Laterally Loaded Shafts in MSE Block Wall K Tran KU 07 6

Report No.
K-TRAN: KU-07-6
FINAL REPORT
Capacity of Laterally Loaded Shafts

Constructed Behind the Face of a Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Block Wall
Matthew Pierson
Robert L. Parsons, Ph.D., P.E.
Jie Han, Ph.D., P.E.
The University of Kansas
Dan Brown, Ph.D., P.E.

W. Robert Thompson III, P.E.
Dan Brown and Associates
March 2009
A Cooperative TRANSPORTATION Research program

between:
Kansas Department of Transportation

Kansas State University
University of Kansas
1 Report No. 2 Government Accession No. 3 Recipient Catalog No.
K-TRAN: KU-07-6
4 Title and Subtitle 5 Report Date
Capacity of Laterally Loaded Shafts Constructed Behind the Face of March 2009
a Mechanically Stabilized Earth Block Wall 6 Performing Organization Code
7 Author(s) 8 Performing Organization Report No.

Matthew Pierson, Robert Parsons, Ph.D., P.E., Jie Han, Ph.D., P.E., Dan
Brown, Ph.D., P.E., W. Robert Thompson III, P.E.
9 Performing Organization Name and Address 10 Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering
2150 Learned Hall, 1530 W 15th Street 11 Contract or Grant No.
Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7609 C1681
12 Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13 Type of Report and Period Covered
Kansas Department of Transportation Final Report
Bureau of Materials and Research Summer 2007 - Fall 2008
700 SW Harrison Street
14 Sponsoring Agency Code
Topeka, Kansas 66603-3745 RE-0446-01
15 Supplementary Notes
For more information write to address in block 9.
16 Abstract
Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls are an inexpensive and aesthetically attractive means of retaining soil. While
the design principles for MSE structures have been accepted for several decades, space restrictions at MSE wall sites have led
to new demands on MSE wall structures to support laterally loaded deep foundation elements constructed within the reinforced
mass. Current design procedures for such configurations are by necessity based on very conservative design assumptions due to
the lack of test data.
This report contains estimates of the capacity of concrete columns, commonly referred to as drilled shafts, constructed behind
the facing of a mechanically stabilized earth wall within the reinforced mass. This is the first of two reports on this topic and
contains design capacity recommendations for 36 inch diameter shafts constructed behind an MSE wall with a height of 20 feet
based on full scale field testing. It also contains recommendations for P-Y curve analyses for similar wall-shaft configurations.
These recommendations and a discussion of their development were prepared by Dan Brown and Associates and are presented in
Appendix B. The second report will contain capacity recommendations for walls and shafts with a range of heights and diameters
based on computer models calibrated with the field data reported herein.
A 20 foot tall, 140 foot long MSE block wall was built in accordance with AASHTO and KDOT specifications using the
Mesa system developed by Tensar International. The wall supported eight 36 inch diameter vertical shafts constructed at four
different distances from the back of the facing to the center of the shaft. These shafts were then loaded toward the wall facing
using a displacement control method. The shafts and wall were monitored using multiple methods as each shaft was loaded to
failure.
Shafts were determined to have substantial lateral capacity, with capacity and width of shaft influence increasing as the
distance of the shaft from the wall increased. The wall facing was very effective at concealing large deformations. Cracks
appeared at the back of the reinforcement, suggesting that additional capacity may be achieved by lengthening the reinforcement.
Recommendations for design lateral shaft capacities based on ultimate shaft load and on allowable deformations are presented
in Chapter Five of this report.
17 Key Words 18 Distribution Statement

Mechanically stabilized earth, MSE, laterally loaded No restrictions. This document is
shafts, drilled shafts available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161
19 Security Classification 20 Security 21 No. of pages 22 Price
(of this report) Classification (of this 235
Unclassified page) Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

Capacity of Laterally Loaded Shafts
Constructed Behind the Face of a
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Block Wall
Final Report
Prepared by
Matthew Pierson
Robert L. Parsons, Ph.D.. P.E.
Jie Han, Ph.D., P.E.
Lawrence, Kansas
Dan Brown, Ph.D., P.E.

W. Robert Thompson, P.E.
A Report on Research Sponsored By
THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TOPEKA, KANSAS
March 2009
© Copyright 2009, Kansas Department of Transportation

PREFACE
The Kansas Department of Transportation’s (KDOT) Kansas Transportation Research

and New-Developments (K-TRAN) Research Program funded this research project.
It is an ongoing, cooperative and comprehensive research program addressing
transportation needs of the state of Kansas utilizing academic and research resources
from KDOT, Kansas State University and the University of Kansas. Transportation
professionals in KDOT and the universities jointly develop the projects included in
the research program.
NOTICE
The authors and the state of Kansas do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade
and manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential
to the object of this report.
This information is available in alternative accessible formats. To obtain an alternative

format, contact the Office of Transportation Information, Kansas Department of
Transportation, 700 SW Harrison, Topeka, Kansas 66603-3745 or phone (785) 296-
3585 (Voice) (TDD).
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for
the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily
reflect the views or the policies of the state of Kansas. This report does not constitute
a standard, specification or regulation.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
Acknowledgements: ...................................................................................................................... vii
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter One - Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
Chapter Two - Literature Review ................................................................................................... 5
2.1 MSE Wall Design (FHWA) ................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Design of Laterally Loaded Shafts ...................................................................................... 8
2.3 Topics related to MSE Wall interaction with Bridges ......................................................... 9
Chapter Three - Scope of Research .............................................................................................. 11
3.1 Site Investigation ............................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Construction ....................................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Instrumentation .................................................................................................................. 20
3.4 Test Procedures .................................................................................................................. 26
Chapter Four - Test Results and Analysis..................................................................................... 29
4.1 Laboratory Results and Analysis ....................................................................................... 29
4.1.1 Large Direct Shear Box .................................................................................................. 30
4.1.2 Triaxial Testing .............................................................................................................. 31
4.2 Field Test Results and Analysis ......................................................................................... 31
4.3 Wall Deflections ................................................................................................................ 40
4.4 Pressure Cell Data .............................................................................................................. 62
4.5 Surface Observations ......................................................................................................... 68
Chapter Five - Applications, Conclusions and Recommendations............................................... 71
5.1 Expected Wind Load for Sound Walls and other Structures ............................................. 71
5.2 Allowable Deflection ......................................................................................................... 71
5.3 Shaft Strength..................................................................................................................... 75
5.3.1 Strength Based on Distance From the Wall Facing ....................................................... 75
5.3.2 Strength Based on Length of Shaft ................................................................................ 76
5.3.3 Influence of Neighboring Shafts (Group Effect) on Ultimate Strength ......................... 76
5.3.4 Design Recommendations .............................................................................................. 77
5.4 Service Limit State Recommendations .............................................................................. 78
5.5 Recommendations for Design Using the P-Y Method ...................................................... 80
5.6 Recommendations for Further Research ............................................................................ 80
References ..................................................................................................................................... 83
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. A-1
Appendix B ..................................................................................................................................B-1
Appendix C ..................................................................................................................................C-1
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Cross-section of typical MSE wall ................................................................................6

Figure 2.2: True MSE abutment ......................................................................................................9
Figure 2.3: Mixed MSE abutment ...................................................................................................9
Figure 3.1.1: A) Regional map, B) Local map, C) Site map (Google 2008) ................................12
Figure 3.1.2: Proposed cross section of MSE wall and subsurface (KDOT, 2007) ......................13
Figure 3.2.1: Plan view of MSE test wall and shafts (Tensar, 2007) ............................................14
Figure 3.2.2: Wall facing layout (Tensar, 2007) ............................................................................15
Figure 3.2.3: Typical steel configuration .......................................................................................16
Figure 3.2.4: Extension of CMP concrete form .............................................................................18
Figure 3.2.5: Backfilling operation ................................................................................................19
Figure 3.3.1: Left: Covered total pressure cell. Center: Pressure cell and protective sand
bag ......................................................................................................................................22
Figure 3.3.2: Photo target locations (Highlighted in Red) .............................................................23
Figure 3.3.3: Screen shots taken from AutoCAD during analysis .................................................24
Figure 3.3.4: Typical test setup for single shafts ...........................................................................25
Figure 3.3.5: Group test setup ........................................................................................................25
Figure 4.1.1: Large sieve analysis results ......................................................................................29
Figure 4.1.2: Large direct shear results ..........................................................................................30
Figure 4.1.3: Mohr’s circle at failure for 5, 10, and 20 psi confining pressure .............................31
Figure 4.2.1: Shaft B load and deflection vs. time.........................................................................32
Figure 4.2.2: Shaft B peak, 2.5 minute, and final load vs. deflection............................................33
Figure 4.2.3: Peak load vs. deflection for all single shafts ............................................................34
Figure 4.2.4: Load at 2.5 minutes vs. deflection for all single shafts ............................................34
Figure 4.2.5: Final load vs. displacement for all single shafts .......................................................35
Figure 4.2.6: Shaft BG2 peak, 2.5 minute, and final load vs. deflection .......................................36
Figure 4.2.7: Peak load vs. displacement for shafts two diameters from the facing .....................37
Figure 4.2.8: Load at 2.5 min. vs. displacement for shafts two diameters from the facing ...........38
Figure 4.2.9: Final load vs. displacement for shafts two diameters from the facing .....................38
Figure 4.2.10: Plot of distance from wall facing vs. Peak load for values in Table 4.2.1 and
curves fit with corresponding equations. ...........................................................................39
Figure 4.2.11: Plot of distance from wall facing vs. final load for values in Table 4.2.2 and
curves fit with corresponding equations. ...........................................................................40
Figure 4.3.1: Shaft A centerline deflections ..................................................................................41
Figure 4.3.3: Shaft A incremental centerline vertical deflection of wall face ...............................42
Figure 4.3.2: Shaft A deflection in horizontal direction el. 17.7 feet ............................................42
Figure 4.3.4: Shaft A incremental horizontal deflection el. 17.7 feet ............................................43
Figure 4.3.5: Shaft B centerline deflections...................................................................................44
Figure 4.3.6: Shaft B deflection in horizontal direction el. 17.7 feet ............................................44
Figure 4.3.7: Shaft B incremental centerline vertical deflection of wall face ...............................45
Figure 4.3.8: Shaft B incremental horizontal deflection el. 17.7 feet ............................................45
Figure 4.3.9: Shaft BS centerline deflections ................................................................................46
Figure 4.3.11: Shaft BS incremental centerline vertical deflection of wall face ...........................47
Figure 4.3.10: Shaft BS deflection in horizontal direction el. 17.7 feet ........................................47
Figure 4.3.12: Shaft BS incremental horizontal deflection el. 17.7 feet ........................................48
iv
Figure 4.3.13: Shaft C centerline deflections.................................................................................49
Figure 4.3.14: Shaft C deflection in horizontal direction el. 18.4 feet ..........................................49
Figure 4.3.15: Shaft C incremental centerline vertical deflection of wall face .............................50
Figure 4.3.16: Shaft C incremental horizontal deflection el. 18.4 feet ..........................................50
Figure 4.3.17: Shaft D centerline deflections ................................................................................51
Figure 4.3.19: Shaft D incremental centerline vertical deflection of wall face .............................52
Figure 4.3.18: Shaft D deflection in horizontal direction el. 17.7 feet ..........................................52
Figure 4.3.20: Shaft D incremental horizontal deflection el. 17.7 feet ..........................................53
Figure 4.3.21: Shaft BG2 centerline deflections ............................................................................54
Figure 4.3.22: Shaft BG2 deflection in horizontal direction el. 17.7 feet......................................54
Figure 4.3.23: BG2 incremental centerline vertical deflection of wall face ..................................55
Figure 4.3.24: Shaft BG2 incremental horizontal deflection el. 17.7 feet .....................................55
Figure 4.3.25: Shafts BG incremental horizontal deflection el. 17.7 feet .....................................56
Figure 4.3.26: Shafts BG2 and B incremental horizontal deflection at elevation 17.7 feet ..........56
Figure 4.3.29: Shaft BG1 incremental centerline vertical deflection of wall face ........................58
Figure 4.3.33: Peak load vs. maximum wall deflection for all shafts ............................................60
Figure 4.3.32: Shaft BG3 incremental centerline vertical deflection of wall face ........................60
Figure 4.3.34: Final load vs. maximum wall deflection for all shafts ...........................................61
Figure 4.4.1: Shaft A pressure cells, load, and deflection of the shaft ..........................................63
Figure 4.4.2: Shaft B pressure cells, load, and deflection of the shaft...........................................64
Figure 4.4.3: Shaft BG2 pressure cells, load, and deflection of the shaft ......................................65
Figure 4.4.5: Shaft BS pressure cells, load, and deflection of the shaft ........................................66
Figure 4.4.4: Shaft BG3 pressure cells, load, and deflection of the shaft ......................................66
Figure 4.4.6: Shaft C pressure cells, load, and deflection of the shaft...........................................67
Figure 4.4.7: Shaft D pressure cells, load, and deflection of the shaft ..........................................67
Figure 4.5.1: Surface cracks due to caving on back of shaft .........................................................68
Figure 4.5.2: Diagonal surface cracks............................................................................................69
Figure 4.5.3: Crack developed above the end of reinforcement during group test ........................69
Figure 4.5.4: Exhumed geogrid between shafts BG1 and BG2 .....................................................70
Figure 4.5.5: Strain of geogrid layer at 18.7 feet elevation between shafts BG1 and BG2 ...........70
Figure 5.2.1: Final facing deflection of the group of test shafts noon (5.3 inches, max facing
movement, 7 inches of shaft movement) ...........................................................................72
Figure 5.2.2: Final facing deflection of the group of test shafts afternoon (5.3 inches, max
facing movement, 7 inches of shaft movement) ................................................................73
Figure 5.2.3: Profile of final wall deflection for group of test shafts ............................................74
Figure 5.2.4: Side view of group wall facing after final deflection ...............................................75
Figure 5.3.1: Distance from back of wall vs. required spacing to avoid influence from
neighboring shafts. .............................................................................................................77
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.3.1: Geogrid Instrumentation ........................................................................................... 21

Table 4.2.1: Peak Load vs. Displacement for all Shafts .............................................................. 39
Table 4.2.2: Final Load vs. Displacement for all Shafts ............................................................... 39
Table 4.3.1: Peak Load vs. Maximum Wall Deflection ............................................................... 61
Table 4.3.2: Final Load vs. Maximum Wall Deflection ............................................................... 61
Table 5.3.1: Distance from Wall Facing vs. Allowable Lateral Load and Influence Length ...... 77
Table 5.4.1: Peak Load and Distance Reduction Factors ............................................................. 80
Table 5.4.2: Group Reduction Factors .......................................................................................... 80
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
The authors wish to thank the Kansas Department of Transportation for its financial and
logistical support for this study. Among the individuals from KDOT who contributed greatly to
this study were Mr. James Brennan and the entire geotechnical group and Mr. Peter Wiehe and
the people of KDOT Maintenance who built the wall. Without their participation this project
would not have been possible.
The authors also wish to thank Tensar International for its commitment of expertise,
materials, and time. Ms. Christina Vulova, Mr. Andy Anderson, and Mr. Joe Kerrigan all
contributed greatly to the project.
Dr. Dan Brown and Mr. Robert Thompson from Dan Brown and Associates, as well all
of the people from Applied Foundation Testing, deserve many thanks. They were integral in the
planning, load testing, and analysis of the test shafts.
Finally, the authors wish to thank Professor Jie Han and Mr. Jim Weaver of KU for their
contributions of knowledge and craftsmanship in instrumenting and testing the wall.
vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls are an inexpensive and aesthetically attractive
means of retaining soil. While the design principles for MSE structures have been accepted for
several decades, space restrictions at MSE wall sites have led to new demands on MSE wall
structures to support laterally loaded deep foundation elements constructed within the reinforced
mass. Current design procedures for such configurations are by necessity based on very
conservative design assumptions due to the lack of test data.
This report contains estimates of the capacity of concrete columns, commonly referred to
as drilled shafts, constructed behind the facing of a mechanically stabilized earth wall within the
reinforced mass. This is the first of two reports on this topic and contains design capacity
recommendations for 36 inch diameter shafts constructed behind an MSE wall with a height of
20 feet based on full scale field testing. It also contains recommendations for P-Y curve analyses
for similar wall-shaft configurations. These recommendations and a discussion of their
development were prepared by Dan Brown and Associates and are presented in Appendix B.
The second report will contain capacity recommendations for walls and shafts with a range of
heights and diameters based on computer models calibrated with the field data reported herein.
A 20 foot tall, 140 foot long MSE block wall was built in accordance with AASHTO and
KDOT specifications using the Mesa system developed by Tensar International. The wall
supported eight 36 inch diameter vertical shafts constructed at four different distances from the
back of the facing to the center of the shaft. These shafts were then loaded toward the wall
facing using a displacement control method. The shafts and wall were monitored using multiple
methods as each shaft was loaded to failure.
viii
Shafts were determined to have substantial lateral capacity, with capacity and width of
shaft influence increasing as the distance of the shaft from the wall increased. The wall facing
was very effective at concealing large deformations. Cracks appeared at the back of the
reinforcement, suggesting that additional capacity may be achieved by lengthening the
reinforcement. Recommendations for design lateral shaft capacities based on ultimate shaft load
and on allowable deformations are presented in Chapter Five of this report.
ix
x
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION
Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls are an inexpensive and aesthetically attractive
means of retaining soil. While the design principles for MSE structures have been accepted for
several decades, space restrictions at MSE wall sites have led to new demands on MSE wall
structures for which there are no well developed design procedures. The goal of the research
described in this report was to develop estimates of the capacity of MSE structures to resist
additional lateral loads applied to the MSE structure by concrete columns, commonly referred to
as drilled shafts, constructed within the MSE mass. Developing an effective understanding of
the lateral load capacity of the wall and shafts will be of significant value for designing structures
with significant lateral loads that must be constructed on top of MSE structures, such as sound
walls. Current design procedures are not well developed. The research described in this report
addressed this lack of data through full scale testing of drilled shafts constructed within a
laterally loaded MSE wall backfill.
Mechanically stabilized earth structures have been constructed since ancient times, but
only relatively recently, with the advent of many synthetic materials, has this technology gained
wide spread use as an alternative to traditional concrete retaining walls. These MSE walls
typically use geosynthetics or steel reinforcement material with patterns of various types to
transfer the load of the soil from the active zone behind the wall face to much more stable
material further from the wall. The result is a stable, reinforced soil mass that typically has a
masonry block, panel or welded wire and fabric facing to prevent raveling or erosion of soil at
the face and to enhance the aesthetic value of the wall.
MSE walls must be designed with appropriate resistance factors or factors of safety for
all the failure mechanisms of conventional retaining walls. In addition, MSE walls must be
1
designed for modes of failure unique to MSE walls. Failure of an MSE wall can occur several
ways: sliding along the layers of reinforcement, pullout of the reinforcement, excessive
elongation or breakage of the reinforcement, and damage of the facing components. The entire
mass must be checked for external stability. As with conventional walls, sliding, overturning,
bearing capacity, and deep seated stability must be checked. Settlement issues are less of a
problem with an MSE wall than with a traditional concrete retaining wall, but must still be
within a reasonable limit.
Construction of a block MSE wall can be done with personnel with less skill than a
conventional wall due to the type of construction. Items requiring special care include making
sure each block is level, and aligned with the next block before the next course of blocks can be
placed on top. The geogrid must be placed without slack in order to prevent excessive wall
movement prior to mobilizing the strength of the geogrid.
A 20 foot tall, 140 foot long MSE block wall was built using the Mesa system developed
by Tensar International. The wall supported eight 36 inch diameter vertical shafts were
constructed at four different distances from the back of the facing. These shafts were then
loaded toward the wall facing using a displacement control method. During each test, load and
shaft deflection and inclination were monitored as well as pressure behind the wall facing, strain
in the geogrid layers, and wall facing deflection.
The rest of this document contains descriptions of previous work and details about the
construction and instrumentation of the project leading up to testing, results of the testing, and
preliminary recommendations for the design of laterally loaded shafts behind MSE walls.
Discussions of the testing methods and procedures as well as the results are presented in Chapter
Four. Conclusions from this work related to design and recommendations for future testing are
2
presented in Chapter Five and in Appendix B. Appendix B was prepared by Dan Brown and
Associates and contains P-Y curve recommendations for similar shaft/wall configurations.
3
4
CHAPTER TWO - LITERATURE REVIEW
Currently there is little published guidance for designing laterally loaded shafts supported
within an MSE Wall. However there are complete design procedures for each item individually.
These will be reviewed, as well as two other research projects that examined the use of MSE
Walls to support bridge abutments.
2.1 MSE Wall Design (FHWA)
An MSE wall uses inclusions that are placed within a soil mass to help distribute tensile
loads and prevent soil failure. One type of MSE structure not discussed here, Reinforced Soil
Slopes (RSS), incorporates planar reinforcing elements in constructed earth-sloped structures
with face inclinations of less than 70 degrees
(FHWA, 1996). MSE Walls use the same planar reinforcing and typically require a facing to
retain the soil within the structure. “Some common facings include precast concrete panels, dry
cast modular blocks, metal sheets and plates, gabions, welded wire mesh, shotcrete, wood
lagging and panels, and wrapped sheets of geosynthetics” (FHWA, 1996). Most MSE systems
use either a galvanized or epoxy coated steel reinforcement, or synthetic reinforcement like high
density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene, or polyester yarn. The wall system used for this
project is called The Mesa System developed by Tensar International (See Figure 2.1). It utilizes
dry cast modular blocks and HDPE reinforcement.
According to FHWA (FHWA, 1996) branches and other different types of reinforcement
have been used for at least 1000 years. Beginning in the early 1960’s, reinforced soils began to
be used in engineering by the French architect and engineer Henri Vidal who developed
Reinforced Earth™. In 1972 the first wall to use this technology in the United States was built
in California.
5
Figure 2.1: Cross-section of typical MSE wall
Some of the advantages of the MSE structure over a conventional concrete gravity
retaining wall system reported by the FHWA include:
• Simple and rapid construction procedures that do not require large construction
equipment.
• Do not require experienced craftsmen with special skills for construction.
• Require less site preparation then other alternatives.
• Need less space in front of the structure for construction operations.
• Do not need rigid, unyielding foundation support because MSE structures are
tolerant to deformations.
• Cost effectiveness.
• Are technically feasible to heights in excess of 25 meters.
When designing an MSE Wall structure there are several different failure modes that
must be checked. Design should consist of checking these modes of failure using one or more of
6
the following; working stress analysis, limit equilibrium analysis, and deformation evaluations
(FHWA). The first potential mode of failure is external stability. This involves treating the
entire reinforced mass as an internally stable block and checking conventional failure modes
typical for gravity wall systems. Possible failure mechanisms include, sliding, overturning,
bearing capacity, and deep seated stability. Internal stability pertains to the reinforced soil mass.
The reinforcement has two failure types, elongation or breakage and reinforcement pullout.
Bulging is a possibility consisting of local failure of the facing. This could be a problem if the
reinforcement locations are not spaced close enough to prevent the lateral movement of
individual blocks. The step by step internal design process is as follows: (FHWA, 1997)
• Select a reinforcement type
• Select the location of the critical failure surface.
• Select a reinforcement spacing compatible with the facing connections and to prevent
bulging.
• Calculate the maximum tensile force at each reinforcement level, static and dynamic and
compare with the allowable load.
• Calculate the maximum tensile force at the connection to the facing and compare with the
allowable load.
• Calculate the pullout capacity at each reinforcement level and compare with the
allowable load.
Some additional issues may need to be addressed in design depending on the situation.
Traffic barriers are designed to take impact forces. Drainage should be considered as well as the
corrosion resistance of metal reinforcement. Utilities may need to pass through the reinforced
soil mass. Differential settlement with cast-in-place structures must be considered. Surcharges
7
as a result of road construction can increase demand placed on the reinforcement. Rapid
drawdown conditions may need to be considered if tide or river fluctuations are possible.
Obstructions in the reinforced soil zone, such as drainage inlets, must be considered also.
2.2 Design of Laterally Loaded Shafts
When horizontal loads are being designed for drilled shafts the most common method for
analysis is the P-Y curve method. “This involves modeling the soil-structure interaction as a
nonlinear beam on elastic foundation. The model assumes that the soil is continuous, isotropic,
and an elastic medium. The drilled shaft is divided into equally spaced sections and the soil
response is modeled by a series of closely spaced discrete springs called Winkler’s springs”
(Johnson, 2006). This model allows for the slope, moment, shear, soil reaction, and deflection to
be found for all sections along the drilled shaft. The initial curves were found by doing full scale
lateral load tests. The initial tests were performed in soft and stiff clay, sand, loess, and
limestone. These lateral load tests are the most accurate, but also the most expensive way to find
the soil structure P-Y response. There are programs that are available (LPILE) to predict P-Y
curves based on shaft geometry and soil conditions. Using engineering judgment it is possible to
take the site materials and use computer programs to generate predicted P-Y curves without
doing expensive lateral load testing. However, there are currently no programs that will account
for shafts supported by an MSE wall. One assumption made in each program is that soil is
modeled as a homogeneous half space. For the MSE wall the soil is homogeneous but has
discrete strips of reinforcement with different properties within it, and the mass is not a half
space, it is a wall or slightly larger than a quarter space.
8
2.3 Topics related to MSE Wall interaction with Bridges
“There are two types of MSE abutments, true and mixed. In a true MSE abutment
the bridge load is placed directly on the MSE structure (See Figure 2.2). To
prevent overstressing the soil of a true abutment, the beam seat is sized so the
centerline of the bearing is at least 3 feet behind the MSE wall face and the
bearing pressure on the reinforced soil is no more then four kips per square
foot…A mixed abutment has piles or shafts supporting the bridge seat (See Figure
2.3), with the MSE walls retaining the fill beneath and adjacent to the end of the
bridge. In some cases a portion of the lateral load on the pile-supported seat is
transmitted to the MSE fill. This load can be resisted by MSE reinforcements in
the wall or by reinforcements extending from the back wall of the seat.”
(Anderson, 2005)
Figure 2.2: True MSE abutment Figure 2.3: Mixed MSE abutment
For FHWA funded projects the design should follow FHWA details on the use of integral
abutments. There is no provision in the FHWA manual for shafts that are laterally supported
within an MSE Wall.
Constructability tests were performed on piles driven through HDPE geogrid reinforced
soil fill by Tensar International. A section of E-470 in Colorado contained several mixed
9
abutment type bridges. It was found that driving piles as close as four feet from the facing
caused no negative performance of the MSE structure. In addition to the pile driving
investigation one of the shafts was pushed over with a D9 bulldozer. It was found that with three
inches of pile movement only ¼” of facing movement occurred.
Clearly there are many areas of research that can be explored. The rest of this document
will describe the construction and testing of lateral load tests on shafts constructed within an
MSE fill in close proximity to the facing.
10
CHAPTER THREE - SCOPE OF RESEARCH
This chapter contains a description of the testing and initial analysis conducted in
association with this research. It includes a detailed discussion of the site investigation, design,
construction, instrumentation, and testing of the laterally loaded MSE test wall. An accurate
understanding of the load-deflection behavior is important for designing any deep foundation for
lateral loads. This behavior was monitored for eight shafts within an MSE fill by conducting a
series of full scale load tests. Also monitored during this time was strain in four reinforcement
layers, deformations within the fill using tell tales, pressure at the face of the wall directly in
front of each shaft at three elevations, and the deflection of the facing at 82 points as a result of
each loading step.
3.1 Site Investigation
The site inside the southwest clover of the I-435/Leavenworth road interchange in Kansas
(Figure 3.1.1) was chosen for its access to a good limestone footing for the wall and the reaction
shafts. Another reason is because intact rock would be the retained soil, which simplifies
construction. All site investigation was performed by KDOT. Borings, sampling, and in-situ
testing were conducted. This was done to define the strata present at the site in both elevation,
and physical and mechanical properties, such as unconfined compressive strength of the rock, or
grain size distribution of the soil. The proposed MSE wall and subsurface profile are shown in
Figure 3.1.2. A typical boring log can be found in Appendix A.
11
A) B)
C)
Figure 3.1.1: A) Regional map, B) Local map, C) Site map (Google 2008)
12
Figure 3.1.2: Proposed cross section of MSE wall and subsurface (KDOT, 2007)
3.2 Construction
A mechanically stabilized earth wall 140 ft long by 20 ft tall was constructed using
blocks and geogrid provided by Tensar International. Eight test shafts 36” in diameter were
constructed at distances of one, two, three, and four diameters measured from the center of the
shaft to the back of the wall facing. One shaft was embedded 15 feet in the reinforced fill, all
others were 20 feet. Three identical shafts two diameters from the wall were tested as a group to
determine if a group effect was significant. The test shaft spacing was 15’, and the shaft layout
is shown in Figure 3.2.1. A reference section of wall without any shafts was also constructed
(see fig. 3.2.1). Six reaction shafts were rock socketed into limestone six feet and 27’ behind the
facing for use in loading the test shafts. The group reacted against two 48” diameter shafts.
Each remaining shaft had its own 36” diameter reaction shaft except for D. Loading of D was
accomplished by spanning the reaction shafts used to test A and B (see fig 3.2.1).
13
Figure 3.2.1: Plan view of MSE test wall and shafts (Tensar, 2007)
Tensar International, Inc. provided materials and technology from the Mesa Retaining
Wall System. This consisted of design, advising, Mesa units, welded wire baskets, connectors,
and UX1400, UX1500, and instrumented geogrid layers,. Using a KDOT aggregate
specification for clean aggregate backfill (CA-5), it was decided to use a two foot spacing (three
blocks) for geogrid courses, and a geogrid length of 14’ (0.7 x H, H= height of MSE Wall) from
the facing. The UX1500 was used for the bottom four layers and UX1400 was used for the top
six. Wing walls with a welded wire basket design were constructed at each end of the test wall.
For the wing walls UX1400 was used at a 1.5’ spacing for the first four layers, and a three foot
14
spacing for the top five layers of reinforcement (see fig. 3.2.2). Vertical slip joints were
designed into the wall to minimize interaction of separate test shafts. These were located
symmetrically on either side of each test section at 7.5’ distance from the centerline of the shaft.
Figure 3.2.2: Wall facing layout (Tensar, 2007)
The site was excavated to limestone to provide a strong foundation for the walls and
shafts. At the same time the steel reinforcement cages were tied for each shaft. (Figure 3.2.3)
Each cage was composed of 12 # 11 bars evenly spaced around the radius, and #5 hoops spaced
at one half foot for the top three feet, and one foot for the rest. The hoop diameter for all 36”
15
shafts was 30” and the hoop diameter for the 48” reaction shafts was 42”. Each cage length was
such that steel reinforcement ran from the very bottom of each shaft up to 2.8’ above the top of
the wall. Shaft spacers were snapped onto the cage to center the cage with three inches of
concrete cover. Rock sockets were drilled to a depth of six feet. The 36” diameter reaction
shafts had a socket diameter of 36”, and the 48” diameter reaction shafts were drilled to a
diameter of 52”.
Figure 3.2.3: Typical steel configuration
16
Difficulty with extracting the rock from two holes lead to some over drilling with the
deepest going an additional one foot for a total depth of 7’. This resulted in extending the steel
reinforcement at the top of the shafts in order to maintain proper reinforcement.
The KDOT concrete specification for drilled shafts included a requirement for a 9”
slump. The ready mix plant had an existing KDOT mix design that was used. The results for
slump and average compressive strength were 8 ½” and 6500psi respectively. For complete
results see Appendix A.
Corrugated metal pipe (CMP) was used as a concrete form for the section of the shafts
contained within the crushed stone fill. The first sections of CMP were set using the hoist truck
and legs were welded to the bottom of the CMP to maintain alignment. Next the reinforcement
cages were lowered into place and plumbed using the hoist truck. The reaction shaft concrete
was then cast into the reaction shafts rock sockets and the first few feet of the CMP. The hoist
truck was left in place overnight to allow time for the concrete to setup and hold the cages
plumb. Test shafts were constructed with a single pour.
Construction of a concrete leveling pad was required to serve as a base for the Mesa
block wall. This was two feet in width and had a minimum thickness of four inches and a
maximum thickness determined by the change in elevation of the limestone base across the
leveling pad. Number five bars were doweled into the limestone on either side of the foundation
to support the formwork. The leveling pad was cast, and the forms were left in place.
The CMP forms for the test shafts were set using the hoist truck and welded in place to
vertical dowels anchored in limestone. The CMP was positioned, plumbed and then welded to
the dowels for support for the first few feet of fill. As wall height increased the upper section of
CMP was added. This was done by first placing the CMP with the hoist truck, and plumbing.
17
The two CMP’s were then welded together, and a band clamp was then tightened around the
joint for added strength. The final height of the CMP was cut off at 20’ of elevation. (Figure
3.2.4)
Figure 3.2.4: Extension of CMP concrete form
Crushed stone was brought up around the base of each shaft to the elevation of the top of
the leveling pad. Crushed stone was placed by dumping directly out of the haul trucks, and
spread using either of two large wheeled loaders, or either of two skid loaders. After a level
surface was achieved, compaction was performed using a combination steel wheel/pneumatic tire
roller where possible, and a walk behind tamper in front of the shafts up to one foot from the
blocks. (Figure 3.2.5) Each lift was about eight inches compacted, and density measurements
were performed along the wall during construction.
Blocks were placed one course at a time and aligned. Each block was checked for level,
and if necessary leveled using thin strips of HDPE cut from the grid. If the thickness of the
18
HDPE was not sufficient then asphalt shingle pieces were used to level the blocks. Each block
had either two standard connectors or one DOT connector. The DOT connectors were used to
secure each layer of geogrid. All connectors also served as a centering device for subsequent
block courses. Each end of the wall was treated with corner blocks that use no connectors.
Figure 3.2.5: Backfilling operation
Geogrid was placed every two feet of elevation starting at 0.7’ of elevation above the
leveling pad. The grid was attached by first placing the grid over the appropriate block. The
DOT connector was inserted through the grid and into the block with light hammer blows. The
grid was tensioned to remove slack using pitch forks prior to completely driving.
19
Each subsequent course of blocks was then added aligned and leveled. Back filling over
geogrid was done by using a pitch fork to tension the grid and placing a small amount of crushed
stone over the end of the grid to hold it in tension. Additional fill was then placed on tensioned
grid. Crushed stone was spread while moving away from the facing to ensure tension in the grid.
Finally, compaction was carried out using the same technique as the rest of the fill.
Slip joints were installed between each shaft to limit movement into neighboring shafts.
They were constructed by putting an end or corner treatment to the blocks. This meant cutting
every other block in the vertical direction and adding nonwoven geotextile matte to the middle of
the slip joint.
In front of the wall 3.3’ of fill was placed and lightly compacted. This fill was soil from
on site and consisted of broken up pieces of loosely cemented silty sandstone, as well as top soil.
The top of the wall was capped with smaller architectural blocks. Crushed stone fill was
brought up to no greater than elevation 19.2’ and the final height of 20’ was achieved using a
low permeability soil cover. Each shaft was capped with a roughly cubical block of concrete.
These blocks were formed to be one inch wider then the shaft each would cap. Concrete was
added to each shaft to reach the final elevation 23’ above the leveling pad.
3.3 Instrumentation
Tensar and KU attached 112 strain gauges to the geogrid in 5 locations (Table 3.3.1), and
4 different layers of grid. Pairs of strain gauges were located on the top and on the bottom of the
geogrid, at up to six different distances from the wall facing. For protection the wires were run
away from the grid locations in small flexible tubing toward each slip joint. From the slip joint
the wires were encased in PVC pipe and run from the slip joint to the data logger.
20
Table 3.3.1: Geogrid Instrumentation
Distance
between
Instrumented Geogrid
Instrumented Geogrid Layers at CONTROL Gage
Layers at Shafts A, B,
Section Location and
BG-1, BG-2
Back of Wall
Facing
Layer
El. 6.7 El. 14.7 El. 2.7 El. 6.7 El. 10.7 El. 14.7 (in) (ft)
Elevation
Aperture 1 Aperture 1 Aperture 1 Aperture 1 Aperture 1 Aperture 1 7 0.6

CMD Bar 2 CMD Bar 2 CMD Bar 2 CMD Bar 2 CMD Bar 2 CMD Bar 2 16 1.3
Aperture 3 Aperture 3 Aperture 3 45 3.8
Strain CMD Bar 4 CMD Bar 4 CMD Bar 4 52 4.3
Gage Aperture 4 Aperture 4 Aperture 4 61 5.1
Location Aperture 5 Aperture 5 Aperture 5 79 6.6
Aperture 6 Aperture 6 Aperture 6 97 8.1
CMD Bar 7 CMD Bar 7 CMD Bar 7 106 8.8
Aperture 7 115 9.6
Aperture 9 151 12.6
Strain
Gages
8 8 12 12 12 12
Per
Layer
Total pressure cells (TPC) were also located on the back of the wall, directly in front of
each shaft at 7.7, 13.7, and 17.7’ elevation. These TPC wires were also run through the slip
joints but did not require protection, and so were run directly to the data logger. All but three
cells were recessed in a concrete backer block to provide a solid surface for the back of each cell.
Each cell had a sand bag in front to protect the surface from damage due to rocks. The bag was
made of non-woven geotextile, folded in half and stapled. The goal was to have one inch of sand
in front of the pressure cell to distribute load to the pressure cell plate more evenly. This was
achieved by placing the empty bag in front the cell, and placing crushed stone next to the bag.
(Figure 3.3.1) The bags were filled with a small amount of sand and compacted to reach the one
inch thickness. This process was repeated until each block was covered with crushed stone.
21
Figure 3.3.1: Left: Covered total pressure cell. Center: Pressure cell and protective sand bag
Wall facing was monitored with photogrammetry. The facing of 84 blocks had a target
attached. Each target has a black center that is six inches long, with white on either end to help
distinguish the target. Target layout was based on the centerline of each shaft, and also a
horizontal line at 17.7’ elevation (Figure 3.3.2). A tripod was fixed with a 10 megapixel digital
single lens reflex (SLR) camera to capture the images of the wall facing targets, and several tell-
tales. These images were then rastered into AutoCAD. Using each target’s six inch scale, lines
were drawn to establish the scale of each target within AutoCAD. From the beginning to the end
of the test each picture was rastered and the movement from the beginning of the test to the
current picture was measured (Figure 3.3.3). This data was then used to show the amount of
movement at the wall facing throughout the test.
22
Figure 3.3.2: Photo target locations (Highlighted in Red)
23
Figure 3.3.3: Screen shots taken from AutoCAD during analysis
Tell-tales were installed at various locations and attached to the geogrid. Others were
placed directly in the fill, and both sets protruded through the face. These were monitored with
the same technique as the wall targets.
A data logger provided by Applied Foundation Testing was used to monitor hydraulic
pressure, load cells, and LVDTs. The pressure was monitored directly from the hydraulic
manifold. On all but the group test, load cells were attached in line with the hydraulic jacks
(Figure 3.3.4). For the group, each of two hydraulic jacks had a load cell placed directly inline.
Also on the group a single load cell was placed between shaft BG2 and the loading beam.
During all but the group test, each test and reaction shaft were fitted with two LVDTs at different
elevations to produce an initial slope. During the group test each reaction shaft, and each of the
two hydraulic jacks, were fitted with an LVDT. Two LVDTs were also fitted to the loading
beam to describe its movements. All LVDTs that were not fitted to a hydraulic jack were
supported by a reference beam. Each beam was placed near the location of measurement and
supported on either end at a distance believed to be great enough to prevent any movement of the
24
reference beam. This distance proved to be insufficient to prevent movement during the group
loading and corrections were applied to the measurements as described in chapter Four.
Figure 3.3.4: Typical test setup for single shafts
Figure 3.3.5: Group test setup
During each test inclinometers were lowered into the test shafts during every other load
step. Readings were also taken after the final loading and the unloaded steps on the reaction
25
shafts. For the group test two inclinometer casing were also placed right behind the face of the
wall. These were spaced evenly between the three test shaft centerlines. Inclination readings
were taken during every other interval at these locations as well to describe the wall movement
during loading and unloading.
3.4 Test Procedures
Inclinometer baselines were obtained the week before all testing began. The initial setup
for testing consisted of welding the loading blocks that held each load cell into place, positioning
the reference beams and LVDT mounting points, and initial setup of the hydraulics. First the
hydraulic jacks were placed in the general position with cribbing for support. The cribbing was
leveled and the jacks were extended to make contact with the shafts. Next the contact points
were welded to support the loading block and the hydraulics. The reference beams were made of
used box guard rail and supported with either oil drums or steel horses at the ends. This guard
rail had angle iron welded to it to mount the LVDTs. For the group test as well as shaft D a
loading beam was required so this also needed to be moved into place. The camera that was
used to record wall movement was setup below and 22.5’ from the centerline of the shaft to be
tested. Before testing could begin all of the LVDTs and load cells were wired to the data
collection system. Walkie-talkie communication was established between the testing setup on
top of the wall and the cameraman monitoring the movement of the facing.
Testing began with a communication of “ready to test” this was the signal to take the
initial picture. Loading began and was carried out until the desired deflection was achieved. At
that point loading stopped and the hydraulic cylinders were locked into position and held for five
minutes or until inclinometer readings were finished. During that time pictures were taken
immediately after loading and then every 1.25 minutes until it was time to load again. The
26
loading procedure was repeated until the final loading step. After the last load was applied and
locked off, inclinometer readings were made on all shafts or casing associated with that test, and
then the entire setup was completely unloaded. Finally another complete set of inclinometer
readings were made at the unloaded positions.
During construction, testing, and test analysis lab tests were run to obtain properties of
the CA-5 clean aggregate backfill. These tests consisted of sieve analyses, triaxial compression
tests, and large direct shear tests. The results of these tests are contained in the next chapter.
27
28
CHAPTER FOUR - TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Results of the full scale lateral load testing, as well as laboratory tests used to determine
the properties of the aggregate backfill, are presented in this chapter. Results of site
investigation tests are presented in Appendix A. A detailed P-Y curve analysis was also
conducted by Dan Brown and Associates for each test shaft. The results of this analysis and
preliminary recommendations for future design are presented in Appendix B.
4.1 Laboratory Results and Analysis
The University of Kansas performed large direct shear, triaxial compression, and sieve
analysis tests on the Clean Aggregate backfill (CA-5). Samples were collected from several
different loads of aggregate during construction of the wall.
Sieve analysis was performed using both a small sieving machine with an eight inch
diameter sieve, and large sieving machine with an area of 15 x 23 in.2 Both tests yield similar
results, and the results of three large sieve analyses were averaged and presented in Figure 4.1.1.
100
90
80
70
60
% Passing
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 10 100
Grain Size (mm)
Figure 4.1.1: Large sieve analysis results
29
4.1.1 Large Direct Shear Box
The large direct shear box measures 12” x 16” with a 4” deep upper and 4” deep lower
portion. This shear box has several different ways to apply vertical pressure: pneumatic bladder,
pneumatic plate, and dead weight. The height of the gap between the two halves of the box is
adjustable from less then 1/8inches to more than an inch of gap.
During testing using the pneumatic bladder loading mechanism it was apparent that the
results for the clean aggregate backfill (CA-5) were inaccurate. Poor results with the bladder
lead to testing with the pneumatic plate, as well as dead weight. Reasonable results were
obtained when dead weight loading was used. Unfortunately due to limitations on the amount of
dead weight that could be used it was not possible to use enough weight safely to reach the same
target confining pressure as with the pneumatic systems. Results can be found in Figure 4.1.2.
60 Piston Loading
50 Bladder Loading
Peak Shear Stress (psi)
40 Phi = 51 (Triaxial
Results)
30 Dead Weight
20
10
0
0 10 20 30
Normal Stress (psi)
Figure 4.1.2: Large direct shear results
30
4.1.2 Triaxial Testing
Triaxial compression tests were also conducted. The triaxial cell was capable of
supporting samples up to 4.0 inches diameter and 8.5 inches tall. This was large enough to
conduct tests consistent with ASTM specifications based on the maximum aggregate size. These
tests produced a friction angle (φ) of 51˚. The results of these tests can be found in Figure 4.1.3
and Appendix A.
80
Failure Surface
Phi = 51degrees
60
Shear Stress (psi)
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Normal Stress (psi)
Figure 4.1.3: Mohr’s circle at failure for 5, 10, and 20 psi confining pressure
4.2 Field Test Results and Analysis
Testing occurred from November 08, 2007 to November 16, 2007. Monitoring of the
control section was ongoing during construction. Five lateral load tests were performed on
individual shafts, one lateral load test was performed a group of three shafts, and one lateral load
test was performed on the two large 48 inch diameter reaction shafts, for a total of 8 tests. The
results of the tests on the test shafts are presented in this document. Loads and deflections
associated with a shaft were measured at one foot above the ground surface.
31
Figure 4.2.1 illustrates a typical graph for loading of a single test shaft. This graph shows
deflection and load versus time. Testing of the shafts was considered to be displacement
controlled. The process began with increasing hydraulic pressure until movement began, and
then maintaining movement until a desired deflection was achieved. At this point the hydraulic
fluid valves were closed, preventing load cylinder movement and maintaining the deflection for
the greater of five minutes or until inclinometer measurements were completed. During the
holding time deflection was nearly constant and load decreased.
100 7.00
90
6.00
80
5.00
LVDT Deflection (in.)

70
Load (Kips)
60
Load Cell 4.00
50
3.00
40
30 2.00
20 LVDT
1.00
10
0 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time (min.)
Figure 4.2.1: Shaft B load and deflection vs. time
Figure 4.2.2 shows the results from the load versus deflection of the shaft at three
different times after the loading was locked off for each particular step. As the deflection was
increased from one step to another there was a peak in the load. This peak load occurred
immediately before the deformation was halted. The load 2.5 minutes from the time of this peak
was then reported. This was always during the holding portion of any load step. The final load
32
vs. deflection curve on Figure 4.2.2 is the final load. This load was a local minimum for each
loading step. Similar graphs for all other shafts can be found in Appendix A.
100
90
80
70
60
Load (kip)
50
40
30
20
10
Peak
0 2.5min
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Final 7
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.2.2: Shaft B peak, 2.5 minute, and final load vs. deflection
Figure 4.2.3, 4.3.4, and 4.2.5 show the peak, 2.5min., and final loads vs. deflection for all
of the individual shafts. As expected the shafts that have the furthest distance from the facing
also have the highest load and modulus. Shaft A has the lowest load, and also shows some signs
of inconsistency. At one loading step for Shaft A the load drops with increasing deflection. This
was because the shaft continued moving ¼ inch past the holding point, and then was brought
back to the intended position by AFT. This caused a reduction in load.
33
200
180 Shaft A
160 Shaft B
Shaft C
140
Shaft D
120
Load (kip)
Shaft BS
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (in.)
Figure 4.2.3: Peak load vs. deflection for all single shafts
200
180
Shaft A
160
Shaft B
140 Shaft C
120 Shaft D
Load (kip)
Shaft BS
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (in.)
Figure 4.2.4: Load at 2.5 minutes vs. deflection for all single shafts
34
200
180 Shaft A
Shaft B
160
Shaft C
140 Shaft D
120 Shaft BS
Load (kip)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (in.)
Figure 4.2.5: Final load vs. displacement for all single shafts
Figure 4.2.6 is the same plot of peak, 2.5 min. and final load vs. deflection for the center
shaft in the group (BG2). Due to use of the loading beam it was apparent that some slack would
be present in the system with respect to the shafts on either side of the group. This slack was
estimated from the x-intercept of the loading curves and subtracted from the deflection. The
original positions of the curves are shown with a drawn line presented in figure 4.2.6. In this
figure it is clear that there was some slack in the loading system. Because of the slack in Shaft
BG2 the outside shafts would have deflected an estimated 0.15 inch before load was applied to
the center shaft BG2. If there was no influence from BG1 and BG3 on the soil/grid near BG2
there would be no inaccuracies. If there was any influence from neighboring shafts this would
be a conservative estimate. Due to movement of the reference beam a correction to the LVDTs
had to be made. This correction was calculated by comparing movement of the LVDTs
35
associated with the hydraulic cylinders and the measured movement of the loading beam. The
difference was the movement of the reference beam.
90
80 Peak
2.5min
70
Final
60
Load (kip)
50
40
30
20
10 Original Position of Curves Before -0.15" Correction
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.2.6: Shaft BG2 peak, 2.5 minute, and final load vs. deflection
Figures 4.2.7, 4.2.8, and 4.2.9 are plots of peak, 2.5 minutes, and final load respectively
vs. time for all shafts two diameters from the wall. These shafts are the single shaft (B), each of
the group shafts (BG1, BG2, and BG3), and the short shaft (BS). All of the group curves are
very near to each other and as expected the weakest shaft is shaft BS, which is embedded 15 feet
instead of a full depth of 20 feet like all other shafts. Shaft B is the strongest and the 3 shafts in
the group had results in a tight range between B and BS. There is some reduction in strength due
to influence from nearby shafts. Data for displacement in excess of 6 inches is of questionable
accuracy due to loading misalignments, and frictional resistance of the loading beam.
Tables that relate load vs. deflection for peak and final load are shown in table 4.2.1 and
4.2.2 respectively. The first displacement increment measured for shaft D was 1.2 inches; the
load values for displacements less than 1 inch were not estimated. Also Shaft A’s loading was
suspect for the initial points as the loading procedure was still being worked out, so there is some
36
uncertainty associated with the early data for Shaft A. The values from Tables 4.2.1 and 4.2.2
were plotted in Figures 4.2.10 and 4.2.11. These values were then analyzed and four curves
were fit corresponding to the four different shaft deflections given. Looking at the plotted points
from Table 4.2.2 the final load values for a shaft spaced 108 inches (3 shaft diameters, Shaft C)
appear lower then expected. This could be due to the influence of the nearby wing wall which
had less reinforcement in the upper portion of the wall. The theoretical point that could carry no
load would be a shaft directly next to the wall facing or 18 inches from the center of the shaft to
the back of the wall facing.
140
120 Shaft B
BG1
100 BG2
BG3
Shaft BS
80
Load (kip)
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (in.)
Figure 4.2.7: Peak load vs. displacement for shafts two diameters from the facing
37
120
100 Shaft B
BG1
BG2
80
BG3
Load (kip)
Shaft BS
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (in.)
Figure 4.2.8: Load at 2.5 min. vs. displacement for shafts two diameters from the facing
120
100 Shaft B
BG1
80 BG2
BG3
Load (kip)
Shaft BS
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (in.)
Figure 4.2.9: Final load vs. displacement for shafts two diameters from the facing
38
Table 4.2.1: Peak Load vs. Displacement for all Shafts
Dist. From
Shaft Facing (in.) Peak Load (kip)
Displacement 0.5" 0.75" 1" 2" 4" Ultimate
A 36 - 14 15 23 32 34
BS 72 (15' Length) 27 30 33 40 49 55
BG2 72 (15 Spacing) 27 35 39 53 70 85
B 72 40 47 50 62 77 90
C 108 39 44 50 66 87 116
D 144 - - 55 81 120 194
Table 4.2.2: Final Load vs. Displacement for all Shafts

Dist. From
Shaft Facing (in.) Final Load (kip)
A 36 5.3 5.3 8 17 27 27
BS 72 (15' Length) 24 26 28 35 41 47
BG2 72 (15 Spacing) 25 28 30 43 58 75
B 72 36 40 44 55 69 75
C 108 34 39 44 58 76 102
D 144 - - 50 74 110 171
Shaft A B C D
140
Shaft
y = -0.0045x2 + 1.6092x - 23.473
Deflection
120 (in )
0.5"
1"
100 2" y = -0.0054x2 + 1.4874x - 23.518 ≤
Peak Load, (kip)
4"
80 0.5"
1"
2"
60 4" y = -0.0055x2 + 1.3175x - 22.472 ≤
40
y = -0.0077x2 + 1.4294x - 24.693 ≤
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Theoretical Zero
Point
Shaft Distance From Back of Facing, (in.)
Figure 4.2.10: Plot of distance from wall facing vs. Peak load for values in Table 4.2.1
and curves fit with corresponding equations.
39
Shaft A B C D
120
Shaft Deflection
y = -0.0034x2 + 1.36x - 19.9
100 0.5"
1"
2"
Final Load, (kip)
80 4" y = -0.0044x2 + 1.28x - 21.3

0.5"
1"
60 2"
4" y = -0.0045x2 + 1.14x - 21.4 ≤ 51
40
y = -0.006x2 + 1.19x - 23.1 ≤ 36
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Theoretical Zero Point Shaft Distance From Back of Facing, (in.)
Figure 4.2.11: Plot of distance from wall facing vs. final load for values in Table 4.2.2 and curves fit
with corresponding equations.
4.3 Wall Deflections
Wall deflections were measured using photogrammetry as described in Chapter Three.
The results are reported and analyzed in the next pages. Figure 4.3.1 shows the peak load vs.
deflections of the wall facing for the targets that are mounted on the centerline of Shaft A, as
well as the shaft itself. Due to the loading problem with Shaft A discussed earlier, this particular
plot contains more fluctuations than other plots. As expected the shaft moved more than the top
of the wall and the top of the wall moved more than the bottom. Figure 4.3.2 shows the
deflection of targets for Shaft A along the horizontal axis at an elevation of 17.7 feet, as well as
the shaft deflection. As expected the shaft moves more then the target at the centerline of the
shaft, and wall movement decreased with distance from the centerline. Figure 4.3.3 shows the
deflection of the facing at the shaft centerline for each load step. The Y-axis shows elevation of
the target, and the X-axis shows the deflection of the targets. From this figure an interesting
bulge at 17.7 feet was found showing that there was increased movement at an elevation below
40
the top. This indicates that the wall is not just tipping over, but is actually moving horizontally
depending on the lateral pressure placed on it. Figure 4.3.4 shows the deflection of the facing in
the horizontal direction at an elevation of 17.7 feet for each displacement increment. The
behavior was as expected with much more movement near the centerline of the shaft and less
movement as the horizontal distance increased. This figure shows that significant deflections of
the wall were limited to within six feet of the centerline of loading for Shaft A. The influence
distance in the horizontal direction was determined from Figure 4.3.4.
40
35
30
Target
25 Elevation (ft)
Load (kip)
Shaft
20
19.3
17.7
15
15.7
13
10
9.7
5 7.7
4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.1: Shaft A centerline deflections
41
40
35
30
25
Horizontal
Load (kip)
Distance from
20 Centerline (ft)
15 Shaft
0
3
10 6
-6
5 -9
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.2: Shaft A deflection in horizontal direction el. 17.7 feet
20
18
16
14
Wall Elevation (ft.)
12 Top of Shaft
Deflections (in.)
10
1.0 1.2
8 1.5 1.5
1.8 2.3
6 2.8 2.9
4 3.3 3.8
Ground Elevation 4.0 3.7
2 4.5 Unloaded
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.3: Shaft A incremental centerline vertical deflection of wall face
42
4.0
Top of Shaft
Deflections 1.0
3.5
1.2
3.0 1.5
1.5
2.5
Deflection (in.)
1.8
2.0 2.3
2.8
1.5
2.9
1.0 3.3
3.8
0.5
0.0
-9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9
Distance From Centerline (ft.)
Figure 4.3.4: Shaft A incremental horizontal deflection el. 17.7 feet
A similar sequence of graphs for Shaft B is presented in Figures 4.3.5 to 4.3.8. An
interesting aspect of Figure 4.3.5 is there was very little movement of the facing at initial shaft
movements. With increasing shaft movement the wall movement, as a percentage of shaft
movement, also increased. The deflection at the top two points, elevation 19.3 and 17.7 was
very similar. These behaviors were found for all of the shafts. Figure 4.3.8 shows that
significant deflections of the wall were limited to within nine feet of the centerline of loading for
Shaft B.
43
100
90
80
Target
70 Elevation (ft)
60
Load (kip)
Shaft
50 19.3
40 17.7
15.7
30
13
20 9.7
10 7.7
4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.5: Shaft B centerline deflections
100
90
80
70
60 Distance from
Load (kip)
Centerline (ft)
50
Shaft
40 0
30 3
6
20
-6
10 -9
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.6: Shaft B deflection in horizontal direction el. 17.7 feet
44
20
18
16
14 Top of Sh
Deflectio
12
0.3
10
0.8
8 1.2
6 2.0
2.9
4
Ground Elevation 4.0
2 5.0
0
0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5
Figure 4.3.7: Shaft B incremental centerline vertical deflection of wall face
5.0
4.5
Top of Shaft
4.0 Deflections (in.)
0.3
3.5 0.5
0.8
Deflection (in.)
3.0 1.0
1.2
2.5
1.5
2.0 2.0
2.5
1.5 2.9
3.4
1.0 4.0
4.4
0.5
5.0
0.0
6.0
-9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9
Figure 4.3.8: Shaft B incremental horizontal deflection el. 17.7 feet
45
Graphs for Shaft BS are shown in Figures 4.3.9 – 4.3.13. Deflections of the wall facing
in the horizontal direction were very similar to Shaft B. Significant wall movements were
limited to within nine feet of the centerline. Loads were on average two thirds of Shaft B for
similar movements. Figure 4.3.11 shows that below the bottom of the shaft (five feet elevation)
there was little facing deflection.
60
50
Target
Elevation (ft)
40
Load (kip)
Shaft
30 19.3
17.7
15.7
20
13
9.7
10 7.7
4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.9: Shaft BS centerline deflections
46
60
50
Distance from
Centerline (ft)
40
Load (kip)
Shaft
30 0
3
20 6
6
9
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.10: Shaft BS deflection in horizontal direction el. 17.7 feet
20
18
16
14
Top of Shaft
12
Deflections
10
0.3 0.5
8 0.8 1.0
1.2 1.5
6 1.7 1.9
2.5 2.9
4 3.5 4.0
2
5.5 5.9
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.11: Shaft BS incremental centerline vertical deflection of wall face
47
Top of Shaft
5.0
Deflections (in.)
4.5 0.3
0.5
4.0 0.8
1.0
3.5 1.2
1.5
Deflection (in.)
3.0 1.7
1.9
2.5 2.5
2.9
2.0 3.5
4.0
1.5 4.5
5.0
1.0 5.5
5.9
0.5
0.0
-6 -3 0 3 6 9
Figure 4.3.12: Shaft BS incremental horizontal deflection el. 17.7 feet
Shaft C (Figures 4.3.13 – 4.3.16) had a slightly different target layout due to alternating
blocks. All of the targets were shifted up eight inches or one block layer, and the top target was
not installed. The shaft was deflected 2.5 inches further than all other tests with the exception of
Shaft D, which was deflected to a similar number of nine inches. Figure 4.3.16 shows significant
deflections of the wall in the horizontal direction extended beyond nine feet. Earlier shafts have
very similar movement as the wall facing, but Shaft C deflects nearly 3 in. more then the wall
facing. Shaft D (Figure 4.3.17) shows this deviation to a larger extent.
48
120
100
80 Target
Elevation (f
Load (kip)
60
Sha
18.
40 16.
13.
10.
20 8.4
4.7
0
0 2 4 6 8
Figure 4.3.13: Shaft C centerline deflections
140
120
100
Distance from
Load (kip)
80 Centerline (ft.)
Shaft
60 -9
-6
40 0
3
6
20 9
0
0 2 4 6 8
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.14: Shaft C deflection in horizontal direction el. 18.4 feet
49
20
18
16
14
Top of
12 Shaft
10 0.3 0.5
0.8 1.0
8 1.3 1.5
1.8 2.0
6 2.6 3.1
3.6 4.1
4 Ground Elevation 4.5 5.0
5.5 6.0
2 7.0 8.0
9.1 Unloaded
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.15: Shaft C incremental centerline vertical deflection of wall face
7.0
0.3
Top of Shaft 0.5
6.0
Deflections (in.)
0.8
1.0
1.3
5.0 1.5
1.8
2.0
Deflection (in.)
4.0 2.6
3.1
3.6
3.0 4.1
4.5
5.0
2.0 5.5
6.0
7.0
1.0 8.0
9.1
Unloaded
0.0
-9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15
Figure 4.3.16: Shaft C incremental horizontal deflection el. 18.4 feet
50
Shaft D (Figures 4.3.17 – 4.3.20) was four diameters from the wall facing and therefore
the farthest shaft from the wall facing to be tested. The increased distance was reflected in the
increased area of influence. Figure 4.3.20 shows that significant deflections of the wall were
limited to within 12 feet of the centerline of loading for Shaft D. The deflected shape of the wall
facing was much more gradual then for shafts that were closer to the wall facing.
Slip joints were installed half way between test sections to isolate movement of shafts.
As seen in wall facing deflections for Shaft D (Figure 4.3.20), movement was not isolated to the
test section well, however because of the testing sequence this is not believed to have affected
the test results. This should not have affected neighboring shafts as test D was the only test were
movement was observed much beyond the slip joints. Since this test was performed last there
was no influence on other tests.
200
180
160
140
Target
120
Load (kip)
Elevation (ft)
100 Shaft
19.3
80 17.7
60 15.7
13
40 9.7
7.7
20 4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.17: Shaft D centerline deflections
51
200
180
160
140
120
Load (kip)
Distance from
100 Centerline (ft)
80 Shaft
-6
60 -3
0
40 6
9
20 12
15
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.18: Shaft D deflection in horizontal direction el. 17.7 feet

20
18
16
14
12 Top of Shaft
Deflections
10
1.2 1.5
8 1.8 2.1
2.3 2.6
6 3.1 3.6
4.1 4.7
4 5.3 5.9
2 7.9 9.0
Unloaded
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.19: Shaft D incremental centerline vertical deflection of wall face
52
5.0
Top of Shaft
4.5 Deflections (in.)
1.2
4.0 1.5
1.8
3.5 2.1
2.3
2.6
Deflection (in.)
3.0
3.1
3.6
2.5 4.1
4.7
2.0 5.3
5.9
6.4
1.5 6.9
7.9
1.0 9.0
Unloaded
0.5
0.0
-6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Figure 4.3.20: Shaft D incremental horizontal deflection el. 17.7 feet
Graphs of Shaft BG2 are shown in Figures 4.3.21 – 4.3.24. These graphs are very similar
to those for Shaft B. One main difference is the deflections from the neighboring shafts (BG1
and BG3) influenced the horizontal deflections of Shaft BG2. This influence can be seen in
Figure 4.3.24 at distances of nine feet significant wall deflections occurred, which did not
happen when Shaft B was tested. The horizontal deflections of the entire group test are shown in
Figure 4.3.25. This figure clearly shows the influence or nearby shafts. The slack in loading
BG2 is noticeable at the wall facing also. The incremental horizontal deflection of Shaft B and
BG2 were superimposed and shown in Figure 4.3.26. This figure shows the differences in group
loading versus single shaft loading.
53
90
80
70
60
Target
Load (kip)
50 Elevation (ft)
40 Shaft
19.3
30 17.7
15.7
20 13
9.7
10 7.7
4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.21: Shaft BG2 centerline deflections
90
80
70
60
Distance from
Load (kip)
50 Centerline (ft)
40
Shaft
30 -6
0
20
3
10 6
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.22: Shaft BG2 deflection in horizontal direction el. 17.7 feet
54
20
18
16
14
12 Top of Shaft
Deflections
10
0.1 0.5
8 0.8 1.2
1.7 2.1
6 2.4 2.9
3.5 4.0
4
2 5.8 6.3
6.7
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.23: BG2 incremental centerline vertical deflection of wall face

7
Top of Shaft 0.1
Deflections (in.) 0.5
6 0.8
1.2
1.7
5 2.1
2.4
Deflection (in.)
2.9
4 3.5
4.0
4.7
3 5.2
5.8
6.3
2 6.7
0
-9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9
Figure 4.3.24: Shaft BG2 incremental horizontal deflection el. 17.7 feet(portion of Figure 4.3.25)
55
7
Top of Shaft BG2 0.1
0.5
6 Deflections (in.) 0.8
1.2
1.7
5 2.1
2.4
Deflection (in.)
2.9
4 3.5
4.0
4.7
3 5.2
5.8
6.3
2 6.7
0
-21 -18 -15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Figure 4.3.25: Shafts BG incremental horizontal deflection el. 17.7 feet
5.0
Top of Shaft Deflections (in.)
4.5 Shaft B
0.5 1.0
4.0 2.0 4.0
5.0 6.0
3.5 0.5 1.0
2.0 4.0
Deflection (in.)
3.0 5.0 6.0
2.5
Shaft BG2
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9
Figure 4.3.26: Shafts BG2 and B incremental horizontal deflection at elevation 17.7 feet
56
The other two shafts tested in the group (BG1 and BG3) are shown are shown in Figures
4.3.27 – 4.3.32. They performed in a similar manner to BG2. As discussed earlier the last two
loads associated with shafts BG1 and BG3 are conspicuously high and are only shown for
completeness. The accuracy of the photogrammetric analysis is a function of the distance to the
targets. As a result the accuracy of BG1 is slightly greater than BG2 which is greater then BG3.
However, the loss in accuracy was evaluated and considered to be negligible.
Figure 4.3.33 and 4.3.34 show the peak and final load respectively versus maximum wall
deflection. This information is summarized in Tables 4.3.1 and 4.3.2.
120
100
80
Target
Elevation
Load (kip)
(f )
60 Shaft
19.3
17.7
40 15.7
13
9.7
20 7.7
4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Deflection (in.)
57
120
100
80
Distance from
Centerline (ft)
Load (kip)
60
Shaft
-6
40 0
3
6
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Deflection (in.)
20
18
Top of
16
Shaft
14 0.3
0.7
12 1.0
1.4
10 2.0
2.4
8 2.8
3.2
3.9
6 4.5
5.2
4 5.8
2 7.2
7.9
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.29: Shaft BG1 incremental centerline vertical deflection of wall face
58
90
80
Target
70
Elevation (ft)
60 Shaft
Load (kip)
50 19.3
17.7
40 15.7
13
30
9.7
20 7.7
4
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection (in.)
90
80
Distance from
70
Centerline (ft)
60
Shaft
Load (kip)
50 -6
-3
40
0
30 3
6
20
9
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection (in.)
59
20
18 Top of Shaft
Deflections
16
14 0.2
0.6
0.9
12 1.2
1.7
10 2.0
2.2
8 2.9
3.4
6 3.9
4.4
4 5.0
2 5.8
6.0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.32: Shaft BG3 incremental centerline vertical deflection of wall face
200
Shaft A
180 Shaft B
Shaft BS
160
Shaft BG2
140 Shaft C
Shaft D
Peak Load (kip)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Max Wall Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.33: Peak load vs. maximum wall deflection for all shafts
60
180
Shaft A
160 Shaft B
Shaft BS
140 Shaft BG2
Shaft C
120 Shaft D
Final Load (kip)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Max Wall Deflection (in.)
Figure 4.3.34: Final load vs. maximum wall deflection for all shafts
Table 4.3.1: Peak Load vs. Maximum Wall Deflection

Dist. From
Maximum Wall Deflection 0.5" 0.75" 1" 2" 4" Ultimate
A 36 12 15 18 26 33 33
BS 72 (15' Length) 28 33 35 43 53 55
BG2 72 (15 Spacing) 40 45 50 62 78 85
B 72 48 54 58 70 87 90
C 108 50 55 60 80 98 116
D 144 77 88 99 134 182 194
Table 4.3.2: Final Load vs. Maximum Wall Deflection

Dist. From
Shaft Facing (in.) Final Load (kip)
A 36 8 10 15 22 - 27
BS 72 (15' Length) 24 29 31 37 46 47
BG2 72 (15 Spacing) 34 37 41 43 41 46
B 72 43 48 50 61 75 76
C 108 43 49 52 69 90 102
D 144 78 82 90 122 166 171
61
4.4 Pressure Cell Data
Three pressure cells were installed in front of each shaft at elevations of 7.7, 13.7, and
17.7 feet. This made for a total of 24 cells. Of those, 21 were mounted in a recession within a
concrete block using nonshrink grout. Pressure cells mounted in this way were tested and
confirmed to provide reliable results. The block and pressure cell were placed against the back
of the wall facing in front of the shafts. Three were not encased in concrete; instead they were
filled with aggregate behind the pressure cell. Both methods used a sand bag in front of the
pressure cell to prevent puncture of the membrane. Those pressure cells not mounted to concrete
blocks are located in front of Shaft A at 7.7 feet and Shaft BG3 at elevation 13.7 feet and 17.7
feet. Figure 4.4.1 shows a plot of Shaft A’s three pressure cells, the load on that shaft, and the
shaft deflection. The pressure at the beginning of the test was set to zero so this plot shows
change in pressure from the start of the test. To read, find a point that is of interest. Load, lateral
pressure, and shaft movement for that point of interest can be found by holding the time constant
and reading the desired value off the axis. Load and pressure share the same axis and scale. If
reading load then the unit is kip. If reading pressure the units are pounds per square foot. Shaft
deflection is based on LVDT readings at two feet above the surface. The right axis gives
deflection in inches.
62
300 0
0.5
250
1
Pressure (psf), Load (kip)
7.7' No Block
Shaft Deflection (in.)

1.5
200 13.7'
17.7' 2
150 Load 2.5
Shaft Deflection 3
100
3.5
4
50
4.5
0 5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Time (min)
Figure 4.4.1: Shaft A pressure cells, load, and deflection of the shaft
Figure 4.4.2 shows the same plot for Shaft B. Compared to Shaft A the loads, and
pressures drop off much faster. At different pressure cell elevations there is also some deviation
of pressure increase. The pressure at 13.7 and 7.7 feet elevations increase more then the pressure
cell at 17.7 feet elevation. This can be seen for Shafts BG1 and BG3 (Figure 4.4.4 and 4.4.5).
The behavior could be a result of vertical confinement being lower for the upper cell.
63
350 0
0.5
300 1
1.5
250 7.7' 2

13.7' 2.5
200 17.7'
3
Load
3.5
150 Shaft Deflection
4
100 4.5
5
50 5.5
6
0 6.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time (min.)
Figure 4.4.2: Shaft B pressure cells, load, and deflection of the shaft
Figures 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 show Shafts BG2 and BG3. BG3 is shown because it contained
pressure cells that were not encased in concrete. The values of the pressure cells that were
encased in concrete are very comparable to those who were not encased. Behavior in both shafts
was similar to Shaft B.
Shaft BS pressure changes can be found in Figure 4.4.5. The effect of the decrease in
length of five feet can be seen in this figure also. Here the upper cell detected the greatest
increase in pressure and the lower cell detected the least increase in pressure. This is a
considerably different behavior then for Shaft B. The value of pressure at the upper location is
comparable to Shaft B, both being near 200 psf at six inches of deflection.
Shaft C and D behaved in a very similar way. Figure 4.4.6 shows Shaft C. Cells for both
Shaft C and D at the lowest (7.7’) elevation experienced a similar maximum pressure at eight
inches of deflection. Both shafts show an intermediate pressure at the middle (13.7’) elevation,
and the highest pressure cell measured the lowest pressure change.
64
Figure 4.4.7 shows shaft D. This graph shows pressure falling during the test for the
highest pressure cell at elevation 17.7 feet. This is likely due to a failure of the cell, as this
behavior was not observed for the other shafts.
250 0
0.5
1
200
1.5

7.7' 2.5
150
13.7'
17.7' 3
Load 3.5
100 Shaft Deflection 4
4.5
5
50
5.5
6
0 6.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Time (min.)
Figure 4.4.3: Shaft BG2 pressure cells, load, and deflection of the shaft
65
250 0
0.5
1
200
1.5

7.7'
150 13.7' No Block 2.5
17.7' No Block 3
Load
Shaft Deflection 3.5
100 4
4.5
5
50
5.5
6
0 6.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Time (min.)
Figure 4.4.4: Shaft BG3 pressure cells, load, and deflection of the shaft
7.7
250 0
13.7
17.7 0.5
Load 1
200 Shaft Deflection
1.5

150 2.5
3
3.5
100 4
4.5
5
50
5.5
6
0 6.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time (min.)
Figure 4.4.5: Shaft BS pressure cells, load, and deflection of the shaft
66
300 0
7.7'
13.7' 1
17.7
250 Load 2
Shaft Deflection

200
4
150 5
6
100
7
8
50
9
0 10
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time (min)
Figure 4.4.6: Shaft C pressure cells, load, and deflection of the shaft
300 7.7' 0
13.7' 0.5
17.7' 1
250 Load 1.5
Shaft Deflection 2
200 2.5

3
3.5
150 4
4.5
5
100 5.5
6
6.5
50 7
7.5
0 8
8.5
9
-50 9.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Time (min.)
Figure 4.4.7: Shaft D pressure cells, load, and deflection of the shaft
67
4.5 Surface Observations
The topsoil cover was compacted and relatively dry at the time of testing. This topsoil
cracked during the testing process, and these cracks are documented in the next pages. During
testing all shafts had cracks form behind the shafts due to caving and from the sides at a diagonal
toward the wall facing as a result of shaft movement. Figure 4.5.1 shows typical cracks that
formed directly behind each shaft. Figure 4.5.2 shows typical cracks that formed at a diagonal to
the sides of the shaft. During the group test a large crack developed at a distance of between
13.5 feet and 14.5 feet from the back of the wall that ran parallel to the wall face. This is the
same location as the end of the reinforced zone. It is believed this crack is a result of sliding of
the geogrid toward the wall facing (Figure 4.5.3). This indicates the MSE wall behaved as
several large masses.
After testing of the group was performed, a section of geogrid between two of the shafts
was exhumed (Figure 4.5.4). This geogrid was then measured for elongation of the grid. The
data from this is presented in Figure 4.5.5.
Figure 4.5.1: Surface cracks due to caving on back of shaft
68
Figure 4.5.2: Diagonal surface cracks
Figure 4.5.3: Crack developed above the end of reinforcement during group test
69
Figure 4.5.4: Exhumed geogrid between shafts BG1 and BG2
3.5%
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
Strain
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0 20 40 60 80
inches from edge of shaft measured parallel to the wall face
Figure 4.5.5: Strain of geogrid layer at 18.7 feet elevation between shafts BG1 and BG2
70
CHAPTER FIVE - APPLICATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Expected Wind Load for Sound Walls and other Structures
The Minnesota Department of Transportation estimates a design wind speed of 75 mph
for all sound wall type applications. This produces a pressure of 23 psf and load comparable to
the loading that was applied to the test shafts (6500 lb) for a 15 x 15 foot tributary area. A
design speed of 75 mph is typical for a wall designed in an area with significant cover from near
structures, or dense woodlands that is not designed for an extreme event like a tornado. For the
same 15x 15 area if the wind speed is increased to 90 mph the pressure and load become 33 psf
and 9330 lb. A design wind speed of 90 mph would be used for a wall in an area with little
cover from buildings or trees without consideration of an extreme event. For a wind speed of
200 mph, for the same 15 x 15 tributary area, the pressure and load become 163 psf, or 46,000 lb
(MnDOT). An extreme event by definition is rare so the application of a wind speed of 200mph
would indicate that the structure must perform in all but the most extreme events. For reference
KDOT uses a wind load of 50 psf which translates to an equivalent shaft load of 14,000 lb. The
following sections contain recommendations for design and future testing given these loading
conditions and state conclusions developed from the tests performed.
5.2 Allowable Deflection
Due to the geometry of the facing blocks and the masonry look of the surface, the
aesthetics of the wall system were only slightly affected. The deflection of the wall was only
evident from the top of the wall looking down, or from the side looking at the profile. The
deflection that could be seen was only visible upon close inspection. This indicates that only
71
extremely large deflections would be objectionable if aesthetics were of particular concern.
Figures 5.2.1 – 5.2.4 show pictures of the deflected wall facing as a result of the group of three
shafts that were tested (BG1, BG2, and BG3). Figure 5.2.1 is highlighted by the noon sun. This
is the only time that deflection of the wall facing is noticeable when looking directly at the wall
as shown in Figure 5.2.2. The deflection can be seen from the top of the wall looking down the
side (Figure 5.2.3), but is much less noticeable from below the wall looking at the profile (Figure
5.2.4).
Figure 5.2.1: Final facing deflection of the group of test shafts noon (5.3 inches, max facing
movement, 7 inches of shaft movement)
72
Figure 5.2.2: Final facing deflection of the group of test shafts afternoon (5.3 inches, max facing
movement, 7 inches of shaft movement)
73
Figure 5.2.3: Profile of final wall deflection for group of test shafts
74
Figure 5.2.4: Side view of group wall facing after final deflection
5.3 Shaft Strength
The three shaft variables affecting strength that were evaluated during these tests are
distance from the wall facing, depth of shaft, and the influence of neighboring shafts.
5.3.1 Strength Based on Distance From the Wall Facing
This discussion is based on a length of shaft of 20 feet and a shaft diameter of 36 inches.
Design loads that are based on either 75 or 90 mph winds rather then 200 mph will be
experienced more often during the life of the structure. As a result, reductions in the allowable
design load will be needed to account for the repeated nature of the loading. Therefore two
75
different sets of design values are provided based on different factors of safety. The first is based
on a strength reduction of 2, or one half of the test load, associated with structures that are
designed to withstand an extreme event. The strength reduction of 3 will be used for structures
that are designed to withstand a large storm. If designing for the extreme event, other events
must be checked due to the higher factor of safety associated with those more recurrent smaller
events. Table 5.3.1 shows the ultimate peak load for a test shafts divided by the strength
reduction factor of 2 or 3 depending on the design case. These values of loading are based on the
ultimate peak lateral load that the shaft can resist. This is due to the length of time that a wind
speed can be sustained. If the load were an impact load the peak load measured would be more
appropriate.
5.3.2 Strength Based on Length of Shaft
Recommendations for shafts founded above the base of the fill are based on results from
a 36 inch diameter test shaft two diameters from the wall and founded 5 feet above the base of
the wall. Results are reported in Table 5.3.1.
5.3.3 Influence of Neighboring Shafts (Group Effect) on Ultimate Strength
Study of the influence of neighboring shafts was conducted on the shafts that were 72
inches, or two diameters, from the wall facing. The influence area is described as the area with a
wall deflection greater then 10 percent of the maximum wall facing deflection. These results are
tabulated in Table 5.3.1. See Figure 5.3.1 for spacing other then those in Table 5.3.1. When
designing a shaft spacing of 15 feet, and distance from the wall facing of 72 inches use values
obtained from the Group tests.
76
Table 5.3.1: Distance from Wall Facing vs. Allowable Lateral Load and Influence Length
Distance (in.) Measured
Test Center of shaft Peak Allowable Lateral Load (kip) Required Shaft
Shaft to Back of Load Factor of Safety Spacing (ft)
ID Wall Facing (kip) 2 3 To avoid Influence
A 36 34 17.0 11.3 10
B 72 55 27.5 18.3 17
BS 72 (15' Length) 85 42.5 28.3 17
BG2 72 (15 Spacing) 90 45.0 30.0 -
C 108 116 58.0 38.7 20
D 144 194 97.0 64.7 26
30
25
Required Shaft Spacing (ft.)
20
15
y = 1.7x + 5.5
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from Back of Wall Facing (ft)
Figure 5.3.1: Distance from back of wall vs. required spacing to avoid influence
from neighboring shafts.
5.3.4 Design Recommendations
This section contains recommendations based on the results of the testing described in
this report. As these recommendations are based on one set of tests they should be viewed as
preliminary and subject to revision based on future research and analyses.
Based in the limitations of physical testing, the authors have the following general
recommendations.
77
High quality backfill conforming to CA-5 specification or better shall be used, as lower
quality backfill can be expected to result in a reduced shaft capacity.
The use of modular block facing is recommended due to concealment of wall facing
displacement. Alternative wall systems should be evaluated with great care.
All shafts were tested behind a wall with a geogrid length of 14 feet (0.7 x Wall Height).
It is recommended that a minimum grid length of 14 feet be used until additional analyses are
conducted because one of the primary modes of failure appeared to be sliding along the surface
of one of the grid layers. A shorter grid length could result in reduced resistance to sliding and
reduced lateral capacity for the shafts. Longer grid lengths near the surface will theoretically
provide additional resistance against this mode of failure; however the magnitude of the
improvement has not yet been investigated.
5.4 Service Limit State Recommendations
Limitations on deflection of the shafts or the wall facing will often control the design.
Therefore design values of allowable load for a particular deflection are presented in this section.
These values are based on the peak load that was generated during testing that is associated with
the deflection of interest. Table 4.2.1 (reprinted below) shows final load for each shaft
configuration at different shaft deflections. Shafts were assumed to pivot at the base of the shaft
and there was no bending of the shaft. Table 4.3.1 (reprinted below) shows peak load for each
shaft configuration at different maximum wall facing deflections. For deflections at locations
other then the location of maximum wall deflection, figures from section 4.3 should be used to
determine the final load that would produce the deflection in question.
78
Table 4.2.1: Peak Load vs. Displacement for all Shafts
Dist. From
A 36 - 14 15 23 32 34
BS 72 (15' Length) 27 30 33 40 49 55
BG2 72 (15 Spacing) 27 35 39 53 70 85
B 72 40 47 50 62 77 90
C 108 39 44 50 66 87 116
D 144 - - 55 81 120 194
Table 4.3.1: Peak Load vs. Maximum Wall Deflection

Dist. From
A 36 12 15 18 26 33 33
BS 72 (15' Length) 28 33 35 43 53 55
BG2 72 (15 Spacing) 40 45 50 62 78 85
B 72 48 54 58 70 87 90
C 108 50 55 60 80 98 116
D 144 77 88 99 134 182 194
An alternative approach to using the above tables is provided in equation form, as shown
in Eq. 5.1. An ultimate strength (Pu) value is given based on 0.5 or 1.0 inches of shaft
movement as well as 1.0 inches of wall facing movement. Appropriate reductions factors are
given based on the distance from the shaft center to the back of the wall facing, and the influence
of group loading for a 15 foot spacing. The values of peak load and load reduction factors are
provided in Table 5.4.1 and 5.4.2. The values provided are based on the results of physical
testing. The remaining values in Table 5.4.2 will be determined by computer modeling and
provided in a future report.
Equation 5.1: Pall = Pu*(distance factor)*(group factor)
79
Table 5.4.1: Peak Load and Distance Reduction Factors
Allowable Displacement
Dist. From 0.5 in. Shaft 1 in. Shaft 1 in. Wall
Facing (in.) Movement Movement Movement
36 0.38 0.3 0.18
72 0.7 0.9 0.59
108 1 0.9 0.6
144 - 1 1
Pu = 39 55 99
Table 5.4.2: Group Reduction Factors

Allowable Displacement
Dist. From 0.5 in. Shaft 1 in. Shaft 1 in. Wall
Facing (in.) Movement Movement Movement
36 - - -
72 0.68 0.78 0.86
108 - - -
144 - - -
5.5 Recommendations for Design Using the P-Y Method
An analysis of the test shaft data was conducted by Dan Brown and Associates for the
purpose of developing recommendations for using the P-Y method to estimate shaft capacity.
Their recommendations are presented in Appendix B.
5.6 Recommendations for Further Research
Future testing and analysis should be conducted to expand the application of this type of
design. Cyclic loading was not considered and a strength reduction should be considered if
cyclic loading is present. More testing should be considered to estimate the influence the effect
of different backfill material, types of geogrid, facing type, and different reinforcement
geometries. The effect of different spacings could also be evaluated for other shaft distances
from the facing. Another option, in addition to full scale testing, to determine these variables
80
would be to use numerical modeling. Modeling may be used to simulate the testing that was
performed and then modified to determine the effects of varying aspects of the design.
81
82
REFERENCES
Anderson, Peter L., “Increased Use of MSE Abutments,” International Bridge Conference 2005
IBC-05-10. The Reinforced Earth Company, North Reading, MA.
FHWA, “Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations”, November 1998. FHWA-HI-
97-013.
FHWA, “Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes – Design and
construction Guidelines,” August 1997. FHWA-SA-96-071.
Google. Google Maps. http://maps.google.com/maps. January 2008.
Johnson, Rebecca, Parsons, Robert L., Dapp, Steven, Brown, Dan, “Soil Characterization and P-
Y Curve Development for LOESS, Report No. K-TRAN: KU 05-3,” Kansas Department of
Transportation, February 2007.
KDOT “KDOT Project: RE-0446-01 Grading Cross Section”, March 2007.
Minnesota Department of Transportation, “Noise Analysis: Guidelines for the Evaluation of

Noise Barrier Designs” Office of Environmental Services.
Tensar Earth Technologies. “Demonstration of Pile Driving through the HDPE Geogrid
Reinforced Soil Fill of Full-Height Precast Concrete Panel Faced, Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Wall,” 2001 Report, Colorado E-470 Project.
Tensar Earth Technologies, Inc. “Construction Drawings: I-435 and Leavenworth Rd

Interchange”, April 2007.
83
84
APPENDIX A
A-1
Figure A.1: Typical Boring Log
A-2
Table A.1: Test Results for Rock Samples
Unconfined. Elastic Dry Moisture
Sample No. Station Offset Depth Description Compression Modulus Density Percent
(FT) (FT) Qu (psf) E (psf) γd (pcf) w%
S1A 1+80.3 102.3 Lt 5.2-6.25 Lt gray limestone 997000 171000000 163 1.4
S2A 1+80.3 102.3 Lt 9.3-10.1 Dk gray shale 26900 1450000 125 14.6
S3A 1+80.3 102.3 Lt 13.5-14.2 Dk gray shale * * 136 1.4
S1B 0+85.6 98.8 Lt 8.1-8.5 Lt gray limestone 912000 95400000 160 1.7
S2B 0+85.6 98.8 Lt 12.2-12.6 Dk gray shale 20900 2780000 138 6.2
S3B 0+85.6 98.8 Lt 14.65-15.5 Dk gray shale 76400 1890000 135 8.5
S4B 0+85.6 98.8 Lt 18.5-23.5 Lt gray limestone 199000 53900000 149 4.5
40
35
30
25 Peak
Load (kip)
Residual
20 2.5min
15
10
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Deflection (in.)
Figure A.2: Shaft A Peak, 2.5min, and Final Load vs. Deflection
A-3
100
90
Peak
80 2.5min
Residual
70
60
Load (kip)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection (in.)
Figure A.3: Shaft B Peak, 2.5min, and Final Load vs. Deflection
140
120 Peak
Residual
100 2.5min
80
Load (kip)
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (in.)
Figure A.4: Shaft C Peak, 2.5min, and Final Load vs. Deflection
A-4
220
200
180
Peak
160 Residual
140 2.5min
Load (kip)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (in.)
Figure A.5: Shaft D Peak, 2.5min, and Final Load vs. Deflection
60
50
Peak
Residual
40 2.5min
Load (kip)
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection (in.)
Figure A.6: Shaft BS Peak, 2.5min, and Final Load vs. Deflection
A-5
90
80 Peak
2.5min
70 Residual
60
Load (kip)
50
40
30
20
Origional Position of
Curve Before Correction
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Deflection (in.)
Figure A.7: Shaft BG2 Peak, 2.5min, and Final Load vs. Deflection
80
60
Shear Stress (psi)
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Normal Stress (psi)
Figure A.8: Mohr’s circle at failure for 5, 10, and 20 psi cell pressure
A-6
40
35
30
Deviator Stress (psi)
25
20
15
10
0
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Strain (in./in.)
Figure A.9: Tri-axial plot 5psi cell pressure
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Strain (in./in.)
A-7
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Strain (in./in.)
Table A. 1: Concrete Cylinder List

RE-0446-01 ACT 230.
MSEW/DEEP FOUNDATIONS INTERACTION STUDY - I-435 & LEAVENWORTH ROAD
DATE SHAFTS SLUMP (in.) TEMP. (°F) Strength (psi) Date
7/19/2007 R1 7 3/4 82 4,902 8/16/2007
7/19/2007 R1 5,888 11/8/2007
7/19/2007 R1 5,637 11/8/2007
7/20/2007 N SHAFT 7 1/2 89 0
7/20/2007 N SHAFT 7,588 8/20/2007
7/20/2007 N SHAFT 0
7/20/2007 S SHAFT 0
7/20/2007 S SHAFT 7,020 8/20/2007
7/20/2007 S SHAFT 0
7/24/2007 R2 & R5 8 86 3,562 8/20/2007
7/24/2007 R2 & R5 7,471 11/9/2007
7/24/2007 R2 & R5 7,665 11/9/2007
7/25/2007 R6 8 85 7,121 11/14/2007
7/25/2007 R6 6,779 11/28/2007
7/25/2007 R6 5,937 8/24/2007
7/25/2007 R3 & R4 8 3/4 86 6,889 11/14/2007
7/25/2007 R3 & R4 7,018 11/14/2007
7/25/2007 R3 & R4 6,227 8/24/2007
A-8
Table A.1: Concrete Cylinder List (cont.)
10/4/2007 C & R5 8 80 5,773 11/14/2007
10/4/2007 C & R5 5,203 11/1/2007
10/4/2007 C & R5 5,215 11/1/2007
10/4/2007 BS & R5 9 76 6,066 11/9/2007
10/4/2007 BS & R5 5,460 11/1/2007
10/4/2007 BS & R5 5,795 11/1/2007
10/4/2007 R6 8 1/2 78 5,231 11/1/2007
10/4/2007 R6 5,363 11/1/2007
10/4/2007 R6 6,016 11/9/2007
10/5/2007 BG3 & R4 8 82 6,349 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 BG3 & R4 6,554 11/14/2007
10/5/2007 BG3 & R4 6,384 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 A&D 9 1/2 80 5,619 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 A&D 6,183 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 A&D 6,501 11/8/2007
10/5/2007 R4 & BG2 10 1/4 80 5,326 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 R4 & BG2 5,633 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 R4 & BG2 6,290 11/14/2007
10/5/2007 D & R1 8 3/4 81 6,594 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 D & R1 6,947 11/8/2007
10/5/2007 D & R1 6,405 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 BG2 8 1/4 81 7,141 11/14/2007
10/5/2007 BG2 6,569 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 BG2 7,011 11/2/2007
10/9/2007 BG1 & R3 7 1/2 80 6,853 11/6/2007
10/9/2007 BG1 & R3 7,177 11/6/2007
10/9/2007 BG1 & R3 7,139 11/14/2007
10/9/2007 B & R3 10 78 7,279 11/6/2007
10/9/2007 B & R3 6,739 11/6/2007
10/9/2007 B & R3 7,521 11/8/2007
10/9/2007 R3 & R2 9 82 7,632 11/6/2007
10/9/2007 R3 & R2 7,861 11/6/2007
10/9/2007 R3 &R2 8,108 11/8/2007
10/9/2007 R2 7 81 7,380 11/6/2007
10/9/2007 R2 7,475 11/6/2007
A-9
Analysis of Laterally Loaded Drilled Shafts
Appendix B
University of Kansas Report
Capacity of Laterally Loaded Shafts Constructed Behind

the Face of a Mechanically Stabilized Earth Block Wall
September 2008
Prepared by Dan Brown and Associates, PLLC
Prepared for the University of Kansas and the Kansas Department of Transportation
Project Background
Drilled shafts used to support sound walls and other structures are often constructed near the
facing of mechanically stabilized earth walls (MSE walls) due to right-of-way constraints or
other limitations. Suppliers and designers have expressed concern that lateral loads from the
shafts may be transferred to the wall facing, causing excessive deformation. Current practices
available to design MSE walls in these situations are very conservative: isolating the shafts
from the backfill or using extremely large shafts to minimize shaft deflection (and thus load
applied to the wall). This research intends to investigate the behavior of both drilled shafts
and an MSE wall with several drilled shafts constructed at various distances from the MSE
wall face.
Site Setup
The test site was located in the southwest quadrant of the I-435/Leavenworth Road
Interchange in Wyandotte County, Kansas. Several test and reaction shafts were installed
in the test area. The test area was selected to allow the reaction shafts to be socketed into
the sandstone and limestone underlying the site, as well as to allow the MSE wall to be
constructed on the bedrock. A plan view drawing of the site layout is included in
Appendix C.
Shaft Construction
A total of eight test shafts and six reaction shafts were installed. All tests shafts were
located in the reinforced zone of the MSE wall backfill. All reaction shafts were installed
beyond the reinforced zone, but in the same backfill material. All shafts had inclinometer
casings installed in the reinforcing cages. Two inclinometer casings were also installed
adjacent to the wall between the wall and a shaft group consisting of three test shafts
(BG1, BG2, BG3).
The test shafts were all 36 inches in diameter and the distance from the MSE wall
(defined as the distance from the back of the MSE wall facing to the center of the shaft)
ranged from one to four shaft diameters. The test shaft ID indicates the distance from the
wall of the test shaft (e.g. A = 1 diameter, B = 2 diameters, etc.). The base of each test
shaft was set just above the top of rock in the MSE backfill, with Shaft BS being 5 feet
shorter than the other test shafts. All of the reaction shafts (designated R1 through R6)
were socketed into the rock below the MSE backfill. The reaction shaft diameters were
either 42 or 54 inches with 36 or 48 inch diameter sockets, respectively. A summary of
the shaft information is listed in Table 1.
Analysis of Laterally Loaded Drilled Shafts Page B-1

September 2008
Table 1 – Summary of Shaft Information
Distance
from Wall Socket Socket
(Shaft Diameter Diameter Length
Shaft ID Shaft Description Diamters) (in) (in) (ft)
A Single Test Shaft 1D 36
B Single Test Shaft 2D 36
BG1 Test Shaft Group 2D 36
BS Single Test Shaft (short) 2D 36
C Single Test Shaft 3D 36
D Single Test Shaft 4D 36
R1 Reaction Shaft N/A 42 36 6.50
All shafts had reinforcement consisting of 12 #11 bars evenly spaced around the radius
with #5 hoops spaced on 12” centers. The upper three feet of the shaft was designed to
be above ground surface and be formed in a rectangular “pillbox” with steel face plates
for attaching the jacks and external instrumentation. The #5 hoops were spaced on 6”
centers in this “pillbox” portion of the shaft. The hoop diameters were 30 inches and and
42 inches for the 36-inch and 48-inch shafts, respectively, providing a minimum of 3
inches of concrete cover. The reinforcement cages were continuous from the bottom of
each shaft up to 2.8 feet above the top of the wall/ground surface. Figure 1 illustrates the
shaft reinforcing details. Shaft concrete was KDOT Grade 4.0 with a minimum design
compressive strength of 3500 psi and a design slump of 9 inches. The average 28 day
compressive strength from concrete test cylinders was 6200 psi. The average slump was
8 ½ inches. The test data is included in Appendix C.
Corrugated metal pipe (CMP) was used as a concrete form for the portion of the shafts
contained within the crushed stone fill. The first sections of CMP for the reaction shafts
were set over the rock sockets, and then the reinforcement cages were lowered into place
and plumbed. Concrete was then poured into the shaft to fill the rock sockets and the first
few feet of the CMP above the socket. The CMP forms for the test shafts were set and
welded in place to vertical dowels anchored in the limestone for support for the first few
feet of fill. As wall height increased the upper section of CMP was added to all shafts by
welding the two sections together and adding a band clamp tightened around the joint for
added strength.

September 2008
Figure 1 – Drilled Shaft Reinforcement Details (Pierson (2008))
MSE Wall Construction
Details on the design, construction, and instrumentation of the MSE wall can be found in
Pierson 1 . A summary of the wall construction is included here for background to the
shaft installation.
The MSE wall was constructed using the Mesa Retaining Wall System. The wall design
and materials were provided by Tensar International, Inc. The wall was built utilizing a
two-foot spacing (three blocks) between geogrid courses, and a geogrid length of 14’
(70% of the wall height). UX1500 geogrid were used for the bottom four layers of
reinforcement and UX1400 geogrid was used for the top six layers. Vertical slip joints
were built into the wall to minimize interaction of separate test shafts. These were
located symmetrically on either side of each test section at 7.5’ distance from the
centerline of the shaft.
1
Pierson, Matthew C. Behavior of Laterally Loaded Shafts Constructed Behind the Face
of a Mechanically Stabilized Earth Block Wall MS Thesis, The University of Kansas,
2008.

September 2008
Wall backfill was a crushed stone aggregate meeting the KDOT specification for clean
aggregate backfill (CA-5). The backfill was placed in lifts generally eight inches thick
and compacted using a combination steel wheel/pneumatic tire roller where possible, and
a walk behind tamper adjacent to the shafts and within one foot of the wall facing.
Density tests were performed periodically to verify that the compaction criteria were met.
Backfill Properties
Sieve analysis and triaxial compression tests on the Clean Aggregate backfill (CA-5)
were performed by the University of Kansas (KU) and are reported in Pierson (2008).
Samples of the material were collected from several different loads of aggregate during
wall construction.
Figure 2 presents the average of three sieve analyses performed on a large sieving
machine with an area of 15 inches by 23 inches. Sieve analysis performed using a small
sieving machine with an eight-inch diameter sieve yielded similar results.
100
90
80
70
60
% Passing
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 10 100
Grain Size (mm)
Figure 2 Sieve analysis results - large sieve, average of three tests

(Pierson (2008))
Triaxial compression tests were conducted using a triaxial cell capable of testing samples
large enough to be consistent with ASTM specifications based on the maximum
aggregate size. These tests produced a friction angle, ĳ of 51˚. The results of these tests
can be found in Figure 3 and Appendix C.

September 2008
80
Failure Surface
ĳ = 51 degrees
60
Shear Stress (psi)
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Normal Stress (psi)
Figure 3 Triaxial shear test results on wall backfill

(Pierson (2008))
Construction Sequence
The test site was generally prepared as follows:

x The site was excavated to the wall foundation bearing elevation (Figure 4a).
x The sockets of the reaction shafts were drilled, the first section of CMP casing
and the reinforcing cages were set, and concrete placed to the top of the socket
(Figure 4b)
(a) (b)
Figure 4 – (a) Test site excavated to subgrade;
(b) Test shaft socket and cage complete

September 2008
x The first set of CMP casings were set at the test shaft locations. The MSE wall
was constructed and backfill placed and compacted around the shaft casings
(Figures 5a and 5b). The top sections of the CMP casings were added to all shafts
as the backfill came up.
(a) (b)
Figure 5 – (a) (b) Constructing wall with backfill around shafts
x After the wall and backfill were completed, the reinforcing steel cages for the test
shafts were inserted into the casings and the “pillboxes” were formed at the tops
of all shafts for setting the jacks and LVDTs (Figures 6a and 6b). Concrete was
then placed to complete all shafts.
(a) (b)
Figure 6 – (a) (b) Completing shafts with “pillboxes”
Testing
The testing program consisted of six tests of single shafts and one test of a shaft group.
For five of the single shaft tests (Shafts A, B, BS, and C), the shafts were loaded using an
Elgood-Mayo 150-ton double acting hydraulic jack set between the test shaft and reaction
shaft. Clevis brackets were attached to each end of the jack ram to bear against the
shafts. For Shaft D, a reaction beam was placed between R1 and R2. One of the six

September 2008
single shaft tests was a “control test” that pushed reactions shafts R1 and R2 apart. The
reaction shafts were constructed within the same backfill material as the test shafts (but
without reinforcement). The reaction shafts were also socketed into rock, fixing the base
of the shaft. Thus, by pushing two reaction shafts apart (oriented perpendicular to the
direction of loading for the regular tests), a reliable measure of the behavior of shafts in
the unreinforced backfill can be obtained to compare to the behavior of the test shafts in
the reinforced backfill.
For the group test, a load beam was placed across the three test shafts and a reaction
beam was placed across the two reaction shafts. Two Elgood-Mayo 150-ton double
acting hydraulic jacks were placed between the beams to load the group. Table 2 lists the
different test arrangements. Figures 7, 8, and 9 are photos of the test configurations.
Sketches of the typical test arrangements are contained in Appendix C.
Table 2 – Load Test Arrangements

Test Test Shaft Reaction Remarks
Shaft(s)
A-R1 A R1
B-R2 B R2
BG-R34 BG1, BG2, BG3 R3, R4 Beam across BG1,2,3; Beam across R3,R4
BS-R6 BS R6
C-R5 C R5
D-R12 D R1, R2 Beam across R1 and R2
R3-R4 (Control) Pushed two reaction shafts apart.
(a) (b)
Figure 7 – (a) Test A-R1 (b) Test B-R2

September 2008
(a) (b)
Figure 8 – (a) Test C-R5 (b) Test D-R12
(a) (b)
Figure 9 – (a) Test BG-R34 (b) Test R3-R4
During each test, measurements of the applied loads and the shaft deflections were
recorded using a MEGADAC mutli-channel data collector and a laptop computer. Loads
were measured using two Geokon Model 300-400-3 200 ton load cells and one Geokon
Model 3000X-4448kn-4.5 4,448 kN (500 ton) load cell. The 200-ton load cells were
placed in line with the jack ram inside the Clevis bracket bearing against the test shaft for
the single shaft tests. A typical setup is illustrated in Figure 10. For the group test, one
of the 200-ton load cells was placed inside each of the Clevis brackets bearing against the
load beam. The 500-ton load cell was placed between the load beam and Shaft BG2 (the
middle shaft of the group) using a hemispherical bearing.

September 2008
Figure 10 – Typical Test Set up (Pierson (2008))
A Slope Indicator Digitilt Inclinometer Probe was used to record shaft deflections along
the length of the shaft for all shafts except BG2. All inclinometer testing was performed
by KDOT personnel and the data provided to DBA. In addition to the inclinometer,
displacements near the top of each shaft were also recorded by RDP LDC Series LVDTs
(displacement transducers) with 3 or 6 inches of range of travel. RDP LDC Series
LVDTs with 15 inches of range of travel were attached to the jacks during each test to
measure the travel of the jack. For Shaft BG2, a series of four Slope Indicator EL In-
Place Inclinometer instruments (EL Sensors) was used to measure the shaft deflections
along the length of the shaft rather than the standard inclinometer probe.
Prior to the load tests, baseline surveys for all inclinometer casings were established by
performing a complete survey in each inclinometer casing three times in succession.
These surveys were averaged for the baseline reading. Once the test was setup, a “zero
load” survey was taken to check for any deviation from the baseline survey.

September 2008
The shafts were loaded in stages based on the deflection of the shaft as recorded by an
LVDT. For the single shaft tests, the LVDT used for test increments was the LVDT
located near the top of the “pillbox” of the test shaft. For the group of shafts, the LVDTs
attached to the load beam were used. The typical test sequence was:
x Open the pump valve to apply load.
x Monitor deflection of shaft (as recorded by LVDT) until readings indicated
desired deflection increment.
x Close the pump valve to stop loading.
x Perform inclinometer survey in the test shaft and reaction shaft as required. If
inclinometer surveys were not required for a given load increment, the load was
held for a minimum of 5 minutes.
x After completing the inclinometer survey or hold time, the pump valve was
opened and the processed repeated.
x After the last load increment, the pump valves were opened to release the load.
x Inclinometer surveys were performed after the load was released to record
“permanent” deflections.
The lists of the deflection increments at which inclinometer surveys were performed for
each test are contained in Appendix C. Figures 11 through 18 show the deflection of the
shafts as recorded by the inclinometer surveys. The legend on each graph lists the
applied load for each survey shown. The basis for determining the applied load is
discussed in the Analysis section later in this report. All of the inclinometer casings were
set with some casing above the top of the shafts, which is reflected on the graphs by
plotting above “0” on the depth axis.

September 2008
Shaft A - Shaft Deflection vs.
Depth from Top of Shaft
Deflection (in)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-5
5
Depth from Top of Shaft (ft)
10
15
20
25
Applied Load (kips)
5.8 10.1 14.3 26.1

27.7 28.0 0.0
Figure 11 – Shaft A Inclinometer Data

September 2008
Shaft B - Shaft Deflection vs.
Deflection (in)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-5
5
10
15
20
25
Applied Load (kips)
41.3 51.1 60.0 66.7

73.1 80.5 0.0
Figure 12 – Shaft B Inclinometer Data

September 2008
Shaft BS - Shaft Deflection vs.
Deflection (in)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-5
5
10
15
20
25
Applied Load (kips)
26.7 32.4 37.5 41.6

45.1 49.1 0.0
Figure 13 – Shaft BS Inclinometer Data

September 2008
Shaft C - Shaft Deflection vs.
Deflection (in)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-5
5
10
15
20
25
Applied Load (kips)
25.8 38.9 56.4 64.3
73.6 81.2 92.0 97.5
100.6 104.8 130.4 0.0
Figure 14 – Shaft C Inclinometer Data

September 2008
Shaft D - Shaft Deflection vs.
Deflection (in)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-5
5
10
15
20
25
Applied Load (kips)
55.4 74.9 95.8 114.6
133.0 156.8 181.1 0.0
Figure 15 – Shaft D Inclinometer Data

September 2008
Shaft BG2 - Shaft Deflection vs.
Deflection (in)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-5
5
10
15
20
25
Applied Load (kips)
5.41 30.82 43.25 54.07

63.80 68.66 83.80 0
Figure 16 – Shaft BG2 El Sensor Data

September 2008
Shaft R3 - Shaft Deflection vs.
Deflection (in)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
-5
5
10
15
20
25
Applied Load (kips)
97.4 186.9 0.0
Figure 17 – Shaft R3 Inclinometer Data

September 2008
Shaft R4 - Shaft Deflection vs.
Deflection (in)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
-5
5
10
15
20
25
Applied Load (kips)
97.4 186.9 0.0
Figure 18 – Shaft R4 Inclinometer Data

September 2008
Analysis
The first step in the data analysis was to determine the load applied at each interval. The
load cell data was recorded by the MEGADAC continuously during each test. An
example of the load vs. time data for Shaft B is shown in Figure 19. The data for all
shafts is contained in Appendix C.
Load vs. Time - Shaft B

100
90
80
70
Load (kips)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (minutes)
All Data Peak + 2.5 minutes
Figure 19 – Load vs. Time for Shaft B
As described previously in this report, the loads to the shafts were applied in stages
delineated by the deflection at the top of the shaft as recorded by the LVDT. At each
deflection increment, the jack was “locked off”. The load applied at this point of time
was the “peak” load for the load increment. After “lock off” of the jack, the applied load
decreased with time due to creep of the shafts. Since the inclinometer surveys took
several minutes to complete, a reasonable representative load at some point in time after
the peak load was needed for each load increment. Examination of the data indicated that
most of the “relaxation” of the load occurred within the first two minutes or so after the
peak load. Therefore, the load measured at 2.5 minutes after the peak load was
designated the applied load for the all analyses. The loads at time equal to peak load plus
2.5 minutes is shown on Figure 19.

September 2008
After determining the applied loads, the vertical reference system was established to use
for comparing all of the test data and LPILE analysis to the same point of reference. For
a single point load in LPILE, the location of the point of loading is considered the “top of
shaft”. For the analysis, the point of load application on the test shafts is therefore
considered the “top of the shaft” to have the test data and LPILE models structured the
same for comparisons. The elevation data for the various components of the test
arrangements was used as the basis for calculating the vertical locations of load and
deflections in the test data sets with respect to the top of the shaft location for each shaft.
Using the elevations of the top of the shafts, all of the test pile data and the results of the
LPILE analyses are then both referenced to a depth below the top of the shaft.
The inclinometer surveys required some adjustments to determine the recorded deflection
at the location of loading. All of the inclinometer casings were installed with a fixed
amount sticking up above the top of the “pillbox”. When the jacks and Clevis brackets
were mounted to the shafts, the resulting location of the axis of loading was not set to
match the elevation of an inclinometer reading. Using the known elevation of the top of
the inclinometer casing and the instrument lengths, the elevation of the inclinometer
reading at or closest to the elevation of the axis of loading was calculated. Where the
axis of loading did not match the elevation of an inclinometer reading, the deflection at
the elevation of loading was interpolated using the known elevations and deflections from
the inclinometer survey.
After establishing the vertical location reference system for the test data, the control test
of shafts R3-R4 was used to establish the baseline soil model for the unreinforced
backfill. Utilizing the internal friction angle and density data provided by KU and
KDOT, analyses were run in LPILE to obtain load-deflection curves that reasonably
matched the test data. Analyses were performed utilizing both linear and non-linear shaft
stiffness models, variations in shaft stiffness, and variations in soil properties
(particularly the subgrade modulus, k) to determine a reasonable soil model while
evaluating the sensitivity of the model to the various input parameters. The best match
from the analyses is shown in Figure 21. These results indicate that the following model
was reasonable for the shafts and backfill.
Table 3 – LPILE Model Parameters
Backfill Friction Angle 50 degrees

Backfill Unit Weight 110 pcf
Subgrade modulus, k 100 pci
Concrete Compressive Strength 6200 psi
Yield Strength of Reinforcing Steel 60 ksi

September 2008
Shaft Deflection - Non-Linear w/Axial Load 500 kips (P=187 kips)
102
97
92
Elevation (ft)
87
82
77
Top of Rock Socket
72
67
-0.2000 0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000
Deflection (in)
Shaft R3 Load b = 187 k Shaft R4 Load b = 187 k k=60

k=80 k=90 k=100
k=120 Top of socket
Figure 20 – Back Analysis of Shafts R3-R4
Once the control model was established in LPILE, analyses were run for each test shaft
(A, B, BS, C, D, and BG2) by varying the p-multiplier until a reasonable match was
obtained to the deflection response of the shaft. The analyses were begun by running the
model using a p-multiplier of 1.0, then decreasing the p-multiplier to get “best fit”
deflection curves at each load. An example of the curve fitting analyses is shown in
Figure 21. All of the plots for each shaft are included in Appendix C.

September 2008
Shaft B - Comparison of Inclinometer Data and LPILE Results - Load =51 kips
100
95
90
Elevation (ft)
85
80
75
70
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
Deflection Relative to Base of Shaft (in)
Inclinometer LPILE - p1.0 LPILE - p0.18 LPILE - p0.16 LPILE - p0.14 LPILE - p0.12
Figure 21 – Example plot of p-multiplier curves
After determining the “best fit” p-multiplier for each load, the mobilized shear values
calculated for the “best fit” p-multiplier were tabulated and plotted according to the
deflection at the top of the shaft and the distance of the shaft from the wall. Figures 22,
23, and 24 are the plots of mobilized shear vs. depth (from top of shaft) for deflections of
0.5, 1, and 1.5 inches, respectively.
These plots illustrate that at a distance of one shaft diameter from the wall, very little
shear force is mobilized in the soil, indicating the soil is providing very little resistance to
the lateral load. At a distance of two shaft diameters, the amount of shear force
mobilized in the soil increases significantly. The mobilized shear increases as distance
increase beyond two diameters, but the increase is relatively small in proportion to the
increased distance.

September 2008
Mobilized Shear vs. Depth for Various Distances From Wall
Top of Shaft Deflection = 1/2"
Mobilized Shear (kips)

-30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
0.0
5.0
Depth Below Top of Shaft (ft)
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Distance = 1D Distance = 2D
Distance = 2D - Short Distance = 2D - Group
Figure 22 – Mobilized Shear vs. Depth (1/2” Deflection)

September 2008
Top of Shaft Deflection = 1"

-60.0 -40.0 -20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Figure 23 – Mobilized Shear vs. Depth (1” Deflection)

September 2008
Top of Shaft Deflection = 1.5"

-60.0 -40.0 -20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Figure 24 – Mobilized Shear vs. Depth (1-1/2” Deflection)

September 2008
Appendix C
Site Layout and Test Sketches...................... Pages C-1 to C-4

Shaft Elevation Data Summary.................... Pages C-5 to C-7
Inclinometer Survey List ............................ Pages C-7 to C-17
Backfill Data............................................... Pages C-18 to C-31
Concrete Data ............................................ Pages C-32 to C-33
Test Equipment Calibrations ................... Pages C-34 to C-50
Test Data and Analysis Plots .................. Pages C-51 to C-102
Site Layout and Test Sketches
Site Plan Drawing (KDOT)
Test Layout Plan View Sketch
Test Layout Elevation View Sketch
Page C-1
R6
Page C-2
Page C-3
Page C-4
Shaft Elevation Data Summary
(From KDOT)
Page C-5
MSEW/DEEP FOUNDATION INTERACTION STUDY I-435 LEAVENWORTH ROAD
WYANDOTTE COUNTY, KANSAS
ELEVATION SUMMARY
ID MEASUREMENT ELEVATION (FT)
Test Shaft A top of inclinometer casing + 0.7 feet for pulley 100.79
Station 1+27.0 top of inclinometer casing 100.09
top of pill box 97.86
jack 95.91
ground west of shaft 94.68
bottom of inclinometer casing 74.89
bottom of wall ±0.04 feet 74.78
limestone/bottom of shaft (***approximate) 74.08
Test Shaft B top of inclinometer casing + 0.7 feet for pulley 100.85
jack 95.62
Test Shaft BG1 top of inclinometer casing + 0.7 feet for pulley 100.73
jack 96.54
jack 96.53
jack 96.53
Test Shaft BS top of inclinometer casing + 0.7 feet for pulley 100.97
jack 95.82
bottom of shaft (bottom of wall + 5.00 ft) 79.78
Test Shaft C top of inclinometer casing + 0.7 feet for pulley 100.89
jack 96.38
Test Shaft D top of inclinometer casing + 0.7 feet for pulley 100.81
jack 96.50
Page C-6
ELEVATION SUMMARY
ID MEASUREMENT ELEVATION (FT)
Reaction Shaft R1 top of inclinometer casing + 0.7 feet for pulley 104.17
jack 95.86
ground east of shaft 95.07
socket (***approximate) 74.08
jack 95.63
jack on west face of shaft 96.43
jack north face of shaft 95.89
jack on west face of shaft 96.40
jack on south face of shaft 95.81
jack elevation 95.78
jack 96.10
Wall Inclinometer I1 top of inclinometer casing + 0.7 feet for pulley 97.32
ground next to casing 94.97
Wall Inclinometer I2 top of inclinometer casing + 0.7 feet for pulley 97.92
ground next to casing 95.08
Page C-7
Inclinometer Survey List
(From KDOT)
Page C-8
Key Notes for Inclinometer Survey Lists
Deflection: Deflection at top of shaft for test increment. “Baseline” is before test;
“Permanent Deflection” is after test load is removed.
Lateral Load: Load applied at test increment deflection. Not all loads recorded by
KDOT.
__ Inclinometer Reading (Principal Axis West): Check mark indicates an inclinometer

reading was taken on test shaft at this test increment. “__” corresponds to shaft
designation (i.e. A, BS, etc.)
__ Inclinometer Reading (Principal Axis East): Check mark indicates an inclinometer

reading was taken on reaction shaft at this test increment. “__” corresponds to shaft
designation (i.e. R1, R6, etc.)
Page C-9
Test #1 - Test Shaft A and Reaction Shaft R1

11/8/2007
Deflection į Lateral Load P A Inclinometer Reading Date Time R1 Inclinometer Reading Date Time
(inch) (kip) (Principal Axis West) (Principal Axis East)
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 12:15:32 ¥ 10/30/2007 12:34:58
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 12:23:12 ¥ 10/30/2007 12:47:47
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 12:31:17 ¥ 10/30/2007 13:00:16
0 0 ¥ 11/8/2007 9:21:59 ¥ 11/8/2007 9:31:42
3/4 ¥ 11/8/2007 9:56:48 ¥ 11/8/2007 10:03:30
1 1/4 ¥ 11/8/2007 10:25:06
1 3/4 ¥ 11/8/2007 10:40:56
2 3/4 ¥ 11/8/2007 10:58:01
3 3/4 ¥ 11/8/2007 11:17:12
4 1/2 (MAX) 44 ¥ 11/8/2007 11:26:26
Permanent Deformation 0 ¥ 11/8/2007 11:36:21
NOTES: Permanent deformation of Reaction Shaft R1 in Test #1 corresponds with zero deflection of Reaction Shaft R1 in Test #7.
Page C-10
Test #2 - Test Shaft B and Reaction Shaft R2

11/8/2007
Deflection į Lateral Load P B Inclinometer Reading Date Time R2 Inclinometer Reading Date Time
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 12:43:48 ¥ 10/30/2007 13:14:07
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 12:50:23 ¥ 10/30/2007 13:23:32
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 12:56:33 ¥ 10/30/2007 13:31:51
0 0 ¥ 11/8/2007 14:38:23 ¥ 11/8/2007 14:47:07
3/4 ¥ 11/8/2007 15:42:19
1 1/2 ¥ 11/8/2007 16:00:25
2 1/2 ¥ 11/8/2007 16:14:51
3 1/2 ¥ 11/8/2007 16:27:05
4 1/2 ¥ 11/8/2007 16:39:43
6 (MAX) 83 ¥ 11/8/2007 16:53:52 ¥ 11/8/2007 17:01:26
4.09 (Permanent Deformation) 0 ¥ 11/8/2007 17:13:05 ¥ 11/8/2007 17:26:22
NOTES: Permanent deformation of Reaction Shaft R2 in Test #2 corresponds with zero deflection of Reaction Shaft R2 in Test #7.
Page C-11
Test #3 - Test Shaft BS and Reaction Shaft R6

11/9/2007
Deflection į Lateral Load P BS Inclinometer Reading Date Time R6 Inclinometer Reading Date Time
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 14:10:17 ¥ 10/30/2007 14:44:17
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 14:14:44 ¥ 10/30/2007 14:52:45
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 14:19:50 ¥ 10/30/2007 15:00:43
0 0 ¥ 11/9/2007 11:53:02 ¥ 11/9/2007 12:03:10
3/4 28.6 ¥ 11/9/2007 12:35:04
1 1/2 35.7 ¥ 11/9/2007 12:54:14
2 1/2 40.6 ¥ 11/9/2007 13:12:00
3 1/2 45 ¥ 11/9/2007 13:24:19
4 1/2 50 ¥ 11/9/2007 13:36:26
6 (MAX) 54.4 ¥ 11/9/2007 13:55:51 ¥ 11/9/2007 14:02:44
Permanent Deformation 0 ¥ 11/9/2007 14:19:29 ¥ 11/9/2007 14:25:34
NOTES:
Page C-12
Test #4 - Group Loading of Test Shafts BG1, BG2, and BG3 and Reaction Shafts R3 and R4
11/14/2007
Deflection į Lateral Load P BG1 Inclinometer Reading Date Time BG3 Inclinometer Reading Date Time
(inch) (kip) (Principal Axis West) (Principal Axis West)
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 13:06:24 ¥ 10/29/2007 13:45:50
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 13:12:40 ¥ 10/29/2007 13:55:04
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 13:18:15 ¥ 10/29/2007 14:01:13
0 0-0-0 ¥ 11/14/2007 10:23:32 ¥ 11/14/2007 10:48:17
1/4 25-5-25 ¥ 11/14/2007 12:23:17 ¥ 11/14/2007 12:43:42
3/4 51-31-52 ¥ 11/14/2007 12:59:48 ¥ 11/14/2007 13:17:49
1 1/2 68-42-62 ¥ 11/14/2007 13:39:03 ¥ 11/14/2007 13:57:00
2 1/2 86-55-75 ¥ 11/14/2007 14:20:43 ¥ 11/14/2007 14:41:42
3 1/2 94-62-82 ¥ 11/14/2007 14:58:54 ¥ 11/14/2007 15:17:56
4 1/2 103-70-90 ¥ 11/14/2007 15:31:49 ¥ 11/14/2007 15:48:55
6 (MAX) 151-80-112 ¥ 11/14/2007 16:20:49 ¥ 11/14/2007 16:40:10
Permanent Deformation 0-0-0 ¥ 11/15/2007 11:46:11 ¥ 11/15/2007 12:12:53
Deflection į Lateral Load P I1 Inclinometer Reading Date Time I2 Inclinometer Reading Date Time
(inch) (kip) (Principal Axis West) (Principal Axis West)
Baseline --- ¥ 10/30/2007 10:55:38 ¥ 10/30/2007 11:20:32
Baseline --- ¥ 10/30/2007 11:02:38 ¥ 10/30/2007 11:26:39
Baseline --- ¥ 10/30/2007 11:09:21 ¥ 10/30/2007 11:34:11
0 0-0-0 ¥ 11/14/2007 10:32:17 ¥ 11/14/2007 10:40:51
1/4 25-5-25 ¥ 11/14/2007 12:31:56 ¥ 11/14/2007 12:37:54
3/4 51-31-52 ¥ 11/14/2007 13:06:07 ¥ 11/14/2007 13:11:32
1 1/2 68-42-62 ¥ 11/14/2007 13:44:27 ¥ 11/14/2007 13:50:11
2 1/2 86-55-75 ¥ 11/14/2007 14:28:07 ¥ 11/14/2007 14:35:03
3 1/2 94-62-82 ¥ 11/14/2007 15:05:10 ¥ 11/14/2007 15:11:02
4 1/2 103-70-90 ¥ 11/14/2007 15:38:11 ¥ 11/14/2007 15:43:10
6 (MAX) 151-80-112 ¥ 11/14/2007 16:26:56 ¥ 11/14/2007 16:33:21
Permanent Deformation 0-0-0 ¥ 11/15/2007 11:53:09 ¥ 11/15/2007 12:05:56
NOTES: Test shaft reference beam moved approximately 5/8 inch at 6-inch deformation loading
Page C-13
Test #4 - Group Loading of Test Shafts BG1, BG2, and BG3 and Reaction Shafts R3 and R4
11/14/2007
Deflection į Lateral Load P BG2 Inclinometer Reading Date Time

(inch) (kip) (Principal Axis West)
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 13:27:03
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 13:32:55
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 13:38:20
Permanent Deformation 0-0-0 ¥ 11/15/2007 12:00:06
Deflection į Lateral Load P R3 Inclinometer Reading Date Time R4 Inclinometer Reading Date Time
(inch) (kip) (Principal Axis East) (Principal Axis East)
Baseline --- ¥ 10/30/2007 13:41:32 ¥ 10/30/2007 14:05:57
Baseline --- ¥ 10/30/2007 13:49:33 ¥ 10/30/2007 14:15:03
Baseline --- ¥ 10/30/2007 13:56:23 ¥ 10/30/2007 14:25:38
0 ¥ 11/14/2007 11:08:11 ¥ 11/14/2007 10:56:11
6 (MAX) ¥ 11/14/2007 16:56:19 ¥ 11/14/2007 16:46:07
Permanent Deformation ¥ 11/15/2007 12:37:46 ¥ 11/15/2007 12:26:18
NOTES: L-Sensor utilized with Test Shaft BG2. Permanent deformation of Reaction Shafts R3 and R4 in Test #4 corresponds with baseline and zero
deflection of Reaction Shafts R3 and R4 in Test #6. The principal axes of Reaction Shafts R3 and R4 were reoriented in Test #6.
Page C-14
Test #5 - Test Shaft C and Reaction Shaft R5

11/15/2007
Deflection į Lateral Load P C Inclinometer Reading Date Time R5 Inclinometer Reading Date Time
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 14:25:46 ¥ 10/31/2007 10:17:54
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 14:31:25 ¥ 10/31/2007 10:24:50
Baseline --- ¥ 10/29/2007 14:37:04 ¥ 10/31/2007 10:31:45
0 0 ¥ 11/15/2007 13:31:19 ¥ 11/15/2007 13:38:14
1/4 27.5 ¥ 11/15/2007 13:50:42
3/4 43.5 ¥ 11/15/2007 14:03:58
1 3/4 62 ¥ 11/15/2007 14:25:17
2 1/2 71.4 ¥ 11/15/2007 14:37:32
3 1/2 81 ¥ 11/15/2007 14:49:45
4 1/2 91 ¥ 11/15/2007 15:03:12 ¥ 11/15/2007 15:09:01
6 98 ¥ 11/15/2007 15:39:49
7 103.3 ¥ 11/15/2007 15:57:16
8 109 ¥ 11/15/2007 16:08:36
9 116 ¥ 11/15/2007 16:16:42
9.2 Max 133 ¥ 11/15/2007 16:26:54 ¥ 11/15/2007 16:34:07
3.95 (Permanent Deformation) 0 ¥ 11/15/2007 17:59:45 ¥ 11/15/2007 17:51:20
NOTES: Upper 5-foot section of Reaction Shaft R5 inclinometer tube (above pill box) replaced after baseline readings performed. Reading at 6 feet not valid.
Page C-15
Test #6 - Reaction Shafts R3 and R4

11/16/2007
Deflection į Lateral Load P R3 Inclinometer Reading Date Time R4 Inclinometer Reading Date Time
(inch) (kip) (Principal Axis South) (Principal Axis North)
Baseline --- ¥ 11/15/2007 16:45:40 ¥ 11/15/2007 17:17:54
Baseline --- ¥ 11/15/2007 16:56:23 ¥ 11/15/2007 17:30:46
Baseline --- ¥ 11/15/2007 17:06:33 ¥ 11/15/2007 17:41:36
0 ¥ 11/16/2007 9:46:01 ¥ 11/16/2007 9:20:44
1/4 ¥ 11/16/2007 10:07:09 ¥ 11/16/2007 10:19:49
3/4 ¥ 11/16/2007 11:30:09 ¥ 11/16/2007 11:19:50
Permanent Deformation ¥ 11/16/2007 11:51:16 ¥ 11/16/2007 12:02:35
NOTES: Baseline and zero deflection of Reaction Shafts R3 and R4 in Test #6 correspond with permanent deformation of Reaction Shafts R3 and R4
in Test #4. The principal axes of Reaction Shafts R3 and R4 were reoriented in Test #6.
Jack off level at 1/4-inch deflection. Test stopped and uloaded after 1/2-inch deflection. Jack re-leveled and supported with blocks. Test resumed
and loaded to 3/4-inch deflection. Bearing assembly failed at 1 1/4-inch deflection and test stopped. Yellow frame bent and stiffner weld broke. Difficulty
in removing pin in bearing assembly suggests torsion.
Page C-16
Test #7 - Test Shaft D and Reaction Shafts R1 and R2

11/16/2007
Deflection į Lateral Load P D Inclinometer Reading Date Time R1 Inclinometer Reading Date Time
0 0 ¥ 11/16/2007 11:05:55 ¥ 11/16/2007 10:55:03
1/4 31 ¥ 11/16/2007 14:12:41
3/4 62 ¥ 11/16/2007 14:36:52
1 1/2 81 ¥ 11/16/2007 15:04:03
2 1/2 105 ¥ 11/16/2007 15:22:56
3 1/2 124 ¥ 11/16/2007 15:34:27
4 1/2 145 ¥ 11/16/2007 15:47:04
6 168 ¥ 11/16/2007 16:10:58
8 (MAX) 193 ¥ 11/16/2007 16:27:52 ¥ 11/16/2007 16:47:33
Permanent Deformation 0 ¥ 11/16/2007 17:21:11 ¥ 11/16/2007 17:01:04
Deflection į Lateral Load P R2 Inclinometer Reading Date Time

(inch) (kip) (Principal Axis East)
0 0 ¥ 11/16/2007 10:43:01
8 (MAX) 193 ¥ 11/16/2007 16:36:25
Permanent Deformation 0 ¥ 11/16/2007 17:11:43
NOTES: Zero deflection of Reaction Shaft R1 in Test #7 corresponds with permanent deformation of Reaction Shaft R1 in Test #1.
Zero deflection of Reaction Shaft R2 in Test #7 corresponds with permanent deformation of Reaction Shaft R1 in Test #2.
Pressure transducer on pump failed at 1/2-inch deflection. Test stopped and unloaded at 1/2-inch deflection. Pressure transducer replaced. Test resumed
and loaded to 3/4-inch deflection.
Page C-17
Backfill Data
(From Pierson (2008) and KDOT)
Page C-18
Source:
Pierson, Matthew C. Behavior of Laterally Loaded Shafts Constructed Behind the Face of a Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Block Wall MS Thesis, The University of Kansas, 89 pages.
Page 1 of 5
4.1 Laboratory Results and Analysis
The University of Kansas performed large direct shear, triaxial compression, and
sieve analysis tests on the Clean Aggregate backfill (CA-5). Samples were collected
from several different loads of aggregate during construction of the wall.
Sieve analysis was performed using both a small sieving machine with an eight
inch diameter sieve, and large sieving machine with an area of 15 x 23 in.2 Both tests
yield similar results, and the results of three large sieve analyses were averaged and
presented in Figure 4.1.1.
100
90
80
70
60
% Passing
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 10 100
Grain Size (mm)
Figure 4.1.1 Large sieve analysis results
4.1.1 Large Direct Shear Box
The large direct shear box measures 12” x 16” with a 4” deep upper and 4” deep
lower portion. This shear box has several different ways to apply vertical pressure;
Page C-19
Source:
Page 2 of 5
pneumatic bladder, pneumatic plate, and dead weight. The height of the gap between the
two halves of the box is adjustable from less then 1/8inches to more than an inch of gap.
During testing using the pneumatic bladder loading mechanism it was apparent
that the results for the clean aggregate backfill (CA-5) were inaccurate. Poor results with
the bladder lead to testing with the pneumatic plate, as well as dead weight. Reasonable
results were obtained when dead weight loading was used. Unfortunately due to
limitations on the amount of dead weight that could be used it was not possible to use
enough weight safely to reach the same target confining pressure as with the pneumatic
systems. Results can be found in Figure 4.1.2.
60 Piston Loading
50 Bladder Loading
Peak Shear Stress (psi)
40 Phi = 51 (Triaxial
Results)
30 Dead Weight
20
10
0
0 10 20 30
Normal Stress (psi)
Figure 4.1.2 Large direct shear results
Page C-20
Source:
Page 3 of 5
4.1.2 Triaxial Testing
Triaxial compression tests were also conducted. The triaxial cell was capable of
supporting samples up to 4.0 inches diameter and 8.5 inches tall. This was large enough
to conduct tests consistent with ASTM specifications based on the maximum aggregate
size. These tests produced a friction angle (ĳ) of 51˚. The results of these tests can be
found in Figure 4.1.3 and the Appendix.
80
Failure Surface
Phi = 51degrees
60
Shear Stress (psi)
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Normal Stress (psi)
Figure 4.1.3 Mohr’s circle at failure for 5, 10, and 20 psi confining pressure
Page C-21
Source:
Page 4 of 5
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Strain (in./in.)
Figure A.9 Tri-axial plot 5psi cell pressure
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Strain (in./in.)
Page C-22
Source:
Page 5 of 5
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Strain (in./in.)
Page C-23
Page C-24
Page C-25
Page C-26
Page C-27
Page C-28
Page C-29
Page C-30
Page C-31
Concrete Data
(From Pierson (2008))
Page C-32
Concrete Test Data provided by University of Kansas
RE-0446-01 ACT 230.

MSEW/DEEP FOUNDATIONS INTERACTION STUDY - I-435 & LEAVENWORTH ROAD
LATERALLY LOADED ROCK-SOCKETED SHAFT STUDY - I-70 & I-435
CONCRETE CYLINDER LIST

3 2
DATE CYLINDER ID SHAFTS LOCATION DAILY TRUCK NO. LOAD (yd ) SLUMP (in.) TEMPERATURE (°F) REMARKS Diameter (in) Area (in ) Load Strength Date
7/19/2007 R1(1)-A R1 Leavenworth Rd. 1 2 1/2 7 3/4 82 * R1 socketed 6' 6 " 5.965 5.985 5.985 28.0705 137600 4902 8/16/2007
7/19/2007 R1(1)-B R1 Leavenworth Rd. 6.004 6.02 5.95 28.19271 166000 5888 11/8/2007
7/19/2007 R1(1)-C R1 Leavenworth Rd. 5.96 5.958 6.003 28.02669 158000 5637 11/8/2007
7/20/2007 N SHAFT-A N SHAFT I-70 1 7 7 1/2 89 * N SHAFT socketed 6' 1" 5.96 5.99 5.99 28.08615 0
7/20/2007 N SHAFT-B N SHAFT I-70 ** S SHAFT socketed 7' 0" 5.98 5.98 5.975 28.0705 213000 7588 8/20/2007
7/20/2007 N SHAFT-C N SHAFT I-70 *** 1 tuck for both shafts 6.015 5.97 6.015 28.27433 0
7/20/2007 S SHAFT-A S SHAFT I-70 **** N SHAFT cylinders made at 5.953 5.97 5.985 27.98605 0
7/20/2007 S SHAFT-B S SHAFT I-70 start of pour, S SHAFT cylinders 6.01 5.96 5.985 28.13314 197500 7020 8/20/2007
7/20/2007 S SHAFT-C S SHAFT I-70 made half-way through pour 5.99 5.985 5.995 28.18016 0
7/24/2007 R2(1)-R5(1)-A R2 & R5 Leavenworth Rd. 1 5 1/2 8 86 * R2 socketed 6' 3" 5.97 5.97 5.995 28.0705 100000 3562 8/20/2007
7/24/2007 R2(1)-R5(1)-B R2 & R5 Leavenworth Rd. ** R5 socketed 6' 0" 6 5.987 5.96 28.10807 210000 7471 11/9/2007
7/24/2007 R2(1)-R5(1)-C R2 & R5 Leavenworth Rd. *** R2 poured first then R5 5.978 5.958 5.992 28.04859 215000 7665 11/9/2007
7/25/2007 R6(1)-A R6 Leavenworth Rd. 1 3 8 85 * R6 socketed 6' 6" 5.969 5.998 5.95 28.01418 199500 7121 11/14/2007
7/25/2007 R3(1)-R4(1)-A R3 & R4 Leavenworth Rd. 2 8 1/2 8 3/4 86 * R3 socketed 6' 0" 5.975 5.965 5.978 28.01731 193000 6889 11/14/2007
7/25/2007 R3(1)-R4(1)-B R3 & R4 Leavenworth Rd. ** R4 socketed 6' 4" 5.946 5.989 5.955 27.92981 196000 7018 11/14/2007
7/25/2007 R3(1)-R4(1)-C R3 & R4 Leavenworth Rd. *** R3 poured first then R4 5.995 6.005 5.945 28.10181 175000 6227 8/24/2007
10/4/2007 C(1)-R5(2)-A C & R5 Leavenworth Rd. 1 9 8 80 * C poured first then R5 5.939 5.994 5.971 27.97355 161500 5773 11/14/2007
10/4/2007 C(1)-R5(2)-B C & R5 Leavenworth Rd. ** C complete 6.007 5.971 5.954 28.06111 146000 5203 11/1/2007
10/4/2007 C(1)-R5(2)-C C & R5 Leavenworth Rd. 5.979 5.983 5.95 27.99855 146000 5215 11/1/2007
10/4/2007 BS(1)-R5(3)-A BS & R5 Leavenworth Rd. 2 9 9 76 * BS poured first then R5 5.965 5.998 5.958 28.02669 170000 6066 11/9/2007
10/4/2007 BS(1)-R5(3)-B BS & R5 Leavenworth Rd. ** BS and R5 complete 5.981 5.954 5.956 27.93294 152500 5460 11/1/2007
10/4/2007 BS(1)-R5(3)-C BS & R5 Leavenworth Rd. *** small amount added to R6 5.987 5.95 5.988 28.03921 162500 5795 11/1/2007
10/4/2007 R6(2)-A R6 Leavenworth Rd. 3 9 8 1/2 78 * R6 complete 6.043 5.973 5.96 28.19899 147500 5231 11/1/2007
10/5/2007 BG3(1)-R4(2)-A BG3 & R4 Leavenworth Rd. 1 ? 8 82 * BG3 poured first then R4 6.04 6.02 5.965 28.35293 180000 6349 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 BG3(1)-R4(2)-B BG3 & R4 Leavenworth Rd. ** BG3 complete 6.006 6.002 5.977 28.22723 185000 6554 11/14/2007
10/5/2007 BG3(1)-R4(2)-C BG3 & R4 Leavenworth Rd. 5.98 6 5.995 28.19585 180000 6384 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 A(1)-D(1)-A A&D Leavenworth Rd. 2 ? 9 1/2 80 * A poured first then D 5.985 5.99 5.975 28.11747 158000 5619 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 A(1)-D(1)-B A&D Leavenworth Rd. ** A complete 6.1 5.97 5.99 28.46314 176000 6183 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 A(1)-D(1)-C A&D Leavenworth Rd. 5.95 5.989 5.972 27.99542 182000 6501 11/8/2007
10/5/2007 R4(3)-BG2(1)-A R4 & BG2 Leavenworth Rd. 3 ? 10 1/4 80 * R4 poured first then BG2 5.985 5.985 5.995 28.16449 150000 5326 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 R4(3)-BG2(1)-B R4 & BG2 Leavenworth Rd. ** R4 complete 6.005 5.99 5.99 28.22723 159000 5633 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 R4(3)-BG2(1)-C R4 & BG2 Leavenworth Rd. *** bubbling concrete? 5.984 5.995 6.004 28.22095 177500 6290 11/14/2007
10/5/2007 D(2)-R1(2)-A D & R1 Leavenworth Rd. 4 ? 8 3/4 81 * D poured first then R1 6.015 5.955 5.96 28.05485 185000 6594 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 D(2)-R1(2)-B D & R1 Leavenworth Rd. ** D and R1 complete 5.985 5.99 5.96 28.0705 195000 6947 11/8/2007
10/5/2007 D(2)-R1(2)-C D & R1 Leavenworth Rd. 5.98 6.005 6.01 28.25863 181000 6405 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 BG2(2)-A BG2 Leavenworth Rd. 5 ? 8 1/4 81 * BG2 complete 6.014 5.989 5.979 28.21781 201500 7141 11/14/2007
10/5/2007 BG2(2)-B BG2 Leavenworth Rd. ** R1 and R4 capped off with small 5.985 5.99 5.965 28.08615 184500 6569 11/2/2007
10/5/2007 BG2(2)-C BG2 Leavenworth Rd. amount 5.99 6 6 28.24293 198000 7011 11/2/2007
10/9/2007 BG1(1)-R3(2)-A BG1 & R3 Leavenworth Rd. 1 8 1/2 7 1/2 80 * BG1 poured first then R3 5.998 5.991 5.976 28.16449 193000 6853 11/6/2007
10/9/2007 BG1(1)-R3(2)-B BG1 & R3 Leavenworth Rd. ** BG1 complete 5.995 5.984 5.98 28.14568 202000 7177 11/6/2007
10/9/2007 BG1(1)-R3(2)-C BG1 & R3 Leavenworth Rd. 6.009 5.968 5.985 28.15508 201000 7139 11/14/2007
10/9/2007 B(1)-R3(3)-A B & R3 Leavenworth Rd. 2 8 1/2 10 78 * B poured first then R3 6.005 5.999 5.982 28.23037 205500 7279 11/6/2007
10/9/2007 B(1)-R3(3)-B B & R3 Leavenworth Rd. ** B complete 5.999 5.99 5.985 28.19271 190000 6739 11/6/2007
10/9/2007 B(1)-R3(3)-C B & R3 Leavenworth Rd. 5.992 6 5.98 28.18644 212000 7521 11/8/2007
10/9/2007 R3(4)-R2(2)-A R3 & R2 Leavenworth Rd. 3 ? 9 82 * R3 poured first then R2 6 5.987 5.98 28.17076 215000 7632 11/6/2007
10/9/2007 R3(4)-R2(2)-B R3 & R2 Leavenworth Rd. ** R3 complete 5.987 5.992 6.01 28.23979 222000 7861 11/6/2007
10/9/2007 R3(4)-R2(2)-C R3 &R2 Leavenworth Rd. 6.006 5.945 6.079 28.36866 230000 8108 11/8/2007
10/9/2007 R2(3)-A R2 Leavenworth Rd. 4 ? 7 81 * R2 complete 5.981 5.991 5.999 28.1833 208000 7380 11/6/2007
10/9/2007 R2(3)-B R2 Leavenworth Rd. ** only two cylinders from this truck 5.948 5.943 5.987 27.89236 208500 7475 11/6/2007
Page C-33
Test Equipment Calibrations
(From AFT)
Page C-34
Page C-35
Page C-36
Page C-37
Page C-38
Page C-39
Page C-40
Page C-41
Page C-42
Page C-43
Page C-44
Page C-45
Page C-46
Page C-47
Page C-48
APPLICATIONS MODEL AB/HP • FLUSH MOUNT GENERAL PURPOSE, HIGH PRESSURE TRANSDUCER
• The AB is ideal for a wide range of applications.
RESPIRATORS
• That's because it has a variety of mounting
FIRE FIGHTING options, stainless steel construction, and wide
EQUIPMENT pressure ranges. In addition, the AB has two
• thermally matched strain gages, and it is fully
DRILLING MUD
compensated and calibrated. Its output is a stable
AB/HP SERIES
DENSITY
• 0-100 mV from an excitation of 5 Vdc.
KIDNEY DIALYSIS The AB may be flush-mounted or fitted with
MACHINES an external adapter. It also may be fitted with
•
HYDRAULIC an optional integral connector or waterproof cable
SERVO VALVES fitting. The flush mounting capability allows
• it to be used in applications where sanitary or
GAS MONITORING cleaning requirements exclude using pressure
•
TRANSIT VEHICLE ports.
BRAKING SYSTEMS
•
AIRCRAFT
HYDRAULICS
•
DIESEL
GENERATORS
FEATURES BENEFITS
• Flush mount option • Permits maximum cleanliness

• 0-6 to 0-20,000 PSI ranges • Wide range of applications
• Custom designs available • Adaptable to special needs
HIGH PRESSURE TRANSDUCER

FLUSH MOUNT GENERAL PURPOSE ,
• PSIA and bi-directional models • Measures vacuum referenced to
absolute or atmospheric pressures
HOW TO ORDER
ABH 006 P G C 1 B 3
Model Special Features
3 = Barbed Fitting
Range at Cable
006 100 01K 10K Output
015 200 03K 15K B = 0-100 mV
025 500 05K 20K
050 Cable Length
1 = 3 feet
Unit 4 = 12 feet
P = PSI 5 = 15 feet
6 = 30 feet
7 = 50 feet
Reference
A = Absolute < 100 PSI Termination
G = Gage < 100 PSI C = Cable
S = Sealed (PSIS) > 50 PSI B = Bendix Connector
High Temperature
Note: Not all combinations are available. Minimum quantity orders apply. Contact the factory for more details. Page C-49
AB/HP SERIES • FLUSH MOUNT GENERAL PURPOSE , HIGH PRESSURE TRANSDUCER
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
RANGES DIMENSIONS
xx.xx = inches
0-6, 15, 25, 50 PSIG or PSIA (xx.x) = mm
0-100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 5000 PSIS
0-10,000, 15,000, 20,000 PSIS
PHYSICAL 1.15
max.
0.935
max. dia.
4 conductor (29.2) (23.8)
Proof Pressure 2 X rated range 30,000 PSIS (2068 B) max. color coded
shielded cable 0.25
3 ft long (6.4) A
Burst Pressure 5 X rated range 50,000 PSI (3448 B) max. (0.91 m)
Material in Contact <100 PSI 316L SS + Excitation: Red

with Media ≥100 PSI 15-5 PH SS + Signal: Grn 0.749 max. dia.
– Excitation: Blk (19)
– Signal: Wht
Shock 50 g’s peak (11 milliseconds)
Shield
Vibration Meets Mil-STD-810-C, Figure 514.2-5, (drain)
Pressure sensitive surface
Curve AP, 46.3 g rms min. (diaphragm)
Weight 2 oz (57 gm) less cable and adapter

ELECTRICAL
Full Scale Output 100 ± 1 mV at rated excitation @ 25°C
Zero Output 0.0 ± 5.0 mV @ 25°C Pressure Ranges (PSI) Dim. A MAX
Excitation 5.0 Vdc recommended, 6.0 Vdc max. 0-6 0.271 (6.9)
Input Impedience 150 ± 50 Ω 0-15 to 0-50 0.232 (5.9)
0-100 to 0-1000 0.238 (6.1)

Output Impedience 115 ± 25 Ω
0-2000 to 0-5000 0.273 (6.9)
Insulation Resistance 1000 MΩ @ 50 VDC max.
0-10000 to 0-15000 0.287 (7.3)
Electrical Connection 4 Conductor, 0-20000 0.295 (7.5)
shielded cable 3 ft (0.91 m) long
PERFORMANCE
Accuracy* 0.25% FSO from best fit straight line including
effects of nonlinearity, hysteresis and nonrepeatability
PIN AND WIRE CODES
Operating -54° to 93°C (-65° to 200°F)
(Pin codes are for optional bendix connector)
Temperature Range -54° to 149°C (-65° to 300°F)
with Bendix Connector Option Pin Wire Color
Code Code Function
Compensated -1° to 71°C (30° to 160°F)
A Red + Excitation
Temperatrue Range
B Green + Signal
Thermal Less than ±1% FSO per 100°F within
C White - Signal
Effect on Zero compensated temperature range
D Black - Excitation
Thermal Effect Less than ±1% per 100°F within
on Full Scale Output compensated temperature range
Note: All specifications are measured at 25°C and rated excitation unless otherwise stated.
Note: For mounting devices, contact factory.
Note: External O-ring included.
WARRANTY/REMEDY
*0.5% Accuracy for <50 PSI and ≥10,000 PSI Units, 1% Accuracy for 20000 PSI Units. Honeywell warrants goods of its manufacture as being free of defective materials and faulty workmanship. Contact your local
sales office for warranty information. If warranted goods are returned to Honeywell during the period of coverage, Honeywell
will repair or replace without charge those items it finds defective. The foregoing is Buyer’s sole remedy and is in lieu of all other
warranties, expressed or implied, including those of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.
Specifications may change without notice. The information we supply is believed to be accurate and reliable as of this printing.
However, we assume no responsibility for its use.
While we provide application assistance personally, through our literature and the Honeywell web site, it is up to the customer
to determine the suitability of the product in the application.
Item # 1075700 M.G. 3/01 Rev. A
Sensing and Control

Honeywell
100 Discovery Way
Acton, MA 01720 USA
Tel: (877) 384-1300; Fax: (978) 263-0630 www.honeywell.com/sensing/
Page C-50
Test Data and Analysis Plots
Load vs. Time
Load vs. Top of Shaft Deflection
Comparisons of Inclinometer Data and LPILE Analysis
Page C-51
Load vs. Time - Shaft A
40
35
30
25
20
Load (kips)
15
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (minutes)
Page C-52
Load vs. Top of Shaft Deflection (LVDT) - Shaft A
40
35
30
25
20
Load (kips)
15
10
0
0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
Deflection (in)
Page C-53
Shaft A - Comparison of Inclinometer Data and LPILE Results - Load =6 kips
100
95
90
85
Elevation (ft)
80
75
70
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
Inclinometer LPILE - p1.0 LPILE - p0.06 LPILE - p0.05 LPILE - p0.04
Page C-54
100
95
90
85
Elevation (ft)
80
75
70
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Page C-55
100
95
90
85
Elevation (ft)
80
75
70
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
Page C-56
100
95
90
85
Elevation (ft)
80
75
70
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Page C-57
100
95
90
85
Elevation (ft)
80
75
70
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Page C-58
Load vs. Time - Shaft B
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Load (kips)
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (minutes)
Page C-59
Load vs. Top of Shaft Deflection (LVDT) - Shaft B
100
90
80
70
60
50
Load (kips)
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection (in)
Page C-60
100
95
90
85
Elevation (ft)
80
75
70
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Page C-61
100
95
90
85
Elevation (ft)
80
75
70
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
Page C-62
100
95
90
85
Elevation (ft)
80
75
70
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Page C-63
100
95
90
85
Elevation (ft)
80
75
70
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Page C-64
100
95
90
85
Elevation (ft)
80
75
70
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Page C-65
100
95
90
85
Elevation (ft)
80
75
70
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Page C-66
Load vs. Time - Shaft BS
60
50
40
30
Load (kips)
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (minutes)
Page C-67
Load vs. Top of Shaft Deflection (LVDT) - Shaft BS
60
50
40
30
Load (kips)
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection (in)
Page C-68
Shaft BS - Comparison of Inclinometer Data and LPILE Results - Load =27 kips
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
Page C-69
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Page C-70
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Page C-71
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Page C-72
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Page C-73
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Page C-74
Load vs. Time - Shaft C
160
140
120
100
80
Load (kips)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (minutes)
Page C-75
Load vs. Top of Shaft Deflection (LVDT) - Shaft C
140
120
100
LVDT reached
maximum travel.
80
60
Load (kips)
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (in)
Page C-76
Shaft C - Comparison of Inclinometer Data and LPILE Results - Load =26 kips
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Page C-77
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Page C-78
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Page C-79
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Inclinometer LPILE - p1.0 LPILE - p0.18 LPILE - p0.16 LPILE - p0.14 LPILE - p0.13 LPILE - p0.12
Page C-80
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Page C-81
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Inclinometer LPILE - p1.0 LPILE - p0.18 LPILE - p0.16 LPILE - p0.14 LPILE - p0.13 LPILE - p0.12
Page C-82
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Page C-83
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00
Page C-84
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Page C-85
Load vs. Time - Shaft D
250
200
150
100
Load (kips)
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
-50
Time (minutes)
Page C-86
Load vs. Top of Shaft Deflection (LVDT) - Shaft D
250
200
150
Load (kips)
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (in)
Page C-87
Shaft D - Comparison of Inclinometer Data and LPILE Results - Load =55 kips
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Inclinometer LPILE - p1.0 LPILE - p0.25 LPILE - p0.24

LPILE - p0.23 LPILE - p0.22 LPILE - p0.21
Page C-88
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00

LPILE - p0.22 LPILE - p0.21 LPILE - p0.20 LPILE - p0.19 LPILE - p0.18
Page C-89
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
Page C-90
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Page C-91
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00
Page C-92
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00
Page C-93
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Page C-94
Load vs. Time - Shaft BG2
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Load (kips)
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time (minutes)
Page C-95
Shaft BG - Comparison of Inclinometer Data and LPILE Results - Load =5 kips
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
EL Sensor LPILE - p1.0 LPILE - p0.24 LPILE - p0.14 LPILE - p0.10
Page C-96
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
EL Sensor LPILE - p1.0 LPILE - p0.24 LPILE - p0.14 LPILE - p0.13 LPILE - p0.10
Page C-97
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Page C-98
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
Page C-99
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Page C-100
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Page C-101
100.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
Elevation (ft)
80.00
75.00
70.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
EL Sensor LPILE - p1.0 LPILE - p0.24 LPILE - p0.14 LPILE - p0.12 LPILE - p0.11 LPILE - p0.10
Page C-102
List of Contributors
Andy Anderson Jack Hopkins Al Pierron

Patrick Anderson Albert Horn Matthew Pierson
Michael E. Baker Ryan Hornick Mike Ponton
Shery Bard Jie Huang Bruce Ridgway
Michael Biran Clint Hutchison Sam Rozell
Jerry Blansit Greg Jennings David Rush
Shane Bond Danny Johnson Gary Rutledge
Jim Brennan Dave Johnson Dawar Saeed
Dan Brown Tyler Jones Michael Smith
Spencer Clark Joe Kerrigan Mike Smith
Justin Clay Richard Kidson Fred Stewart
Gary Cole Dennis Kirby Rob Taggs
Martin Cook Keith Knank Steve Taylor
Simon Cousins Waylon Lane Robert Thompson
Gene Crisp Joe Lawson Christina Vulova
Richard Dell Brian Link Keith Walding
Ed Eneihen Daved Link David Walter
Doug Essenpries Vernon Lister Jim Weaver
Jason Farr Jean Listey Josh Welge
Chris Fasching Ricky Lowe Peter Wiehe
Bob Fryatt Robert Malay Shane Wiehe
Shawn Gessner Thomas Mallon Jeremy Willis
Kelly Hall Mack McCarty Gary Woodward
Jie Han Luke Metheny Thomas Wyrick
Bobby Hamilton Leon Mitchell Ronn Young
Devra Harrison Todd Moore Ronald Young
Blair Heptig Robert Parsons Ronnie Young

Laterally Loaded Shafts in MSE Block Wall K Tran KU 07 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laterally Loaded Shafts in MSE Block Wall K Tran KU 07 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report No.

Capacity of Laterally Loaded Shafts

Dan Brown, Ph.D., P.E.

A Cooperative TRANSPORTATION Research program

Kansas Department of Transportation

7 Author(s) 8 Performing Organization Report No.

9 Performing Organization Name and Address 10 Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

17 Key Words 18 Distribution Statement

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

Dan Brown, Ph.D., P.E.

A Report on Research Sponsored By

THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

© Copyright 2009, Kansas Department of Transportation

The Kansas Department of Transportation’s (KDOT) Kansas Transportation Research

This information is available in alternative accessible formats. To obtain an alternative

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii

Figure 2.1: Cross-section of typical MSE wall ................................................................................6

Table 3.3.1: Geogrid Instrumentation ........................................................................................... 21

would not have been possible.

contributed greatly to the project.

planning, load testing, and analysis of the test shafts.

contributions of knowledge and craftsmanship in instrumenting and testing the wall.

conservative design assumptions due to the lack of test data.

for similar wall-shaft configurations. These recommendations and a discussion of their

methods as each shaft was loaded to failure.

reinforcement, suggesting that additional capacity may be achieved by lengthening the

and on allowable deformations are presented in Chapter Five of this report.

laterally loaded MSE wall backfill.

the face and to enhance the aesthetic value of the wall.

within a reasonable limit.

movement prior to mobilizing the strength of the geogrid.

in the geogrid layers, and wall facing deflection.

Walls to support bridge abutments.

2.1 MSE Wall Design (FHWA)

Slopes (RSS), incorporates planar reinforcing elements in constructed earth-sloped structures

with face inclinations of less than 70 degrees

dry cast modular blocks and HDPE reinforcement.

retaining wall system reported by the FHWA include:

• Do not require experienced craftsmen with special skills for construction.

• Require less site preparation then other alternatives.

• Need less space in front of the structure for construction operations.

• Are technically feasible to heights in excess of 25 meters.

• Select a reinforcement type

• Select the location of the critical failure surface.

compare with the allowable load.

2.2 Design of Laterally Loaded Shafts

space, it is a wall or slightly larger than a quarter space.

within an MSE Wall.

inches of pile movement only ¼” of facing movement occurred.

MSE fill in close proximity to the facing.

each loading step.

3.1 Site Investigation

Figure 3.1.2. A typical boring log can be found in Appendix A.

Figure 3.2.2: Wall facing layout (Tensar, 2007)

Figure 3.2.3: Typical steel configuration

reinforcement at the top of the shafts in order to maintain proper reinforcement.

results see Appendix A.

plumb. Test shafts were constructed with a single pour.

Figure 3.2.4: Extension of CMP concrete form

were performed along the wall during construction.

Figure 3.2.5: Backfilling operation

the slip joint.

Aperture 1 Aperture 1 Aperture 1 Aperture 1 Aperture 1 Aperture 1 7 0.6

movement at the wall facing throughout the test.