed that the relevant Q, consists of that part of the dead load that is applied to the shaft before any structural con- tinuity is established during construction of the superstructure. For pur- poses of this. discussion that value is taken as 25% of the design dead load; however, the load could be less than that value if a continuous system of grade beans is constructed before further construction of the superstructure, as is often the case for masonry structures in expansive soils. The factor 0.25 is more appropriate for framed structures where continuity is established relatively late in the construction process. If the total soil surface heave hg has been estimated by a geotechnical engineer, p', the thickness of the zone of partial uplift can be estimated by assuming that heave (h) is related to depth (z) as shown in Fig. 10. Finally, the uplift capacity of the bell is established by assuming the top of the zone of partial uplift to be a free 11 b8-surface in order to limit movement of the bell and therefore of the top of the shaft. A factor of safety of 2 is provided against uplift failure of the bell. Short-term suction at the base of the bell is excluded. 4.7. Figure 11 depicts the design of a straight shaft anchor. The avail- able downward-directed shear stress f in the stable zone is calculated from Section 3. However, if the soil in the stable zone is sand and z, is less than 25 feet, aayg (Fig. 8) should be reduced to 0.5. 4.8, The third requirement, (tensile integrity) is illustrated in Fig. 12. Since soil uplift loads can develop before any dead load is placed on the top of the shaft, tensile steel should be sized assuming Q, = 0. Obviously, it is important that Q, not be directed upward as might occur if soil uplift forces are allowed to act on grade beams or slabs before sufficient compres- sion is applied to the shaft. Usually, the critical Section is at depth z,, so that the uplift load T, must be resisted by the steel. 5. Drilled Shafts in Non-Stable Soils. 5.1. In some geological situations, such as depicted in Fig. 13, mois- ture-deficient soil may be present below the stable soil (that zone just below 2q)+ Attempts to found drilled shafts in such soils have been known to cause serious long-term problems because the drilled shaft acts as a wick to trans- mit surface or perched groundwater into the moisture-deficient (and con- sequently high~suction) soil. Absorption of water by the soil present around the base results in heaving of the entire shaft. Geological experience is the best means of identifying unstable, moisture-deficient clays; however, in the absence of such experience, the graph at the bottom of Fig. 13 can be used to determine whether a soil below z4 is moisture-deficient. That graph depicts approximate stable suction values for clays which are situated above the general water table. It may be tentatively assumed that if the suction 1 Th.-demeasured in the founding stratum for the base is lower than the value from the graph, wick action {s unlikely. However, in arid climates, where the Thornthwaite Index is negative, and at sites where perched groundwater or standing surface water is possible, wick action may occur at suction values Jower than those shown in the graph so that in such a case stable suction should be assumed at no higher than about 3.5 (pF units). 5.2. Where stable soil cannot be found at reasonable depths, it is neces- sary either to use very high bearing loads (generally high enough to ensure that’ that portion of 0.25 DL reaching the base divided by the base area, Ag, exceeds the zero swell pressure of the soil), while at the same time using shaft geometry that ensures an adequate factor of safety against compressive load, or to change to a reinforced mat-type shallow foundation system. The former option is often not physically possible, so that reinforced mat-type shallow foundation systems may offer the best sdlution. 6. Observations. 6.1. Long-term observation of deep drilled shafts in expansive clay and clay-shale stratigraphy by the Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, are shown in Fig. 14. Measurements indicate a load transfer pattern similar to the one shown in Fig. 4 after a year of surface, ponding to induce heave. It is also noted that the limiting shaft resistance canbe expressed as a func- tion of the product of the zero swell pressure of the soil measured in an oedometer and the residual angle of internal friction. 6.2. Figure 15 shows’ relationships between ~ structural distress (increasing on the vertical scale) in 16 low-rise, drilled-shaft-supported buildings in Houston, Texas and (1) swell potential computed from a simple conventional procedure (McDowell's method) and (2) a climate factor, which relates the deviation of rainfall in the year of foundation construction and 17b.-10-the succeding period (until the structure was completed) to average annual rainfall for the site. Most of the drilled shafts were slightly too shallow with respect to the design procedure described herein and so tended to move, although much of the observed distress was due to expansion of soil against grade beams and floor slabs. The lower graph demonstrates (by virture of the higher correlation coefficient (r)) that not only do general climate factors and swell potential affect foundation performance, but that variations in rainfall during the period of construction are also important. Distress increased for construction periods that were both drier and wetter than normal. Specific definitions of distress number, swell potential, and climate factor can be found in the reference by O'Nei11 and Ghazzaly. 7. Special Solutions. 7.1, Special solutions to the placement of drilled shafts in expansive clays are sometimes tried. One method is illustrated in Fig. 16, where a bitumen-coated pipe is used to carry loads into stable soils. This solution precludes the necessity of designing the shaft as an anchor and the consider- ation of tension steel. Provision of an annular space between shaft and soil {perhaps filled with a weak material), rather than the system shown in Fig. 16, might permit seepage of water into the stable zone and cause the soil in that zone to swell and so is not advised. 7.2. Deep prewetting, as, from closely-spaced gravity wells or forced injection, is sometimes used to attempt to reduce the swell potential of clays over an entire site. Occasionally, such prewetting can be counted on to reduce uplift in drilled shafts installed on the site after the period of pre- wetting has been completed. However, this should not be done unless heave from the prewetting process has stopped before the drilled shafts are installed.Bibiligraphy Aurora, R.P., Peterson, E.H., and O'Nei11, M.W., "Model Studies of Long Piles in Clay," Proceedings 13th Offshore Technology Conference, IV, May 1981, pp. 331-338. Baker, C.N., dr., and Kahn, F., "Caisson Construction Problems and Correction in Chicago," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM2, Feb. ‘> pp. 417-440. Hearne, T.M., dr., Stokoe, K.M., II, and Reese, L.C., “Orilled-Shaft Integrity by Wave Propagation Method," Journal of the Geotechnical Engi- neering Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GTIO, Oct. 1961, pp. 1327-1344- Ismael, N.F., and Klym, T.W., “Behavior of Rigid Piers in Layered Cohesive Soils," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT8, Aug. 1978, pp. 1061-1074. Johnson, L.0., Sherman, W.C., dr., and Al-Hussaini, M., “Overview for Design and Construction of Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils," Miscellaneous Paper GL-81-3, USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Aug. 1981. Lytton, R.L., PTI Design Manual, Post-Tensioning Institute, Phoenix, AZ, 1980. McDowell, C., “Interrelationships of Load, Volume Change and Layer Thickness of Soils to the Behavior of Engineering Structures," Proceedings, Highway Research Board, 1956, pp. 754-772. O'Neill, M.W., and Ghazzaly, O.1., "Swell Potential Related to Building Per- formance," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. GT12, Dec. 1977, pp. 1363-1379. natnecring Susie O'Nei11, M.W., and Poormoayed, N., "Methodology for Foundations on Expansive Clays.' Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. GT12, Dec. 1980, pp. 1345-1367. O'Neill, M.W., and Reese, L.C., “Behavior of Bored Piles in Beaumont Clay," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. 2, Feb. 1972, pp. 195~ Reese, L.C., Drilled Shaft Manual (in two volumes), Federal Highway Adminis tration, 1977. Reese, L.C., Touma, F., and O'Neil1, M.W., “Behavior of Drilled Piers Under Axial Loading," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, Noo GIS, May 1916, SESS Woodward, R.J., Gardner, W.S., and Greer, D.M., Drilled Pier Foundations, Mc Graw Hill, Inc., 1972. 176 -l2~‘APPENDIX - EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS Given: b= le" B(trial) = 42" (45° angle) h, = 3" (calculated) 24 = 66" (estimated) ¢ (constant cohesion) = 4000 psf (clay soil profile) LL (live load) = 59 k DL (dead load) = 90 k Ory Construction Anticipated (Category B.1) Pick Trial Depth of Base = 10' (1" high bell) Compute Compression Capacity: As = 1.5m (10" - 1') = 42.4 sq. ft (Quit = (0-8) 42.4 = 33.9 k (0.8 ksf is limiting value from Category 8.1) Ay = 3.52 (n/4) = 9.62 sq. ft (pure = 9 (4) 9.62 = 346.3 & (Qpuie = 33-9 + 346.3 = 380.2 k (Q)gesign * 33-9 + 346.3/3 = 149.3 k < 380.2/2 < DL + LL; OK Check Adequancy of d and B for Anchorage: 2, (critical uplift movement) = 0.012 (18") = 0.216" 2 - Pt = x; then 0.216" = 3" (1 - x/66")*; x = 4g" pi-= 66" ~ 48" = 18" Uplift from soil = U = (1.5 ft) w (0.4) (4ksf) (4° + 1.5'/2) = 35.8 k 176,-13-Uplift capacity requirement for anchor below depth zy = Q, = 2(U = 0.25 DL) = 2(35.8 - 22.5) = 26.6 k Available uplift capacity; p= 10' - 5.5' + 1.5' = 6" p/B = 6/3.5 = 1.7 Ne 2.5 Q, avail.) = (n/4) (3.5? ~ 1.5%) (2.5) (4) = 28.5 k > 26.6 k_OK Longitudinal Reinforcing Stee1: Design for Critical Case; Q, = 0 » T (= tensile load) = 35.8 k at 24 = 66" Since zy is small and since p is also small, use uniform steel cage full depth of shaft. Size steel for 35.8 k tensile load with adequate safety factor. For example 4, # 6 bars are adequate with f = 22 ksi. 17 b-1h=b = 12" = 36" (typical) Oy = Os * OB CQ ure = (Usdure * adure Cast In-Situ Reinforced Concrete B=2-3b (typical) oy Enlarged Base Often Used Fig. 1. Drilled Shaft Under Compression Loading Tb, Iconesive soit a. SHAFT CONSTRUCTED USING THE ORY METHOD COMESIVE som. CAVING SOW COMESIVE SOIL ¢ UNDERREAMING WITH THE CASING METHOD Fig. 2. Major Methods of Drilled Shaft Construction (After Johnson et al.) CconESIVE sou. ‘CAVING SOIL CONESIVE sciL b. DRILLING WITH THE CASING. METHOD COHESIVE Sort, CAVING son d PLACING CONCRETE USING A TREMIE AND THE SLURAY METHOD 17b-16Seosivnny. (view) 280 Ré-Retiection From Clay Detect Rt-Rellection From Top of Shatt © Ratnchion From Tap of Shatt Fen we bbold FAT ssa caansso ae) aa | 205H16 em la) () ve Travel Paine Reflection Record for 39-f (12-m) Long Shaft with « Planned Defect Fig. 3. Integrity Evaluation by Seismic Testing (After Hearne et al.) 176-17Zone of Seasonal Moisture Variation Zone of Partial 1 Non-Expansive Soi Expansive Soil Fig. 4. Idealizes Loads and Shaft-Soil Interface Stresses at Working Load 171b.-1%Estimated Moisture Content and Shearing Resistance of Soil at Various, Dept (1 ft = 0.305 mi; 1 tal = 96.8 N/m?) Fig. 5. Moisture Migration and Shear Strength Decrease in Clay Soil (After Reese et al.) 176.- 197 NOTE: z, is the movement of the pier associated with development of maximum side shear. & (also shown) is associated with a sub-maximun condition. Concrete{ Soil wo 2 30 40 50 6 70 PILE OIAMETER (1N.) * See Aurora et al. for basic references Fig. 6. Displacements Required to Produce Maximum Side Resistance 176-26Design Parameters for Drilled Piers in Clay ———— -. Design category _ ay | Az] ei | a2 @ {oso |@] os | ax | os | ose | 0 ° os | ow | os | oe | o ° : [3 s |_s 9 3 May be increased to Category A.I value for scgmenis of pier dled dry. “Limiting nde shear 809 ta for segments of per died dry. “May be increused to Category B.! value for segments of pcr dried “Limiting te shea is 0.4 a for segments of per deiled ry. Note: if = 98.8 KN/m? (Qu (Osun = Sag SAS (Qe) = (Oxha + - ha = oe Dane (Oban € 2 (Qeda New - 3S ure! Category A.—Straight-sided shafts in either homogeneous or layered soil with 1 soil of exceptional stiffness below the base Category A.1.—Piers in Category A installed dry or by advancing the borehole light weight drilling slurry and displacing the slurry directly with fluid te. Category A.2—Piers in Category A installed with driling mud along some portion of the hole such that the entrapment of drilling mud between the sides of the pier and the natural sol is possible. Category B.—Belled piers in either homogeneous or layered clays with no ‘soil of exceptional stiffness below the Fase. Category B. 1.—Piers in Category B installed dry. Category B.2.—Piers in Category B installed with drilling mud along some portion of the hole such that the entrapment of drilling mud between the sides fof the pier and the natural sil is possible. ‘Category C.—Straight-sded piers with base resting on soil significantly stiffer ‘tha the soil around the stem. ‘Cotegory D.—Belled piers with base resting on soils significantly stiffer than the soil around the stem. Fic. 7. Design Parameters for Drilled Piers in Clay (After Reese et al.) 176. -Alneenon Demon Carmona ro Driso Prams Siow (41) (Qs), 4 (Qe (®ydoessgn” (Op g/ 2 (00472 B,tand de in which @yq = & factor that allows correlation with experimental results. as follows: C' circumference of pier, in feet; H = total depth of embedment B, = effective overburden pressure. in pounds per xquare friction angle, in degrees; and dz = differential element penetration in sand not exceeding 25 ft A Qn Ee K= 0.68 Bearing Stress for Drilled Piers in Sand for Settement of 6% of Base Fig. 8. Design Parameters for Drilled Piers in Sand (After Reese et al.) (7b. - 22Liquidity Index Veraus Depth for Samples taken over Several Saatont in Houston, Te (Date Courtesy Southwestern Laboratories): (2) Beaumont Formation; (o; Montgomery Formation Fig. 9. A Method for Estimating Depth of Seasonal Moisture Variation (z.) (After O'Neil] and Poormoayed) I7b.- 230.25 DL (may vary with type of construction) Distribution of f, Free field with depth surface heave, h, Zone of partial development of uplift stresses —s—+ * 24 is depth of seasonal moisture 1 { variation A ¢ u Qy = CoN + off (Uplift capacity of bell) p/B ON, (after Ismael and Kiym) NOTE: As a general rule, it is xe a good practice to specify 5.0 9.0 B- be2 5.0 9.0 Ba Design should require Que 2oiffye bdz - 0.25 DL) in order that the displacement at the top of the pier not exceed 0.5" under extreme soil-induced uplift loads. Fig. 10, Establishment of Bell Depth in Expansive Clay Profile 176-2Q, = 0.25 DL (may vary with type of construction) d uM Design should require mf faz 2 2.0mb [Fae ‘in order that the displacement at the top of the vier not ekdeed 0.5" under extreme sofl-induced uplift loads. Fig. 11. Establishment of Depth of Straight-Sided Pier in Expansive Clay Profile to Avoid Excessive Uplift 19b. -25*4 4 —_ Ty (tensile Toad.at z= zy - p') = oft dz Tr (tensile | load at z = 24) = vf A Reinforcing steel should normally be sized to carry load T, and extend to the full length of the shaft. For long belled shafts the steel area can possibly be reduced above zy - p' (allowing for appropriate development length, but not below zy - p'.) For long straight shafts the steel area could possibly also be reduced as for belled shafts and could also be reduced below zy, again allowing for proper development. | td hoy tot La Fig. 12. Reinforcing Steel Considerations 176.-2STAPLE Suction (pF) Unstable Soi] Perched) Stable Soft Potential High-Capacity Bearing Stratum (Clay or Clay-Shale) Unstable if Suction> Stable Suction Af AX (Wick Action fs Likely, and Base will Heave) After Lytton 50 ° +50 THORNTHWAITE MOISTURE INDEX Fig. 13, Moisture-Deficient Bearing Strata 176. - 27wmv sayy aml zoe 0 jt: (eazer Ditleeses aetones mmetite acme “Camige wo tnt A ction i ed Tanah, Pony ve 4e-Sotenng Of S-Par merece oe € bape Soa Zoe Ben te sont Uplt ledesod by Volume Chenge in Exponcive Clay on A Beliad Dried Shaft Fig. 14. Measured Relationship Between Unit Side Shear in Uplift and Cohesive Shear Strength, Zero Swell Pressure, and Residual Angle of Internal Friction (After O'Neil] and Poormoayed based on data from Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District) 176.-2870 Wine saens “41 — Seat Potent (ind cavers number/ Suet Pate ‘lime Factor Correlation of Bullding Distress to Swell Potentia| by McDowell Method (+) Distress Versus Swall Potential; (b) Normal reas Versus {0} Normalized Distrecs Versus Climate Fig. 15. Relation of Apparent Swell-Related Distress in Structures on Shallow Drilled Piers to Variation in Climate (After O'Nef11 and Ghazzaly) 176, - 2GSteel Pipe Bitumen Coating ett 4 l | 4 Qg _( Be1l_or Extended Straight Shaft Has No Anchor Requirements ) Fig. 16. Method of Destroying Bond (After Woodward et al.) /1b.- 30