22 UNDERPINNING EDWARD E. WHITE President, Spencer, Whi 22.1 INTRODUCTION Underpinning structures is the introduction of additional support to the foundation of a structure to deepen or in- trease its bearing value, If done because the foundation is inadequate it is called remedial underpinning. Deepening or enlarging a foundation because of deeper new construction adjacent to the building is called precautionary under- pinning. The latter is the most common type of under- Pinning, although the history of underpinning started with remedial underpinning. “Although many of the early large structures had founda- tion difficulties, no remedial work was performed since the technique of underpinning was not generally known. The ‘Tower of Pisa isa classical example of an inadequate founda- tion that has been settling for 600 years and unless correc tive work is done, will collapse in $0 to 100 years (Spencer, 1953b), Many of the great cathedrals built in the Middle ‘Ages, such as the Cathedral at Ely, England, and Bauvais in France, collapsed and were not reconstructed. One of the first large underpinning projects was at the great cathedral in Winchester, England, which settled for 900 years until it ‘was underpinned in the early twentieth century by a diver, who singlehandedly installed bags of concrete into pits dug. ‘under water through peat and silt to a gravel layer (see Fig. 22.1 and Hammond, 1955). Visitors to the cathedral will find a plaque memorializing this feat. Remedial underpinning dates back to efforts to correct mistakes in foundation construction and was performed in early days by the Romans on their structures and by the French on the fortification walls of XIII Century Carcas- sonne but it was not until this century that the technique of tnderpinning was developed and greatly stimulated by sub- way construction in New York City. Earlier subways had been built in European capitals but the ground conditions and type of subways constructed did not require under- pinning. In New York underpinning was necessary in order to construct deep subways in downtown Manhattan next to heavy buildings. The streets were narrow and the subsoi ‘was varved silt which is very difficult to dewater, making ita problem to excavate open piers without loss of ground, It became necessary to"jack piles or sink compressed air piers to eliminate this pit work. In 1917 the Pretest pile, Seveloped by Lazarus White and Edmund A. Prentis, was designed to prevent the rebound of jacked piles and to transfer the load from the structures to the piles without settlement. The Nassau Street subway was an example of the magnitude of underpinning required. Hefe the subway snd Prentis, Ine., New York ‘was constructed adjacent to very heavy masonry buildings Which were underpinned by Pretest piles and heavy con- crete retaining walls (see Fig. 22.2). This method is stil in general use in water-bearing ground on such important Structures as the San Francisco and Washington, D. C., subways. Tn the course of early subway work it was necessary to underpin literally hundreds of buildings of a great many types and sizes and other new techniques were developed. The greatest improvement was made in shoring and tem- porary support techniques prior to underpinning. In many Buildings, particularly large ones, it was discovered that it ‘was possible to dig small pits under the footings to install piers or piles, making it possible to eliminate shoring or temporary support, The loss of support under the founda tion for a short period could be tolerated until the under inning support elements were installed. In recent years the amount of underpinning work has increased due to large, deep structures and the large volume fof construction of subways throughout the world. Under oT Ground Ti wT ? Gravel sgratum * S 122.1, Winchester Cathedral, England. Concreretiled bass f°" ‘Underpinning installed by diver, (After Harnmond, 1955.) REFERENCE #3Fie. 22.2 Underpinning Nassau Street subway, 1930. Support of heavy buildings by Prete piles and continuovs concrete retaining walls, (Courtey of Spencar, White & Prentis, ne) binning of structures requires considerable experience and as life and property can be endangered, it should only be performed by experts in both design and field execution, 22.2 REASON FOR UNDERPINNING The most common cause for settlement of buildings is the overloading of the soil of a mat or spread footing. A classical example is the Palace of Fine Arts in Mexico City which has settled over 10 feet since it was constructed in 1904 (Civil Engineering, 1955). A complete failure is not unknown, an example being the collapse of a cement silo in 1940 due to the overloading of # S6-foot strata of soft varved clay with a Q, = 0.8 to 1.0 ton/ft?. (See Figs. 22.3 and 22.4; Tschebotarioff, 1951). Difficulties can arise because of inadequate borings that {ail to disclose weak soil such’as clay or peat under @ firm {ol stratum. This situation was found when an apartment ©) satted"in New York and boring dtcloed a tyne eat -Tanging from 2 feet to 3S feet in thickness under the building. Some common causes for remedial underpinning are as follows: Underpinning 627 1. Overtoading the soit, 2: Improper soil exploration. ~ 3. Placing the foundation eccentrically with the load 4. Adjacent excavation causing settlement of structure 5. Pile driving vibration causing consolidation of loosely consolidated soil a 6. Disregarding the load placed on the ground Noor of 2 building, causing the slab to settle-* 7. Subsidence caused by trees which remove water from the ground near a structure (Engineering News Rec- ord, 1943), ga cillenent 8. Pumping of groundwater. > 9. Piles not driven to proper depth, Piles driven to re- sistance determined by pile driving formulas do not take into consideration that often soft layers are below the stratum where the piles stop. As the building is built this layer compresses and settlement results, 10. Rotting of wood piles due to lowered groundwater, 11. Corrosion of steel piles due to chemical or electro- lytic action. 12. Overdriven piles—wood piles broken by boulders 13. Improperly installed piles, collapsed shells, Voids in concrete poured in piles. 14. Negative friction caused by settling fill exerting a downward pull on the pile loading it more than its capacity. _ THE most important reason for underpinning is not foundation defects but the necessity of protecting structures because of construction of adjacent new structures, such as new deep building foundations, tunnels, or subways, Under inning may also have to be installed to provide a larger of \Seeper foundation in existing buildings that ate being me ‘modeled, raised in height, or being used with hesver loads ‘Another type is maintenance underpinning, witch go salle in anticipation of setiement of the ground anders Structure, Provisions were made at New York's Yasvee Stadium for installing jacks at predetermined locations ead maintaining the structure at required elevations vers period Of time until the settlement stopped. This ype of ender: Pinning is rarely used as owners would rather have soso: ture with a foundation that wil not require maintenoece, Maintenance underpinning used on the San Francitce sub: way’ was of showt duration until the tunnel conthocton Passed the buildin _ emperary undeipnning Br snag Walaa wha fnew subway is bull under an existing sructare, Union f pinning methods are used to support the old struciue uot the subway & completed. ‘The load of the old situctue transferred to the oof of the new structure whieh de, signed to support it and the underpinning is removed, fore desiening underpinning, the stuctute Sender Pinned should be analyzed to determine the loads te bo Supported. If original plans are avaloble, column ioede meg be tabulated or the assumed earth besring vale may te found so that column loads may be computed how the footing sizes: in any case, a check computation ofthe loed should be made. The height ofthe building, stores, cohsgs spacing, wall thickness and window spicing tee ea ateriais of construction, le loads asigaed to cath toor ‘and room, carthquake factors where required. superior posed loads caused by part of the new strocture conttion of building should allbe considered. A reasonably accurate Fule‘of thumb check is to asign loads of 15 to" tons por story Per lines foot of wall Thus e continuous walls Ree Fes high would havea load of 9 tons per linear foot of wal ‘The same building with columns 20 fect on center would have REFERENCE #3628 Foundation Engineering Handbook Fig, 2:3. Collapred silo due to shear failure in varved blue clay. 2 load of 180 tons per column, As a further check, these values can be compared to the footing size and assumed arth bearing value, In general modern steel or concrete frame structures are considerably lighter than older masonry buildings. If the original plans are not available, as is often the case, the loads can be computed from field measure- ments. An inspection of the building is always necessary as many buildings are remodeled and do not conform to orig- inal plans 1,208.0 Ground wrtacd Ig Yellow cy Topaf EL 20136 _matias but ered Bie stay se DN vals 8-11 blows'ft 2, 0810 Lion tt Probable diretion of einem In designing underpinning the ground conditions under the building require close study. The most uncertain ele ment of underpinning systems i the underlaying soil sup- porting the system rather than the structural capacity of concrete or steel used. Seams of soft or compressible material, boulders, filled ground, groundwater conditions, and the location’ of bedrock, ‘hardpan, or satisfactory bearing material will have an influence on the extent, depth. and type of underpinning necessary, For this reason it 5, Lacation of to as Put ofr, bung ll (62200, Dieptaved mater ia SEE SSS Sa este Fig. 2.4 Soil concitions at collapsed site. (Courtey of Spencer, White & Prentis, Ine) REEERENCE #3