You are on page 1of 271

Terms and Conditions of Use:

Visit our
companion site
http://www.vulcanhammer.org
this document downloaded from
vulcanhammer.net
Since 1997, your complete
online resource for
information geotecnical
engineering and deep
foundations:
The Wave Equation Page for
Piling
Online books on all aspects of
soil mechanics, foundations and
marine construction
Free general engineering and
geotechnical software
And much more...
All of the information, data and computer software
(information) presented on this web site is for general
information only. While every effort will be made to insure
its accuracy, this information should not be used or relied on
for any specifc application without independent, competent
professional examination and verifcation of its accuracy,
suitability and applicability by a licensed professional. Anyone
making use of this information does so at his or her own risk
and assumes any and all liability resulting from such use.
The entire risk as to quality or usability of the information
contained within is with the reader. In no event will this web
page or webmaster be held liable, nor does this web page
or its webmaster provide insurance against liability, for
any damages including lost profts, lost savings or any
other incidental or consequential damages arising from
the use or inability to use the information contained
within.
This site is not an offcial site of Prentice-Hall,
Pile Buck, the University of Tennessee at
Chattanooga, or Vulcan Foundation
Equipment. All references to sources of
software, equipment, parts, service
or repairs do not constitute an
endorsement.
AnAnnotatedReproductionof
NAVFACDesignManual7.2
FoundationsandEarthStructures

PLEASENOTE
Thisisthesecondvolumeofanextraordinarydocument,publishedin1982,thatisnowconsiderably
outofdateandisnolongerasanctionedpublicationoftheUSGovernment.NAVFACDM7.2is
providedhereasareferencebecauseoftheincredibledensityofhighlypracticalgeotechnicaldesign
guidanceitcontains.Itisalsoofsignificanthistoricalinterest,andwhencombinedwithDM7.1,it
representsperhapsTHEprinciplecompendiumofgeotechnicalknowledgeusedbydesignersbetween
1982andaroundtheturnofthecentury.TheimportanceoftheFederallabs(particularlyFHWA,
BureauofReclamation,ArmyandNavylabs)inpushingthepracticeofgeotechnicalengineeringforward
between1930andaroundthetimeofthepublicationofthismanualcannotbeoverstated,andthis
manualisatestamenttothatheritage.Thus,youareholdinginyourhands(orinyourcomputer
memory)agreatreferenceforpreliminarydesignguidanceandaknowledgeartifactthatwillbe
recognizedbynearlyeveryseniorpracticinggeotechnicalengineer.
ThiscopyofNAVFACDM7.2(1982)hasbeenupdatedtocomplyinspiritwithNAVFACDM7.02(1986).
DM7.02wasactuallyaveryminorupdateofDM7.2mademostlytocorrectsomeoutofdatenumbers
thatreferencedrelativelyobscureFederalpublications.Thisreproductionhasconsiderableadvantages
overthewidelydistributedandmuchappreciatedPDFversionthathasbeenfloatingaroundthenet.
ThatversionwashostedatVulcanHammerssite(manythanks!)foryears.Theasterisksand
parenthesesthatweretheartifactofanearlyPDFconversionhavebeenreplacedinthisversionwith
thelinesoriginallyintended.Further,Greeksymbolsandthesizeofthefiguresareaspertheoriginal
paperpublicationof1982ratherthantheshrunkenversions.Theresultingfilesizeismuchbigger,of
course,butIbelievetheimprovedqualityisworthit.
Enjoythishistoricdocument,butpleaseuseitwithcaution.
JLedlieKlosky

ABSTRACT
Design guidance i s presented for use by experienced engineers. The contents
include: excavations; compaction, earthwork, and hydraulic f i l l s ; anal ys i s
of walls and retai ni ng structures; shallow foundations; and deep foundations.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Of6e.e
Washington. D.C. 20402
FOREWORD
This design manual for Foundations and Earth Structures is one of a series
that has been developed from an extensive re-evaluation of the relevant
portions of Soil ~echanics , Foundations, and Earth Structures, NAVFAC D W 7
of March 1971, from surveys of available new materials and construction
methods, and from selection of the best design practices of the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, other Government agencies, and private
industry. This manual includes a modernization of the former criteria and
the maximum use of national professional society, association and institute
codes. Deviations from these criteria should not be ma$e without the prior
approval of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Headquarters (NAVFAC
HQ) .
Design cannot remain static any more than can the naval functions it serves,
or the technologies it uses. Accordingly, this design manual, Foundations
and Earth Structures, NAVFAC DM-7.2, along with the companion manuals, Soil
Mechanics NAVFAC DM-7.1 and Soil Dynamics, Deep Stabilization, and Special
Geotechnical Construction, NAVFAC DM-7.3, cancel and supersede - Soil
Mechanics. Foundations. and Earth Structures. NAVFAC DM-7 of March 1971 in
its entirety, and all changes issued.
!;zot",~:A CEC, U. S. Navy
'Commander \
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
PREFAC
This manual covers t he appl i cat i on of bas i c engi neer i ng pr i nci pl es of s o i l
mechanics i n t he desi gn of foundat i ons and e a r t h s t r uc t ur e s f o r naval s h o r e
f a c i l i t i e s . Companion manuals (NAVFAC DM-7.1 and DM-7.3) cover t he p r i n c i -
pl e s of s o i l mechanics and s peci al as pect s of geot echni cal engi neeri ng. These
c r i t e r i a , t oget her wi t h t he d e f i n i t i v e desi gns and gui del i ne s p e c i f i c a t i o n s
of t he Naval F a c i l i t i e s Engi neeri ng Command, c o n s t i t u t e t he Command's de s i gn
guidance. These st andar ds a r e based on f unct i onal requi rement s, engi neer i ng
judgment, knowledge of mat er i al s and equipment, and t he experi ence gai ned by
t h e Naval F a c i l i t i e s Engi neeri ng Command and ot her commands and bureaus of
t h e Navy i n t he desi gn, cons t r uct i on, oper at i on, and maintenance of na va l
shore f a c i l i t i e s .
The desi gn manual s e r i e s pr esent s c r i t e r i a t h a t s h a l l be used i n t he de s i gn
of f a c i l i t i e s under t he cognizance of t he Naval F a c i l i t i e s Engi neeri ng
Command. The di r e c t i on and st andar ds f o r procedures, methods, di mensi ons,
mat er i al s , l oads and s t r e s s e s w i l l be i ncl uded. Design manuals a r e not t ext -
books, but a r e f or t he use of experi enced a r c h i t e c t s and engi neer s. Many
c r i t e r i a and st andar ds appeari ng i n t echni cal t e x t s i s s ued by Government
agenci es, pr of es s i onal a r c h i t e c t u r a l and engi neeri ng groups, and t r ade and
i ndus t r y groups a r e s u i t a b l e f o r , and have been made i n t e g r a l pa r t s o f , t h i s
s e r i e s . The l a t e s t e di t i on of each publ i cat i on source s h a l l be used.
Bi bl i ographi es of publ i cat i ons cont ai ni ng background i nf or mat i on and addi -
t i ona l readi ng on t he var i ous s ubj ect s a r e i ncl uded i n t he manuals. Thi s
mat er i al , however, i s not a pa r t of t he c r i t e r i a , nor i s a r eadi ng of t h e s e
sources necessary f o r t he use of t he c r i t e r i a present ed i n t he manuals.
To avoid dupl i cat i on and t o f a c i l i t a t e f ut ur e r evi s i ons , c r i t e r i a a r e pr e-
sent ed onl y once i n t h i s s e r i e s a s f a r a s possi bl e. Cr i t e r i a having ge ne r a l
appl i cat i ons appear i n t he bas i c manuals numbered DM-1 t hrough DM-10 (numbers
DM-1 1 t hrough DM-20 were unassigned i n t he o r i g i n a l i s s ue s ) . Manuals num-
bered DM-21 and above cont ai n c r i t e r i a t ha t us ual l y a r e appl i cabl e onl y t o
t he s p e c i f i c f a c i l i t y c l a s s covered by each manual. When c r i t e r i a f o r one
f a c i l i t y a l s o have an appl i cat i on i n anot her f a c i l i t y c l a s s , . t he bas i c r u l e
has been t o pr esent such c r i t e r i a i n t he bas i c, o r l owest numbered, manual
and c i t e it by r ef er ence where r equi r ed i n l a t e r manuals.
The s pe c i f i c desi gn manuals (DM-21 and above), wi t h but t hr e e except i ons ,
l i st desi gn c r i t e r i a f o r s pe c i f i c f a c i l i t i e s i n t he or der of t he cat egor y
codes. The except i ons ar e:
(1) Drydocking Fa c i l i t i e s , NAVFAC DM-29, which i ncl udes bot h Cat egory
Codes 213 and 223.
( 2) Cr i t e r i a f or f a c i l i t y c l a s s 800, Ut i l i t i e s and Ground Improvements,
which have been i ncl uded i n t he bas i c manuals on mechani cal ,
e l e c t r i c a l , and c i v i l engi neeri ng.
( 3) Weight Handling Equipment and Ser vi ce Cr af t , NAVFAC DM-38, which
i ncl udes t he desi gn c r i t e r i a f o r t hes e f a c i l i t i e s under t h e cogni -
zance of t he Naval F a c i l i t i e s Engi neeri ng Command t h a t a r e not cl as -
s i f i e d a s r e a l propert y. These i ncl ude weight and l i n e handl i ng
equipment, dredges, yard c r a f t , and pi l e dr i vi ng equipment.
For t he e f f e c t i ve use of t hes e c r i t e r i a , t he desi gner must have acces s t o:
(1) The basi c and s pe c i f i c desi gn manuals appl i cabl e t o t he pr oj ect .
See l i st on page ix.
( 2 ) Publ i shed c r i t e r i a sources.
( 3) Appl i cabl e d e f i n i t i v e desi gns, Def i ni t i ve Designs f o r Naval Shore
Fa c i l i t i e s , NAVFAC P-272.
( 4) Command gui del i ne s peci f i cat i ons .
LIST OF DESIGN MANUALS
Title
Number
BASIC MANUALS I
UUL of Date I
Architecture ..................................................
Civil Engineering .............................................
Cold Regions Engineering ......................................
Cost Data for Military Construction ...........................
Drawings and Specifications ...................................
Electrical Engineering ........................................
Foundations and Earth Structures ..............................
Fire Protection Engineering ...................................
Mechanical Engineering ........................................
Soil Dynamics. Deep Stabilization and
Special Geotechnical Construction ...........................
Soil Mechanics ................................................
Structural Engineering ........................................
SPECIFIC MANUALS
Administrative Facilities .....................................
Airfield Pavements ............................................
Communications. Navigational Aids. and Airfield Lighting ......
Community Facilities ..........................................
Drydocking Facilities .........................................
Family Housing ................................................
Harbor and Coastal Facilities .................................
Hospital and Medical Facilities ...............................
Land Operational Facilities ...................................
Liquid Fueling and Dispensing Facilities ......................
Maintenance Facilities ........................................
Production Facilities .........................................
Research. Development. and Test Facilities ....................
Supply Facilities .............................................
Training Facilities ...........................................
Troop Housing .................................................
Waterfront Operational Facilities .............................
Weight Handling Equipment and Service Craft ...................
INDEX MANUAL
NAVFAC DM-1
NAVFAC DM-5
NAVFAC DM-9
NAVFAC DM-10
NAVFAC DM-6
NAVFAC DM-4
NAVFAC DM-7.2
NAVFAC DM-8
NAVFAC DM-3
NAVFAC DM- 7.3
NAVFAC DM- 7.1
NAVFAC DM-2
NAVFAC DM-3 4
NAVFAC DM-21
NAVFAC DM-23
NAVFAC DM-37
NAVFAC DM-29
NAVFAC DM-35
NAVFAC DM-26
NAVFAC DM-33
NAVFAC DM-24
NAVFAC DM-22
NAVFAC DM-28
NAVFAC DM-30
NAVFAC DM-31
NAVFAC DM-32
NAVFAC DM-27
NAVFAC DM-36
NAVFAC DM-25
NAVFAC DM-38
Cumulative Index .......................................... NAVFAC DM-50
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 . EXCAVATIONS
Section 1 . Introduction ........................................7. 2-1
Section 2 . Open Cuts ...........................................7. 2-1
Section 3 . Trenching . .........................................7. 2-2
Section 4 . Braced Excavations ..................................7. 2-13
Section 5 . Rock Brcavation .....................................7. 2-19
Section 6 . Groundwater Control .................................7. 2-27
.... Section 7 . Excavation Stabilization. Monitoring. and Safety 7. 2-27
CHAPTER 2 . COMPACTION. EARTHWORK. AND HYDRAULIC FILLS
Section 1 . Introduction. ......................................7. 2-37
Secfion 2 . Embankment Cross-Section Design .....................7. 2-38
.............. Section 3 . Compaction Requirements and Procedures 7. 2-45
Section 4 . Embankment Compaction Control .......................7. 2-50
Section 5 . Borrow Excavation ...................................7. 2-52
Section 6 . Hydraulic and Underwater Fills ......................7.2 -54
CHAPTER 3 . ANALYSIS OF WALLS AND RETAINING STRUCTURES
Section 1 . Introduction .......................................7. 2-59
Section 2 . Computation of Wall Pressures ....................... 7. 2-59
Section 3 . Rigid Retaining Walls ............................... 7. 2-82
Section 4 . Design of Flexible Walls ............................7. 2-85
Section 5 . Cofferdams ..........................................7. 2-116
CHAPTER 4 . SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Section 1 .
Section 2 .
Section 3 .
Section 4 .
Section 5 .
Section 6 .
Section 7 .
Section 8 . .
Introduction ........................................7. 2-129
........................... Bearing Capacity Analysis 7. 2-129
................ Spread Footing Design Considerations 7. 2-146
................. Mat and Continuous Beam Foundations 7. 2-150
Foundations on Engineered Fill ...................... 7. 2-159
Foundations on Expansive Soils ...................... 7. 2-159
Foundation Waterproofing ............................7. 2-163
Uplift Resistance ...................................7. 2-169
Page
CHAPTER 5 . DEEP FOUNDATIONS
Sect i on 1 .
Int roduct i on .......................... .. ........... .7.2.177
Sect i on 2 .
Foundation Types and Desi gn Criteria ................ 7 -2-178
Sect i on 3 .
Bearing Capaci ty and Set t l ement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . 2-191
Sect i on 4 .
P i l e I ns t a l l a t i o n and Load Te s t s ................... . 7 0 2-213
Sect i on 5 . Di s t r i but i on of Loads on P i l e Groups ................ 7. 2-230
Sect i on 6 .
Deep Foundations on Rock ........................... .7.2-232
Sect i on 7 .
Lat eral Load Capaci ty ............................... 7 -2-234
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
APPENDIX A - Li s t i ng of Computer Programs ............................ . 7. 2- A-1
GLOSSARY*. ........................................................... m7.2- G-1
SYMBOLS.*............~~.~~~..... ....moo ....................ooe~.-.~ -7-2-s-1
I NDEX* * * . .. o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Figure
FIGURES
Ti t l e Page
CHAPTER 1
Sl i di ng Trench Shi el d .......................................... 7. 2-7
Skeleton Shoring ................................................ 7. 2-10
Close (Tight) Sheeting ........................................... 7. 2-11
BOX Shoring ..................................................... 7. 2-12
Telescopic Shoring .............................................. 7. 2-12
Support System - Walled Excavation ............................. 7. 2-15
General Guidance f or Underpinning ............................... 7. 2-20
Ri ppabi l i t y of Subsurface Mat eri al s Related t o Longi t udi nal
... Seismic Velocity f or a Heavy Duty Ripper (Tractor-Mounted) .7.2-22
Suggested Guide f or Ease of Excavation .......................... 7. 2-23
Cube Root Scaling Versus Maximum Pa r t i c l e Vel oci t y ..............7. 2-24
Guideline f or Assessing Pot ent i al f or Damage Induced by
Bl ast i ng Vi brat i on t o Resi dent i al s t r uct ur e Founded on
Dense Soi l or ~ o c k ............................................ 7. 2-25
Guide f or Predi ct i ng Human Response t o Vi brat i ons and
Bl ast i ng Ef f ect s .............................................. 7. 2-26
Methods of Const ruct i on Dewatering ............................ .7. 2-31
...... Limits of Dewatering Methods Applicable t o Di f f er ent Soi l s 7. 2-33
CHAPTER 2
1
Resistance of Eart h D m Bnbankment Mat eri al s t o Piping and
Cracking ...................................................... 7. 2-42
CHAPTER 3
Effect of W a l l Movement on Wall Pressures ....................... 7. 2-60
Computation of Simple Active and Passi ve Pressures ..............7. 2-62
Active and Passi ve Coeffi ci ent s. Sloping Backf i l l
. (Granular Soi l s ) ............. .... ... ... ...................... - 7 2-64
Posi t i on of Fai l ur e Surface f or Active and Passive Wedges
(Granular Soi l s ) .............. ... ............................ .7. 2-65
Active and Passi ve Coeffi ci ent s wi t h W a l l Fr i ct i on
(Sloping Wall) ................................................ 7. 2-66
Active and Passi ve Coeffi ci ent s with W a l l Fr i ct i on
( Sloping Backf i l l ) .................. ..... .................... .7. 2-67
Computation of General Active Pressures ......................... 7. 2-68
Coef f i ci ent s KA and Kp f or Walls wi t h Sloping Wall and
Fr i ct i on. and Sloping Backf i l l ............................... 7. 2-69
Computation of General Passi ve Pressures ........................ 7. 2-71
Effect of Groundwater Conditions on Wall Pressures ............. .7. 2-72
Hori zont al Pressures on Rigid Wall from Surface Load ............ 7. 2-74
Lat er al Pr essur e on an Unyielding Wall Due t o Uniform
Rect angul ar Surface Load ...................................... 7. 2-75
Fi gure Ti t l e Page
CHAPTER 3 (cont i nued)
............. Horizontal Pressure on Walls from Compaction Ef f or t 7. 2-77
Values of F f o r Determination of Dynamic Lat er al Pressure
Coef f i ci ent s .... ..............................................7. 2-79
Example Cal cul at i ons f or Dynamic Loading on Walls ............... 7. 2-80
Design Cr i t e r i a f or Rigid Ret ai ni ng Walls .......................7. 2-83
Design Loads f o r Low Ret ai ni ng Walls ( St r ai ght Slope Backf i l l ) ..7. 2-86
.... Design Loads f o r Low Ret ai ni ng Walls (Broken Slope Backf i l l ) 7. 2-87
...... Design Cr i t e r i a f o r Anchored Bulkhead (Free Ear t h Support) 7. 2-88
Reduction i n Bending Moments i n Anchored Bulkhead from Wall
Fl e xi bi l i t y ...................................................7. 2-89
........................... Design Cr i t e r i a f or Deadman Anchorage 7.2-91
Example of Analysis of Anchored Bulkhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . 2-93
................ Sand Dike Scheme f or Cont rol l i ng Active Pr essur e 7. 2-94
Analysis f or Cant i l ever Wall ....................................7. 2-95
Cant i l ever St eel Sheet Pi l e Wall i n Homogeneous Granular Soi l ... 7. 2-97
Cant i l ever St eel Sheet Pi l e Wall i n Cohesive Soi l wi t h
Granular Backf i l l .............................................7. 2-98
Pressure Di s t r i but i on f or Brace Loads i n I nt er nal l y Braced
Fl exi bl e Walls ................................................7. 2-100
Design Cr i t e r i a f or Braced Fl exi bl e Walls ....................... 7. 2-102
St a bi l i t y of Base f o r Braced Cut ................................7. 2-104
Pressure Di s t r i but i on f or Tied-Back W a l l s ....................... 7. 2-105
Example of Analysis of Pressures on Fl exi bl e Wall of Narrow
Cut i n Clay - Undrained Conditions ............................7. 2-107
Example of Excavation i n St ages .................................7. 2-108
Culmann Method f or Determining Passi ve Resi st ance of Eart h
Berm (Granular Soi l ) ..........................................7. 2-113
Passi ve Pressure Di s t r i but i on f o r Sol di er Pi l e s .................7. 2-114
Gabion Wall .....................................................7. 2-115
Reinforced Eart h ................................................7. 2-117
Design Cr i t e r i a f or Cri b and Bin Walls ..........................7. 2-118
Design Cr i t e r i a f or Cel l ul ar Cofferdams .........................7. 2-119
CHAPTER 4
Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Shallow Footings wi t h Concentric
b a d s .........................................................7. 2-131
Ultimate Bearing Capacity wi t h Groundwater Ef f ect ...............7. 2-132
Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Continuous Footings wi t h Incl i ned
Load ........................................................7. 2-133
Eccent r i cal l y Loaded Footings ... ................................7. 2-134
U l t i m a t e Bearing Capacity f o r Shallow Footing Placed on or
Near a Slope .................................................7. 2-135
Bearing Capacity Fact ors f or Shallow Footing Placed on or
Near a Slope ..................................................7. 2-136
Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Two Layer Cohesive Soi l (@PO) ...... 7. 2-137
Examples of Computation of Allowable Bearing Capaci t y Shallow
Footings on Cohesive Soi l s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . 2-139
Figure Ti t l e Page
CHAPTER 4 (continued)
Examples of Computation of Allowable Bearing Capacity Shallow
Footings on Granular Soi l s .................................... 7. 2-140
Allowable Bearing Pressure f or Sand from St a t i c Cone
Penet rat i on Test s ............................................. 7. 2-147
... Example of Proport i oni ng Footing Si ze t o Equal i ze Set t l ement s 7. 2-148
Computation of Shear. Moment. and Defl ect i on. Ber ms on
El a s t i c Foundation ............................................ 7. 2-153
Functions f or Shear. Moment. and Defl ect i on. Beams on Elastic
' Foundations ................................................... 7. 2-154
Functions f or Shear. Moment. and Defl ect i ons. Mats on Elastic
................................................... Foundations 7. 2-157
Limits of Compaction Beneath Square and Continuous Footings ..... 7. 2-160
......................... Construction Details f or Swelling Soi l s 7. 2-162
................... Typical Foundation Drainage and Waterproofing 7. 2-167
....................... Capacity of Anchor Rods i n Fract ured Rock 7. 2-170
Resistance of Footings and Anchorages t o Combined Transi ent
......................................................... Loads 7. 2-171
................. Tower Guy Anchorage i n Soi l by Concrete Deadman 7. 2-172
CHAPTER 5
......... Load Carrying Capacity of Si ngl e Pi l e i n Granular Soi l s 7. 2-193
U l t i m a t e h a d Capacity of Si ngl e Pi l e o r Pi er i n Cohesive
......................................................... Soi l s 7. 2-196
Bearing Capacity of Pi l e Groups i n Cohesive Soi l s ..............A 2-206
Settlement of Pi l e Groups ....................................... 7. 2-210
Pr i nci pl es of Operation of Pi l e Dri vers ......................... 7. 2-222
I nt er pr et at i on of Pi l e Load Test ................................ 7. 2-229
h a d Test Analysis Where Downdrag Ac t s on Pi l e s ................. 7. 2-231
Example Problem - Batter Pi l e Group a s Guy Anchorage .......... -7. 2-233
Coeffi ci ent of Vari at i on of Subgrade Reaction ................... 7. 2-236
Design Procedure f or Lat er al l y Loaded Pi l e s ..................... 7. 2-237
Infl uence Values f or Pi l e with Applied Lat er al Load and
Moment (Case I . Fl exi bl e Cap or Hinged End Condition) ........ 7. 2-238
Infl uence Values f or Lat er al l y Uaded Pi l e (Case I1 . Fixed
Against Rot at i on a t Ground Surface) ........................... 7. 2-239
Slope Coeffi ci ent f or Pi l e wi t h Lat er al Load o r Moment .......... 7. 2-240
Table
TABLES
Title Page
CHAPTER 1
1 Factors Controlling Stability of Sloped Cut in Some
................................................. Problem Soils 7. 2-3
........................ 2 Factors Controlling Excavation Stability 7.2-4
.................. 3 OSHA Requirements (Minimum) for Trench Shoring 7.2-8
4 Types of Walls ..................................................7. 2-14
5 Factors Involved in Choice of a Support System For a Deep
........................................ Excavation (> 20 feet) 7. 2-16
.............. 6 Design Considerations for Braced and Tieback Walls 7 . 2-17
7 Methods of Groundwater Control .................................. 7. 2-28
CHAPTER 2
1 Typical Properties of Compacted Soils ... ........................7. 2-39
2 Relative Desirability of Soils as Compacted Fill ................ 7. 2-40
....................................... 3 Clay Dispersion Potential 7 . 2-44
....................................... 4 Compaction Requirements ..7. 2-46
5 Compaction Equipment and Methods ................................. 7.2-48
6 Methods of Fill Placement Underwater ............................ 7. 2-55
CHAPTER 3
1 Friction Factors and Adhesion for Dissimilar Materials .......... 7 . 2-63
CHAPTER 4
1 Presumptive Values of Allowable Bearing Pressure for Spread
Foundations ................................................... 7 . 2-142
2 Selection of Allowable Bearing Pressures for Spread
Foundations ................................................... 7 . 2-144
3 Definitions and Procedures. Analysis of Beams on Elastic
Foundation .................................................... 7 . 2-151
4 Definitions and Procedures. Mats on Elastic Foundations ......... 7. 2-155
5 Requirements for Foundation Waterproofing and Dampproofing ...... 7.2-164
CHAPTER 5
1 Design Criteria for Bearing Piles ...............................7. 2-179
2 Characteristics of Common ExcavatedIDrilled Foundations ......... 7 . 2-184
3 Design Parameters for Side Friction for Drilled Piers in
................................................ Cohesive Soils 7. 2-198
4 Application of Pile Driving Resistance Formulas ................. 7. 2-203
Table Ti t l e Page
CHAPTEK 5 (cont i nued)
5 Typi cal Values of Coef f i ci ent Cp f o r Est i mat i ng Set t l ement
of a Si ngl e Pi l e ..............................................7. 2-208
6 General Criteria f o r I n s t a l l a t i o n of P i l e Foundations ........... 7. 2-214
7 Supplementary Procedures and Appurtenances Used i n Pi l e
Driving ...................................................... 7.2-218
8 Impact and Vi brat ory Pi l e-Dri ver Data ........................... 7. 2-219
..... 9 Treatment of Fi el d Problems Encountered During P i l e Dri vi ng 7. 2-226
10 Dr i l l ed Pi er s: Const ruct i on Problems. .......................... 7. 2-227
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Figure or Table Acknowledgement
Figure 13,
Chapter 1
Figure 1,
Chapter 2
Figures 5, 6 &
7, Chapter 3
Figure 16 & 17
Chapter 3
Figures 23, 24
& 25, Chapter 3
Figure 36,
Chapter 3
Figures 10 &
11, Chapter 4
Figure 14,
Chapter 4
Figw-e 2,
C1' 3cl8.i?r 5
( d.;p f panel ,
rignt)
Mazurkiewicz, D.K., Design and Construction of Dry Docks,
Trans Tech Publications, Rockport, MA., 1980.
Sherard, J.L., Influence of Soil Properties and
Construction Methods on the Performance of Homogeneous
Earth Dams, Technical Memorandum 645, U.S. Department of
~~~~~ -
the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
Caquot, A., and Kerisel, J., Tables for the Calculation of
Passive Pressure, Active Pressure and Bearing Capacity of
Foundations, Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B., Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
U.S. Steel, Sheet Piling Design Manual, July, 1975.
Portland Cement Association, Concrete Crib Retaining
Walls, Concrete Information No. St. 46, Chicago, IL., May,
1952.
Hetenyi, M., Beams on Elastic Foundation, The University
of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
Parcher, J.V., and Means, R.E., Soil Mechanics and
Foundations, Charles E. Merril Publishing Company,
Columbus, OH., 1968.
Skempton, A.W., The Bearing Capacity of Clays,
Proceedings, Building Research Congress, London, 1951.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
CHAPTER 1. EXCAVATIONS
Sect i on 1. INTRODUCTION
1. SCOPE. This chapt er covers t he methods of eval uat i ng t he s t a b i l i t y of
shallow and deep excavations. There a r e two basi c types of excavat i ons: ( a )
"open excavations" where s t a b i l i t y i s achieved by providing s t a bl e s i de
sl opes, and (b) "braced excavations" where ve r t i c a l or sloped s i des a r e main-
t ai ned wi t h pr ot ect i ve s t r uc t ur a l systems t ha t can be r est r ai ned l a t e r a l l y by
i nt er nal or ext er nal s t r uc t ur a l elements. Guidance on performance moni t ori ng
i s given i n DM-7.1, Chapter 2.
2. METHODOLOGY. I n sel ect i ng and desi gni ng t he excavat i on system, t he pri -
mary cont r ol l i ng f act or s w i l l i ncl ude: ( a ) s o i l type and s o i l s t r engt h
parameters; (b) groundwater condi t i ons; ( c) sl ope prot ect i on; (d) s i de and
bottom s t a bi l i t y; and ( e) ve r t i c a l and l a t e r a l movements of adj acent a r e a s ,
and e f f e c t s on exi st i ng st r uct ur es.
3. RELATED CRITERIA. For addi t i onal c r i t e r i a on excavat i ons, see t he f ol -
lowing source :
Subject Source
Dewatering and Groundwater Control of Deep Excavations....NAVFAC P-418
Sect i on 2. OPEN CUTS
1. SLOPED CUTS.
a. General. The depth and slope of an excavation, and groundwater con-
di t i ons cont r ol t he over al l s t a b i l i t y and movements of open excavat i ons. I n
granul ar s oi l s , i ns t a bi l i t y usual l y does not extend s i gni f i c a nt l y below t he
excavation provided seepage f or ces a r e cont rol l ed. I n rock, s t a b i l i t y i s
cont r ol l ed by dept hs and sl opes of excavation, par t i cul ar j oi nt pat t er ns, i n
s i t u s t r es s es , and groundwater condi t i ons. I n cohesive s oi l s , i n s t a b i l i t y
t ypi cal l y i nvol ves si de sl opes but may al s o i ncl ude mat er i al s w e l l below t he
base of t he excavation. I ns t a bi l i t y below t he base of excavat i on, of t en
r ef er r ed t o as bottom heave, i s af f ect ed by s o i l type and st r engt h, dept h of
cut , s i de sl ope and/or berm geometry, groundwater condi t i ons, and construc-
t i oh procedures. Methods f or cont r ol l i ng bottom heave a r e given i n DM-7.1,
Chapter 6.
b. Evaluation. Methods described i n DM-7.1, Chapter 7 may be used t o
eval uat e t he s t a b i l i t y of open excavations i n s oi l s where behavior of such
s o i l s can be reasonably determined by f i e l d i nvest i gat i on, l abor at or y test-
i ng, and anal ysi s. In cer t ai n geologic formations ( s t i f f cl ays, shal es,
s ens i t i ve cl ays, cl ay tills, et c. ) s t a b i l i t y i s cont r ol l ed by const r uct i on
procedures, si de e f f e c t s during and a f t e r excavation, and i nher ent geol ogi c
pl anes of weaknesses. Table 1 (modified from Reference 1, Ef f ect s of Con-
s t r uct i on on Geotechnical Engineering, by Clough and Davidson) present s a
summary of t he primary f a c t o r s cont r ol l i ng excavat i on s l opes i n some problem
s oi l s . Table 2 (modified from Reference 1 and Reference 2, So i l s and
Geology, Procedures f o r Foundation Design of Bui l di ngs and Ot her St r uc t ur e s ,
Departments of Army and A i r Force) summarizes measures t h a t can be used f o r
excavat i on pr ot ect i on f o r bot h convent i onal and problem s o i l s .
2. VERTICAL CUTS. Many c u t s i n cl ays w i l l st and wi t h v e r t i c a l s l opes f o r a
peri od of time before f a i l u r e occurs. However, changes i n t he shear s t r e n g t h
of t he cl ay wi t h time and s t r e s s r el eas e r e s ul t i ng from t he excavat i on can
l ead t o progressi ve de t e r i or a t i on i n s t a b i l i t y . Thi s pr oces s can be r api d i n
s t i f f , hi ghl y f i s s ur ed cl ays , but r e l a t i v e l y slow i n s o f t e r cl ays . (See
DM-7.1, Chapter 7 f o r c r i t i c a l hei ght s f or v e r t i c a l c u t s i n cohesi ve s o i l s . )
For c ut s i n hard unweathered rock, s t a b i l i t y i s most l y cont r ol l ed by s t r e ngt h
al ong bedding pl anes, groundwater condi t i on, and ot her f a c t o r s ( s e e DM-7.1,
Chapter 6 and Reference 3, S t a b i l i t y of St eep Sl opes on Hard Unweathered ~ o c k ,
by Terzaghi f or det ai l ed di s cus s i on on t he e f f e c t s of rock di s c ont i nui t i e s ) .
Cuts i n rock can st and v e r t i c a l wi t hout bol t i ng or anchori ng depending on rock
qua l i t y and j oi nt pat t er n.
Sect i on 3. TRENCHING
1. SITE EXPLORATION. I ndi vi dual t renchi ng pr oj ect s f r equent l y ext end over
l ong di st ances. An expl or at i on program should be performed t o def i ne t he s o i l
and groundwater condi t i ons over t he f u l l ext ent of t he pr oj ect , so t h a t t h e
desi gn of t he shori ng system can be adj ust ed t o s a t i s f y t he var yi ng s i t e con-
d i t i ons.
2. TRENCH STABILITY. Pr i nci pal f a c t or s i nf l uenci ng t r ench s t a b i l i t y a r e t h e
l a t e r a l e a r t h pr essur es on t he wal l support system, bottom heave, and t he
pressure and er os i ve e f f e c t s of i n f i l t r a t i n g groundwater ( s e e Chapter 3 and
DM-7.1, Chapter 6). Ext er nal f a c t or s which i nf l uence t r ench s t a b i l i t y
i ncl ude :
a. Surface Surcharge. The appl i cat i on of any addi t i onal l oad between
t he edge of t he excavat i on and t he i nt e r s e c t i on of t he ground s ur f ace wi t h t he
possi bl e f a i l u r e pl ane must be consi dered i n t he s t a b i i i t y anal yses f or t he
excavat i on.
b. Vi br at i on Loads. The e f f e c t s of vi br at i ng machinery, bl a s t i ng o r
ot her dynamic l oads i n t he v i c i n i t y of t he excavat i on must be consi dered. The
e f f e c t s of vi br a t i ons a r e cumu1ati;e over per i ods of t i me and can be par t i cu-
l a r l y dangerous i n b r i t t l e mat er i al s such a s cl ayey sand o r gr avel .
c. Groundwater Seepage. Improperly dewatered t r enches i n gr anul ar s o i l s
can r e s u l t i n qui ck condi t i ons and a complete l o s s of s o i l s t r e ngt h o r bottom
heave. (See DM-7.1, Chapter 6.)
d. Sur f ace Water Flow. Thi s can r e s u l t i n i ncr eased l oads on t he w a l l
suppor t system and r educt i on of t he shear s t r engt h of t he s o i l . Si t e dr ai nage
should be desi gned t o di ve r t water away from t renches.
TABLE 1
Factors Cont rol l i ng St a bi l i t y of Sloped Cut i n Some Problem So i l s
i
SOIL TYPE PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS FOR SLOPE DESIGN
2
St i f f - f i s s ur ed Clays
and Shales
Fi el d shear r es i s t ance may be l e s s t han suggest ed by
l abor at or y tests. Slope f a i l u r e s may occur progres-
s i vel y and shear s t r engt hs reduced t o r es i dual val ues
compatible wi t h r e l a t i ve l y l ar ge deformations. Some
case hi s t or i e s suggest t ha t t he long-term performance
i s cont r ol l ed by t he r es i dual f r i c t i o n angl e which f o r
some s hal es may be a s low a s 12'. The most r e l i a b l e
desi gn procedure would i nvol ve t he use of l o c a l
experi ence and recorded observat i ons.
Loess and Other
Col l apsi bl e Soi l s
Strong pot ent i al f or col l apse and er osi on of r e l a t i ve -
l y dr y mat er i al upon wetting. Slopes i n l oes s a r e
f r equent l y more s t a bl e when cut v e r t i c a l t o prevent
i nf i l t r a t i on. Benches a t i nt e r va l s can be used t o
reduce ef f ect i ve sl ope angles. Eval uat e pot e nt i a l f o r
col l aps e a s descri bed i n DM 7.1, Chapter 1. (See
DM-7.3, Chapter 3 f o r f ur t her guidance.)
Residual Soi l s
Si gni f i cant l oc a l var i at i ons i n pr oper t i es can be
expected depending on t he wa t he r i ng pr of i l e from
parent rock. Guidance based on recorded obser vat i on
provides prudent bas i s f or design.
Sensi t i ve Clays Considerable l o s s of s t r engt h upon remolding generat ed
by nat ur al or man-made di st urbance. Use anal yses
based on unconsolidated undrained tests or f i e l d vane
t e s t s .
Tal us Talus i s char act er i zed by l oose aggregat i on of rock
t ha t accumulates a t t he f oot of rock c l i f f s . St abl e
sl opes a r e commonly between 1-114 t o 1-314 hor i zont al
t o 1 ver t i cal . I ns t a bi l i t y i s as s oci at ed wi t h abun-
dance of wat er, mostly when snow i s melting.
Loose Sands May set t l e under bl as t i ng vi br at i on, o r l i qui f y,
s e t t l e , and l os e s t r engt h i f sat ur at ed. Also prone t o
er osi on and piping.
TABLE 2
Fact or s Cont r ol l i ng Excavat i on S t a b i l i t y
4
Comments
I nves t i gat e s o i l compr es s i bi l i t y and
e f f e c t of dewat eri ng on s et t l ement of
nearby s t r uc t ur e s ; consi der r echar gi ng
o r s l u r r y wal l cut of f . Examine f o r
presence of lower aqui f er and need t o
dewater. I n s t a l l piezometer i f needed.
Consider e f f e c t s of dewat eri ng i n
cavi t y-l aden l i mest one. Dewater i n
advance of excavat i on.
Analyze s a f e s l opes ( s e e DM-7.1, Chapter
7) or br aci ng requi rement ( s e e Chapter
3 ) , e f f e c t s of s t r e s s r educt i on on over-
cons ol i dat ed, s o f t o r swel l i ng s o i l s and
s ha l e s . Consider hor i zont a1 and ver t i-
c a l movements i n adj acent a r e a s due t o
excavat i on and e f f e c t on nearby s t r uc-
t ur es . Keep equipment and s t ockpi l es a
s af e di s t ance from t op of excavat i on.
See Chapter 3 f or wal l desi gn. Reduce
e a r t h movements and braci ng s t r e s s e s ,
where necessar y, by i n s t a l l i n g l aggi ng
on f r o n t f l ange of s o l d i e r pi l e. Con-
s i d e r ef f e c t of vi br a t i ons due t o dr i v-
i ng s heet p i l e s o r s ol di e r pi l e s . Con-
s i d e r dewat eri ng requi rement s a s wel l a s
wal l s t a b i l i t y i n c a l c ul a t i ng s heet i ng
depth. Movement moni t ori ng may be
warrant ed.
Const r uct i on Act i vi t y
Dewatering
Excavation and Grading
Excavation Wall Const ruct i on
>
Obj ect i ves
To prevent boi l i ng, s of t eni ng,
o r heave i n excavat i on bottom,
reduce l a t e r a l pr essur es on
s heet i ng, reduce seepage pres-
s ur es on f ace of open c ut ,
el i mi nat e pi pi ng of f i n e s
t hrough sheet i ng.
Pipe t r enchi ng, basement
excavat i on, s i t e gradi ng.
To support v e r t i c a l excavat i on
wal l s , t o s t a b i l i z e t r enchi ng
i n l i mi t ed space.
TABLE 2 (continued)
Fact ors Cont rol l i ng Excavation St a bi l i t y
Const ruct i on Act i vi t y
Bl ast i ng
Anchor o r St r ut I ns t al l a-
t i on, Wedging of St r ut s ,
Pre-st ressi ng Ti es
Obj ect i ves
To remove or t o f a c i l i t a t e t he
removal of rock i n the excava-
t i on.
To obt ai n support system
s t i f f ne s s and i nt er act i on.
-- -
Comments
Consider e f f e c t of vi br at i ons on s e t t l e -
ment or damage t o adj acent areas. Design
and monitor or r equi r e t he cont r act or t o
desi gn and monitor bl ast i ng i n c r i t i c a l
ar eas; r equi r e a pre-construction survey
of nearby st r uct ur es.
Major excavat i ons r equi r e car ef ul i nst al -
l a t i on and monitoring, e.g., case anchor
hol es i n col l aps i bl e s oi l s ; measure
stress i n ties and s t r u t s ; wedging, e t c .
3. SUPPORT SYSTEMS. Excavation support systems commonly used a r e a s f ol -
lows :
- -
a. Trench Shi el d. A r i g i d pr ef abr i cat ed s t e e l uni t used i n l i e u o f
shor i ng, which ext ends from t he bottom of t he excavat i on t o wi t hi n a few f e e t
of t he t op of t he cut . Pi pes a r e l a i d wi t hi n t he s hi e l d, which i s pul l ed
ahead, a s t r enchi ng proceeds, a s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Fi gure 1 (from Reference 4 ,
Cave-In! by Pet er sen) . Typi cal l y, t h i s system i s us ef ul i n l oos e gr anul ar o r
s o f t cohesi ve s o i l s where excavat i on dept h does not exceed 12 f e e t . Speci al
s hi e l ds have been used t o dept hs of 30 f eet .
b. Trench Timber Shoring. Table 3 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e Occup&tional Sa f e t y
and Heal t h Act ' s minimum requi rement s f o r t r ench shori ng. Braces and shor i ng
of t r ench a r e c a r r i e d al ong wi t h t he excavat i on. . Braces and di agonal s hor es
of timber should not be subj ect ed t o compressive s t r e s s e s i n excess of :
where : L = unsupported l engt h ( i nches )
D = l e a s t s i de of t he timber ( i nches )
S = al l owabl e compressive s t r e s s i n pounds per squar e
i nch of cr os s s ect i on
Maximum Rat i o LID = 50
( 1 ) Skel et on Shoring. Used i n s o i l s where cave-i ns a r e expect ed.
Appl i cabl e t o most s o i l s t o dept h up t o 20 f e e t . See Fi gure 2 (from Refer-
ence 4 ) f o r i l l u s t r a t i o n and guidance f o r s kel et on shori ng. St r uc t ur a l com-
ponent s should be desi gned t o s a f e l y wi t hst and e a r t h pr essur es.
( 2 ) Close ( Ti ght ) Sheet i ng. Used i n gr anul ar o r ot her runni ng
s o i l s , compared t o s kel et on shor i ng, it i s appl i cabl e t o gr e a t e r dept hs. See
i l l u s t r a t i o n i n Fi gure 3 (from Reference 4).
( 3 ) Box Shoring. Appl i cabl e t o t r enchi ng i n any s o i l . Depth l i m i t -
ed by s t r u c t u r a l s t r engt h and s i z e of timber. Usual l y l i mi t ed t o 40 f e e t .
See i l l u s t r a t i o n i n Fi gure 4 (from Reference 4).
( 4) Tel escopi c Shoring. Used f o r exces s i vel y deep t r enches. See
i l l u s t r a t i o n i n Fi gure 5 (Reference 4).
c. St e e l Sheet i ng and Bracing. St e e l sheet i ng and br aci ng can be used
i n l i e u of t i mber shori ng. St r uct ur al members should s a f e l y wi t hst and water
and l a t e r a l e a r t h St e e l s heet i ng wi t h t i mber wal es and s t r u t s have
a l s o been used.
TABLE 3
C6HA Requirents (Minjmum) hr Trench Sbring
Trench jacks may be used i n lieu of, or i n canbination d t h , cross braces.
Where desirable, steel s k t piling a d bracirg of equal strength may be substituted for mod.
J
Depth of
Trench
Feet
5 to 10
11 t o 15
v
Maxinnm Spacing
Vertical
Feet
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
a d Spacirg of Menbers
cross &aces1
Ibri-
zontal
Feet
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Kid or Condition
of Earth
Hard, canpact
Likely to crack
Soft, s d y , or
filled
Hydrostatic
pressure
Hard
Likely to crack
Soft , s ady or
f illed
Hydrostatic
pressure
1 3 t o 1 5
feet
Incks
6 x 8
6 x 8
8 x 8
8 x 8
8 x 8
8 x 8
8 x 1 0
8 x 1 0
Size
Trench
l o t 0 1 2
feet
Inches
6 x 5
6 x 6
6 x 8
6 x 8
6 x 8
6 x 8
8 x 8
8 x 8
Upto
3 feet
Incks
2 x 6
2 x 6
4 x 4
4 x 4
4 x 4
4 x 4
4 x 6
4 x 6
Stringers
Minimun
Dimension
Inches
.........
4 x 6
4 x 6
6 x 8
4 x 6
4 x 6
4 x 6
8 x 10
Uprights
f i i m u n
Dimmion
Inches
3x4 or 2x6
3x4 or 2x6
3x4 or 2xfj
3x4 or 2x6
3x4 or 2x6
3x4 or 2x6
3x4 or 2x6
3x6
Maxhuu
Spacing
Feet
........
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
MPcirmm
Spcing
Feet
6
3
Close
sktirlg
Close
sheeting
4
2
Close
s k t i n g
Close
sheeting
4 t o 6
feet
Inches
4 x 4
4 x 4
4 x 6
4 x 6
4 x 6
4 x 6
6 x 6
6 x 6
Width of
7to9
feet
Incks
4 x 6
4 x 6
6 x 6
6 x 6
6 x 6
6 x 6
6 x 8
6 x 8
Requi rement s f o r Skel et on Shor i ng
NOlES:
CLOSE: Close upr i ght s up t i ght .
c-c: Center-to-Center
( a) Minimum: Two st r i nger s, one on top and one on bottom.
( b) Minimum: Two s t r u t s t o 7' depth and t hr ee t o 10'.
( c) Minimum: Three st r i nger s, placed top, bottom and center.
(d) Minimum: Three s t r u t s t o 13' depth and four t o 15'.
FIGURE 2
Skel et on Shor i ng
7.2-10
-
TRENCH
Width
Up t o 42"
Over 42"
Up t o 42"
Up t o 42"
Ikpth
4' t o 10'
4' t o 10'
10' t o 15'
Over 15'
UPRIGHTS
Size
2" x 6"
2" x 6"
2" x 6"
2" x 6"
br i zont al
SPC~%
3' cc
3' c-c
3' c-c
( XEE
s -
Size
2" x 6"
4" x 6"
2" x 6"
4"x12"
s m
Vert id
Spaci s
(a)
4' c-c
( c)
4 ' c c
Size
2"x61'(b)
4" x 6"(b)
2" x 6"(d)
4"x12"
br i zont al
Spaci s
6' c - c
6' c c
6' crc
6' c c
Requirements f o r Cl ose Sheet i ng
N(7IES:
-
CLOSE: Close uprights up t i ght .
c-c: Cent er - t oant er
( a) Minimum: Two st ri ngers, one on top and one on bottom.
(b) Minimum: Two s t r ut s t o 7' depth and t hree t o 10'.
( c) Minimum: Three st ri ngers, placed top, bottom and center.
(d) Minimum: Three s t r ut s t o 13' depth and four t o 15'.
FIGURE 3
Cl ose (Ti ght ) Sheet i ng
SIRUrS
Size
4" x 6"
4" x 6"
/
7
Vx6"
4"x12"
sTmmRs
r
mENQI
Ibrinmtal
s@%
6' c-c
6' cc
6' c c
6' e c
size
4"x6"
Vx6'
4"x6"
4"x12"
mGI.rJs
Width
-
Up t o 42"
O\Rr42"
Up t o 42"
Up t o 42"
Vertical
s@%
(a)
(a)
(b)
4'-
Size
2" x 6"
2" x 6"
2" x 6"
2" x 6"
Depth
4' t o 10'
4' t o 10'
10' t o 15'
Over 15'
Ibrizuntal
s@%
UDSE
UDSE
U X 3 3
UDSE
FIGURE 4
Box Shoring
FIGURE 5
Telescopic Shoring
Sect i on 4. BRACED EXCAVATIONS
1. WALL TYPES. Commonly used wal l t ypes and l i mi t at i ons t o be consi dered i n
s el ect i on ar e given i n Table 4. Schematics of support systems a r e shoyn on
Figure 6. A descr i pt i on of w a l l types l i s t e d i n Table 4 is present ed i n
Reference 5, Lat er al Support Systems and Underpinning, by Goldberg, e t al.
2. SELECTION OF SUPPORT SYSTEM. Fact ors t o be considered i n s e l e c t i ng t ypes
of support systems a r e given i n Table 5.
3. EARTH PRESSURES. The tm l i mi t i ng pressures which may act on the wa l l
,
a r e t he s t a t e s of act i ve pressure and passi ve pressure. Def i ni t i ons and
methods f or computing e a r t h pressures a r e presented i n Chapter 3.
For most pr act i cal cases, c r i t e r i a f or e a r t h pressures do not exact l y conform
t o t he s t a t e of act i ve, passi ve or a t rest pressure. Actual e a r t h pr essur e
depends on w a l l deformation and t h i s i n t ur n depends on sever al f act or s.
Among t he pr i nci pal f act or s ar e: (1) s t i f f ne s s of w a l l and support systems;
(2) s t a b i l i t y of t he excavation; and (3) dept h of excavation and wal l
def l ect i on.
The e f f e c t s of wal l def l ect i on on pressure di s t r i but i on, and di f f er ences be-
tween s t r u t l oads computed from act i ve e a r t h pressure t heory and t hose act ual -
l y measured f or deep excavation i n s of t cl ay, a r e i l l us t r a t e d i n Reference 6,
s t a b i l i t y of ~ l e x i b l e St r uct ur es by Bjerrum, et al . As many di f f e r e nt var i a-
bl es a f f e c t pressures act i ng on wal l s, many t ypes of anal yses a r e a va i l a bl e
f or speci al si t uat i ons. ( Det ai l s concerning t hese a r e given i n Reference 7,
Braced Excavation by Lambe.) Examples of e a r t h pressure computations are
given i n Chapter 3.
4. OTHER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS. Several f act or s ot he r t han
e a r t h pressures a f f e c t t he sel ect i on, desi gn and t he performance of braced
excavations. See Table 6 f or a summary of t hese f act or s.
5. LATERAL MOVEMENTS. For we l l const ruct ed s t r ut t e d excavat i ons i n dense
sands and till, maximum l a t e r a l w a l l movements a r e of t en less than 0.2% of
excavation depth. Lat er al movements a r e usual l y less f or t i e d back w a l l s . I n
s t i f f f i ssur ed cl ays, l a t e r a l movements may reach 0.5% o r hi gher depending on
qual i t y of const ruct i on. In s of t cl ays, a major port i on of movement occur s
below excavat i on bottom. Lat er al movement may be i n t he range of 0.5% t o 2%
of excavation dept h, depending on the f act or of s af et y agai nst bot t an i ns t a -
bi l i t y. Higher movements a r e associ at ed wi t h lesser f act or s of saf et y.
6. SOIL SETTLEMENTS BEHIND WALLS. , Reference 8, Deep Excavations and Tunnel-
i ng i n Sof t Ground by Peck, provides guidance based on empi ri cal obser vat i on
of set t l ement behind wall. Set t l ement s up t o about 1% of t he excavat i on dept h
have been measured behind w e l l const ruct ed w a l l s f or cut s i n sand and i n medi-
um s t i f f cl ays. In s of t er cl ays, t h i s may be a s high a s 2% and consi derabl y
more i n very s o f t cl ays.
TABLE 4
Types of Walls
Na me
( 1) St e e l Sheet i ng
( 2) Sol di er Pi l e and
Lagging
( 3) Cas t-in-place
o r Pre-cast Con-
c r e t e Sl ur r y
Wall (diaphragm
wal l s, s ee DM-
7.3, Chapter 3)
( 4) Cylinder Pi l e
Wall
Typi cal E I Values
Per Foot ( ks f )
900 - 90,000
2,000 - 120,000
288,000 - 2,300,000
115,000 - 1,000,000
Comments
- Can be impervious
- Easy t o handl e and c ons t r uc t
- Easy t o handl e and c ons t r uc t
- Permi t s dr ai nage
- Can be dr i ven o r augered
- Can be impervious
- Rel at i vel y hi gh s t i f f n e s s
- Can be par t of permanent
s t r u c t u r e
- Can be pr es t r es s ed
- Rel at i vel y less l a t e r a l w a l l
movement pe mi t t ed compared
t o ( 1) and ( 2)
- High i n i t i a l c o s t
- Speci al t y cont r act or
r equi r ed t o cons t r uct
-
Very l a r g e and heavy w a l l
must be used f o r deep
systems
- Permi t s yi el di ng of sub-
s o i l s , but pr ecas t concr et e
us ual l y shows l e s s yi el di ng
t han s t e e l sheet i ng o r
s ol di e r p i l e procedures.
- Secant p i l e s impervious
- Rel at i vel y hi gh s t i f f n e s s
- Highly s peci al i zed equipment
not needed f o r t angent p i l e s
- Sl ur r y not needed
A. CANTILEVER WALL B. CROSS-LOT BRACED WALL
F;DUNDATION SLAB
C. RAKER SYSTEM
D. ANCHOR OR TI EBKK WALL
E. EARTH BERM SUPPORT
FIGURE 6
Support Syst em - Wal l ed Excavation
TABLE 5
Fact or s Involved i n Choice of A Support System
For A Deep Excavation (> 20 f e e t )
Requirements
1. Open excavat i on
ar ea
2. Low i n i t i a l cos t
3. Use a s par t of
permanent
s t r uct ur e
4. Deep, s of t cl ay
subsurface con-
di t i ons
5. Dense, gr avel l y
sand o r cl ay
s ubs oi l s
6. Deep, overcon-
sol i dat ed cl ays
7. Avoid dewatering
8. Minimize
movements
9. Wide excavat i on
( gr eat er t han
65 f e e t wide)
10. Narrow excava-
t i on ( l e s s than
65 f e e t wide)
Lends I t s e l f t o Use Of
Tiebacks or r aker s o r
cant i l ever wal l s (shal l ow
excavat i on)
Sol di er p i l e or s heet pi l e
wal l s; combined s oi l sl ope
wi t h wal l
Diaphragm ( see DM 7.3
Chapter 3) o r cyl i nder
pi l e wal l s
St r ut t ed or raker
supported diaphragm o r
cyl i nder pi l e wal l s
Sol di er pi l e , diaphragm
or cyl i nder pi l e
St r ut s , long t i ebacks or
combination t i ebacks and
s t r ut s .
Diaphragm wal l s, possi bl y
s heet pi l e wal l s i n s of t
subsoi l s
High prel oads on s t i f f
s t r ut t e d or tied-back wal l
Tiebacks o r r aker s
Crossl ot s t r u t s
Comment s
-
-
Diaphragm wal l most
common a s permanent w a l l .
Tieback capaci t y not
adequate i n s of t cl ays.
Sheet pi l es may l os e
i nt er l ock on hard dr i vi ng.
High i n s i t u l a t e r a l
s t r e s s e s a r e r el i eved i n
overconsol i dat ed s oi l s .
Lat er al movements may be
l a r ge and extend deep i n t o
s oi l .
Sol di er pi l e wal l i s
pervious.
Analyze f or s t a b i l i t y of
bottom of excavation.
Tiebacks pr ef er abl e except
i n very s o f t cl ay sub-
s oi l s .
St r ut s more economical but
t i ebacks s t i l l may be
pr ef er r ed t o keep exca-
vat i on open.
TABLE 6
Design Consi derat i ons f or Braced and Tieback Walls
Design Fact or
1. Water Loads
2. St a b i l i t y
3. Pi pi ng
4 . Movements
5. Dewatering - recharge
6. Surcharge
7. Pr es t r es s i ng of t i e
backs or s t r u t s
?
Comments
Oft en gr eat er t han e a r t h l oad on impervious wal l . Recommended pi ezomet ers
duri ng cons t r uct i on t o moni t or wat er l e ve l s . Should consi der pos s i bl e
lower water pr essur es a s a r e s u l t of seepage t hrough or under wal l .
Dewatering can be used t o reduce wat er l oads. Seepage under wal l reduces
passi ve r es i s t ance.
Consider pos s i bl e i n s t a b i l i t y i n any berm or exposed sl ope. Sl i di ng poten-
t i a l beneat h t he wal l or behind t i ebacks shoul d be eval uat ed. Deep s eat ed
bear i ng f a i l u r e under weight of support ed s o i l t o be checked i n weak s o i l s .
St a b i l i t y shoul d consi der weight of sur char ge o r t h e weight of ot her
f a c i l i t i e s i n c l os e proxi mi t y t o excavat i on.
Loss of ground caused by hi gh groundwater t a bl e and s i l t y and f i n e sand
s o i l s . Di f f i c u l t i e s occur due t o fl ow beneat h wal l , t hrough bad j oi nt s i n
wal l s , or t hrough unseal ed s he e t pi l e handl i ng hol es. Dewatering may be
r equi r ed.
Movements can be minimized t hrough use of s t i f f wal l support ed by prel oaded
t i eback o r braced system.
Dewatering reduces l oads on wal l systems and minimizes pos s i bl e l o s s of
ground due t o pi pi ng. May cause s et t l ement s and w i l l t hen need t o recharge
out s i de of support system.
Const r uct i on mat er i al s us ual l y s t or ed near w a l l systems. Allowance shoul d
always be made f o r surcharge.
Useful t o remove s l a c k from system and minimize s o i l movements.
d
TABLE 6 (continued)
Design Considerations f or Braced and Tieback Walls
Design Fact or
8. Const ruct i on Sequence
9, Temperature
10. Frost Penet r at i on
1 1. Earthquakes
12. Fact ors of Safet y
Comments
The amount of wal l movement i s dependent on t he dept h of excavation. The
amount of l oad on t he t i e backs i s dependent on t he amount of w a l l movement
which occurs before t hey a r e i ns t al l ed. Movements of wal l should be
checked a t every major const ruct i on st age. Upper s t r u t s should be
i ns t a l l e d earl y.
St r ut s subj ect t o l oad f l uct uat i on due t o temperature l oads; may be
important f or long s t r ut s .
I n very col d cl i mat es, f r o s t penet r at i on can cause s i gni f i cant l oadi ng on
wal l system. Design of upper port i on of system should be conservat i ve.
Anchors may have t o be heated. Freezing temperatures al s o can cause
blockage of flow and t hus unexpected buildup of water pressure.
Seismic l oads may be induted duri ng earthquake, See DM-7.3, Chapter 1.
Item
Eart h Berms
Cut Slopes
Bottom heave above founda-
t i on l evel
General s t a b i l i t y
Bottan heave a t foundation
l e ve l
Note: These val ues a r e suggested gui del i nes only. Design s af et y
f act or depends on pr oj ect requirements.
Suggested Minimum Design Fact or of Safet y
f or Overal l St a bi l i t y
I
Permanent
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
Temporary
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.5
7. PROTECTION OF ADJACENT STRUCTURES. Eval uat e t he e f f e c t s of br aced exca-
vat i ons on adj acent s t r uc t ur e s t o det ermi ne whether e xi s t i ng bui l di ng founda-
t i o n s a r e t o be prot ect ed. See DM-7.3, Chapt ers 2 and 3 on s t a b i l i z i n g foun-
dat i on s o i l s and methods of underpinning. Fi gure 7 (modi fi ed from Ref er ence
9, Damage t o Br i ck Bearing Wall ~t r u c t u ; e s ~ a i s e d by Adj acent Braced Cut s and
Tunnels. bv O'Rourke. e t al . ) i l l u s t r a t e s a r e a s behind a braced w a i l where
s .
underpi nni ng i s or may be requi red.
Fact or s i nf l uenci ng t he t ype of braci ng used and t he need f o r underpi nni ng
i ncl ude :
( a ) Lat er al di s t ance of e xi s t i ng s t r uc t ur e from t he braced excavat i on.
Empi ri cal obser vat i ons on t h i s can be found i n Reference 8.
( b ) Lowering groundwater can cause s o i l cons ol i dat i on and s e t t l e me nt of
s t r uct ur es .
( c ) Dewatering should be properl y cont r ol l ed t o ensur e t her e i s n o
removal of foundat i on s o i l s out s i de t he excavat i on.
( d) Tol erance of s t r uc t ur e s t o movement. See DM-7.1, Chapter 5 f o r
eval uat i on of t ol er ance of s t r uc t ur e t o v e r t i c a l movements. Ver t i cal and
l a t e r a l movements produce hor i zont al s t r a i n s i n s t r uct ur e. Guidance o n
permi ssi bl e hor i zont al s t r a i n s f or s t r uc t ur e s i s gi ven i n Reference 9.
Sect i on 5. ROCK EXCAVATION
1. OBJECTIVE. Primary obj ect i ve i s t o conduct work i n such a manner t h a t a
s t a b l e excavat i on w i l l be mai nt ai ned and t h a t rock out s i de t he excavat i on
prism w i l l not be adver sel y di st ur bed.
2. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. Rock excavat i on pl anni ng must be based on
de t a i l e d geol ogi cal dat a a t t he s i t e . To t he ext ent pos s i bl e, s t r u c t u r e s t o
be const r uct ed i n rock should be or i ent ed f avor abl y wi t h t he geol ogi cal s e t -
t i ng. For example, t unnel s should be al i gned wi t h a x i s per pendi cul ar t o t he
s t r i k e of f a u l t s o r major f r act ur es . Downslope d i p of d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s i n t o a n
open cut should be avoided.
I n gener al , f a c t o r s t h a t must be consi dered i n pl anni ng, desi gni ng and con-
s t r uc t i ng a rock excavat i on a r e a s fol l ows: ( 1) presence of s t r i k e , d i p of
f a u l t s , f ol ds , f r a c t ur e s , and ot her di s c ont i nui t i e s ; ( 2) i n s i t u stresses; ( 3 )
groundwater condi t i ons ; ( 4) nat ur e of mat er i al f i l l i n g j oi nt s ; (5) d e p t h and
sl ope of cut ; ( 6 ) s t r e s s e s and di r e c t i on of pot e nt i a l s l i di ng s ur f aces ; ( 7 )
dynamic l oadi ng, i f any; (8) desi gn l i f e of cut a s compared t o weat heri ng o r
de t e r i or a t i on r a t e of rock face; ( 9) r i p p a b i l i t y and/ or t he need f o r b l a s t i n g ;
and (10) e f f e c t of excavat i on and/ or bl a s t i ng on adj acent s t r uc t ur e s .
The i nf l uence of most of t hes e f a c t or s on excavat i ons i n rock i s similar t o
t h a t of excavat i ons i n s o i l , s ee DM-7.1, Chapter 7.
\
\
- -
\
\
TIGHTLY BRACED/ TI E
EXCAVATION WALL
BASE OF STABLE AND DEWATORED
EXCAVATION
ZONE A:
FOUNDATIONS WI THI N THI S ZONE GENERALLY REQUIRE UNDERPINNING.
ZONE B:
FOUNDATIONS WI THI N THI S ZONE GENERALLY MAY NOT REQUIRE UNDERPINNING
DEPENDING ON TYPE OF STRUCTURE AND LOADING CONDITIONS.
ZONE C:
UNDERPINNING I F USED MUST BE FOUNDED I N THI S ZONE TO APPROPRIATE DEPTHS
ESTABLISHED BY EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS.
N o t e : A d d i t i o n a l det ai l s on underpinning ma y be found i n DM-7.3, C h a p t e r 3.
FI GURE 7
G e n e r a l G u i d a n c e f or U n d e r p i n n i n g
3. RIPPABILITY. Excavat i on ease o r r i p p a b i l i t y can be assessed approxi mat e-
l y from f i e l d obser vat i on i n s i mi l a r mat er i al s o r by usi ng sei smi c v e l o c i t y ,
f r a c t u r e spaci ng, o r poi nt l oad s t r e ngt h index. Fi gure 8 (from Ref er ence 10,
Handbook of Ri ppi ng, by Ca t e r pi l l a r Tr act or Co.) shows an example of charts
f o r heavy dut y r i pper performance ( r i ppe r mounted on t racked bul l dozer ) as
r e l a t e d t o sei smi c wave vel oci t y. Chart s s i mi l a r t o Fi gur e 8 a r e a v a i l a b l e
from var i ous equipment manufact urers. Fi gure 8 i s f o r guidance and r e s t r i c t e d
i n a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o l ar ge t r a c t o r s heavi er t han 50 t ons wi t h engine hor sepower
gr e a t e r t han 350 Hp. Ripper performance i s a l s o r e l a t e d t o c onf i gur a t i on of
r i pper t e e t h , equipment condi t i on and s i z e , and f r a c t u r e or i ent at i on.
Another t echni que of r e l a t i n g physi cal pr oper t i es of rock t o excavat i on e a s e
i s shown on Fi gure 9 (from Reference 11, Logging t he Mechanical Cha r a c t e r of
Rock, by Fr ankl i n, e t al . ) where f r act ur e frequency ( o r spaci ng) i s p l o t t e d
agai ns t t he poi nt l oad s t r engt h i ndex cor r ect ed t o a r ef er ence di amet er of 50
mm. (See Reference 12, The Point-Load St r engt h Tes t , by Broch and Fr a nkl i n. )
A t h i r d and us ef ul t echni que i s expl or at i on t r enchi ng i n which t he d e p t h of
unri ppabl e rock can be es t abl i s hed by di ggi ng t e s t t r enches i n rock u s i n g
r i ppe r s ( o r ot her excavat i on equipment) a nt i c i pa t e d t o be used f or t h e pro-
j ect . The s i z e and shape of t he ar ea t o be excavat ed i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r
i n det ermi ni ng t h e need f or bl a s t i ng, o r t he equipment needed t o remove t h e
rock.
4. BLASTING. Of major concern i s t he i nf l uence of t he bl as t i ng on a d j a c e n t
s t r uct ur es . The maximum p a r t i c l e ve l oc i t y ( t h e l ongi t udi nal vel oci t y o f a
p a r t i c l e i n t he di r e c t i on of t he wave t h a t i s generat ed by t he bl a s t ) i s
accept ed a s a c r i t e r i o n f or eval uat i ng t he pot ent i al f or s t r u c t u r a l damage
induced by bl a s t i ng vi br at i on. The c r i t i c a l l e v e l of t he p a r t i c l e v e l o c i t y
depends on t he frequency char act er i s t i c s of t he s t r u c t u r e , frequency of ground
and rock motion, nat ur e of t he overburden, and c a pa bi l i t y of t he s t r u c t u r e t o
wi t hst and dynamic s t r e s s . Fi gure 10 can be used f or es t i mat i ng t he maximum
p a r t i c l e ve l oc i t y, which can t hen be used i n Fi gure 11 (from Reference 13,
Bl as t i ng Vi br at i ons and Thei r Ef f e c t s on St r uct ur es , by Bureau of Mi nes) t o
es t i mat e pot e nt i a l damage t o r e s i d e n t i a l s t r uct ur es . Guidance f o r human
response t o bl a s t i ng vi br at i ons i s gi ven i n Fi gure 12 (from Reference 1 4 ,
~ n g i n e d r i n g of Rock Bl as t i ng on Ci v i l Pr oj ect s , by Hendron).
Once i t has been determined t h a t bl a s t i ng i s r equi r ed, a pr e- bl ast i ng s ur vey
should be performed. As a minimum, t h i s should i ncl ude: ( a ) exami nat i on of
t he s i t e ; ( b) de t a i l e d examination and perhaps phot ographi c r ecor ds of adj a-
cent s t r uc t ur e s ; and ( c ) est abl i shment of hor i zont al and v e r t i c a l s u r v e y con-
t r o l poi nt s. In addi t i on, t he p o s s i b i l i t y of vi br a t i on moni t ori ng s houl d be
consi dered, and moni t ori ng s t a t i o n s and schedul es should be e s t a bl i s he d.
During cons t r uct i on, de t a i l e d r ecor ds should be kept of : ( a ) charge we i ght ,
( b) l ocat i on of b l a s t poi nt and di s t ance from e xi s t i ng s t r uc t ur e s , ( c ) de l a ys ,
and ( d) response a s i ndi cat ed by vi br at i on moni t ori ng. For s a f e t y, s m a l l
charges shoul d be used i n i t i a l l y t o e s t a b l i s h a s i t e s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n s h i p
between charge wei ght , di s t ance, and response.
FIGURE 8
Rippability of Subsurface Materials Related to Longitudinal
Seismic Velocity for a Heavy Duty Ripper (Tractor-Mounted)
,
TOPS01 L
CLAY
GLACIAL TILL
IGNEOUS ROCKS
SEDl MENTARY ROCKS
CONGWMERATE
METAMORPHIC ROCKS
RIPPABLE -
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6
MARGINAL ------ LONGITUDINAL VELOCITY IN FT. PER SEC.
NON-RIPPABLE ---
(THOUSANDS )
I
--.---a
--. -- . a* -
A
W
LL
*
POINT LOAD STRENGTH 1, (50) TONSIFT *
POINT LOAD STRENGTH CORRECTED TO A REFERENCE DIAMETER OF 50 MM.
FIGURE 9
suggested Guide for Ease of Excavation
FIGURE 10
Cube Root Scaling Versus Maximum Part i cl e Velocity
I 2 3 5 7 0 2030 5070100 200
R/(w)I)S, FT./LR@
SCALED RANGE
EXAMPLE :
Weight of Explosive Charge = 8 l bs. = W
Distance from Bl ast Point = 100 f t. = R
~/ ( wi 1/ 3 = 50
Peak Vr = 0.5 i n/ sec from chart
L
FIGURE 11
Gui del i ne f o r Assessing Pot ent i al f or Damage Induced by
Bl as t i ng Vi br at i on t o Res i dent i al St r uct ur e Founded on
Dense Soi l o r Rock
10.0 -
9.0-
8.0 -
cj
W
q 7.0-
z
-
1 6.0 -
>
k 5.0-
0
S
4.0-
>
W 3.0 -
J
0
5 '"1 1 .O
0
f
-- MAJOR DAMAGE
(FALL OF PLASTER,
SERIOUS CRACKING)
MINOR DAMAGE
(FINE PLASTER
CRACKS,OPENING
OF OLD CRACKS)
CAUTION
SAFE
,
b
FIGURE 12
Guide for Predicting Human Response t o Vibrations and Bl asti ng Ef f ect s
1
DAMAGE
CAUTION
SEVERE
-
DISTURBING
-
NOT ICEABLE
L
4
NO SOWD EFFECTS. ACOOMe#NIED BY SOUND
l MPARTIAL OBSERVER. EFFECTS.
B l ASEO OBSERVER.
DAMAGE
CAUTION
-
SEVERE.
COMPLAINTS
LIKELY
-
NOT l CEAeCE
COMPLAINTS
POSS l BLE
.
A
BLAST1 NG VIBRATIONS
10.0
4 . O
2.0
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.02
0.01
10.0
4.0
2 .o
n
d 1.2
1.0
I
-
k -
0 04
3
W
>
W
4
0
-
k
0.1
0
0.06
0.01
TRANSIENT MOTION.
Sect i on 6. GROUNDWATER CONTROL
1. APPLICATION. Excavat i ons below t he groundwater t a b l e r equi r e ground-
wat er cont r ol t o permi t cons t r uct i on i n t he dr y and mai nt ai n t he s t a b i l i t y of
excavat i on base and si des. Thi s i s accomplished by c ont r ol l i ng seepage i n t o
t he excavat i on and cont r ol l i ng a r t e s i a n wat er pr es s ur es below t he bot t om of
t he excavation.
2. METHOD. See Tabl e 7 (modified from Reference 15, Cont r ol of Groundwat er
by Water Lowering, by Cashman and Har r i s ) f o r methods of c ont r ol l i ng ground-
wat er, t h e i r a p p l i c a b i l i t y , and l i mi t at i ons . Wel l poi nt s, deep w e l l s , and
- -
sumps a r e most- commonly used. Fi gures 13(A) (from- ~ e f e r e n c e i) and 1 3 ( ~ )
(from Reference 16, Design and Const ruct i on of Dry Docks, by Mazurkiewbcz)
show a dewatering system usi ng deep wel l s , and a two s t age wel l poi nt syst em.
Fi gures 13(C) and 13(D) (from Reference 16) shows d e t a i l s of a we l l poi nt
system, and a deep wel l wi t h e l e c t r i c submersi bl e pump. See Fi gure 1 4 (from
Reference 2) f or appl i cabl e limits of dewat eri ng methods.
3. DESIGN PROCEDURE. See DM-7.1, Chapter 6 f o r de s c r i pt i on of de s i gn. pr oc e -
dur es f o r groundwater cont r ol . For addi t i onal gui dance on groundwater c o n t r o l
s ee NAVFAC P-418.
Sect i on 7. EXCAVATION STABILIZATION, MONITORING, AND SAFETY
1. STABILIZATION. During t h e planning and desi gn s t a ge , i f anal ys es i ndi -
c a t e pot ent i al sl ope i n s t a b i l i t y , means f o r sl ope s t a b i l i z a t i o n o r r e t e n t i o n
should be consi dered. Some methods f o r cons i der at i on are gi ven i n Chapt er 3.
On occasi on, t h e compl exi t y of a s i t u a t i o n may d i c t a t e usi ng very s p e c i a l i z e d
s t a b i l i z a t i o n methods. These may i ncl ude gr out i ng and i nj e c t i on, ground
f r eezi ng, deep dr ai nage and s t a b i l i z a t i o n , such as vacuum wel l s or e l e c t r o -
osmosis ( s ee DM-7.3, Chapter 2) , and diaphragm wal l s ( s e e DM-7.3, Chapt er 3) .
2. MONITORING. During excavat i on, pot e nt i a l bottom heave, l a t e r a l wa l l o r
sl ope movement, and s et t l ement of a r e a s behind t he w a l l or sl ope shoul d b e
i nspect ed c a r e f ul l y and monitored i f c r i t i c a l . Monitoring can be accompl i shed
by convent i onal survey t echni ques, or by more s ophi s t i cat ed means s uch as
heave poi nt s , s et t l ement pl a t e s , ext ensomet ers o r i ncl i nomet er s, and a v a r i e t y
of ot her devi ces. See DM-7.1, Chapter 2.
3. SAFETY. Det ai l ed s a f e t y requi rement s vary from pr oj ect t o pr oj e c t . As a
gui de, s a f e t y requi rement s a r e s peci f i ed by OSHA, see Reference 17, Pu b l i c Law
91-596. A summary of t he 1980 requi rement s fol l ows:
a. OSHA Rules.
( 1)
Banks more t han 4 f e e t hi gh s h a l l be shored or sl oped t o t h e
angl e of r epose where a danger of s l i d e s or cave-ins e x i s t s a s a r e s u l t of
excavat i on.
m

'4
-
4

0

o

C

a

a
J

a

g

+
I

C
'
u

.

.
"
d
U

m

u

I

r
l
a
~
d

r
l

a
~
a

$
2

r
l
C
W
a
J
G

E
k
m

l
d

0

o

.
d

a

-
8

-
2

.
:

.
5

m
o
d

a
J
u

3
5

d
o

a
~
?
-
a
o

O
M
-
r
l

0

O
d
(
b

.
c
e
u
r
n

:
:

g
E
a
u

.
I
4

k

3

m

u

E

4

o

a

w

w
u
p
l

0

W
3
U

a
J

0

.
.
-
I

o

a
J
M

c
e

C
P
k
C

r
n

a
c
u
3
a
~
a
1

a
J
r
d
l
d
O
D
k

a
o
3
w

a

C

E

C
"
3
U
$
2

O
r
l

r
d

d
u
r
n

-
4

c

a
~
a

k

r
n
&

l

o

U

2

1
:
"
"

a
J

a
r
d
k

g

a
-
r
l
w

.
P
O
h
r
l
O

.
"

W
l
a
k
M
*

U

U
(
d
a
J
3

4
-J

.

.

m
k
a
s

L

r
d

0

8

"
,

r
l

u

'
"

'
"

7
3
W
'
u
S
a
J

D
r
n
d
~
E
c

%

$

k

r
n

u

+
I
T
I

$

a
:

2

2
'
2

8
4

2

3

3

e
r
l

a

a
J
u
U

E
.
2

8

k

o
a

4
J

0

k

0

m

p
m
5

r
l

E

o
c

a

u

a
s
a
J

d
V
P

5

a

c
r
l

3

m

a
4

l
d
5

0

U
I

k

E

M
l
d
d

E

m

0
4

h

k

a

a
~
u
a

C
E
C
a
J

a
4
0

m

c
n
w

u

s

m

r
n

a

i
!

g

u

a

X

c

"

.
4

u

u

e

o

4

5

0

m

a

4

.G

4

U

$

.

C
V

a
J

u

r
l

E

P

a
J

a

e

u
u

4

a

3
a
~

c
n
k

H

m

r
l
k

4
0

O
h

C
A

a

0

5
;

c

2

a

u

o

a

2

a

r
n
*

d
m

a
J
a

3

c

l
d
r
d

k
m

M

a
J

E

m

c
d

F
C

a
J

l
d

r
l

0

u

u

F

4

O
k
a
J
a
J
a
J
r
l

Z
a
a
r
n
a
u

I

w

a
J
0

E

>
'
4
-
4

0

0

.
"

D

o

l
d

2
'

a
o

E

a
J
k
U
0

a
s
a
4

Q
U
S
U

2

.
r
l

W

h

&
I

u

a
J

F
l
u
.

d

l
d

r
n

r
n

3
s

u

0
5

0

U
E
k

l
d

:

-
2

a
J

r
n

-
4

3
a

e
c

c
d
c
l
d

k

l
d

a

a

m
s

I

5
;

s

2

5

r
n

r
n
m
a

a

-
r
l

a

a
u
d

c
r
l

O
k

z
a

I

d

E

r
l

.
r
l

a
J

a
J

a

3
~

m

a
J

F
E
a
J
U

0
.
4

M
O

.
r
l
W
l
d
E

~
E
~
E

l
d
o
m
l
d

3

0
;

0

l
d

u

O
d

a
J

U
'

a
u
+
~

c
a

a
J

l
d

a
d
a
J

a
s

o

r
n

d
m
u
a
5

a

E

a

r
n

a

E

a

r
n

h
.

u

(
1
1

r
l

u

.
r
l

r
l

a

-
d

r
n

h

a

a

2

s

r
n

m

E

a
J

h

a
J

w

%
L

3
U

"

k
S

9
:

k

5

0
s

F
c

u

0

Q
M
a
J
l
d
U
k

U
d
U
3

a
J

2
C
g
a
a
u

"
P
a
h
d

u
4

k

a
d
a
J

a
~
r
n
s
u
a
~
s

'
7
3
r
n
o
3
u

.

4

2

a

I

t

c
n

.

4

TABLE 7 ( cont i nued)
Methods of Groundwater Cont r ol
Method
5. Sheet p i l i n g cut -
of f
6. Sl ur r y t r ench cut -
of f ( s e e DM-7.3,
Chapt er 3 and
DM-7.1, Chapt er 6)
7. Fr eezi ng ( s e e
DM-7.3, Chapt er 2)
a. Ammonium/brine
r e f r i g e r a t o r
So i l s Sui t a bl e
For Treatment
A l l t ypes of s o i l
( except boul der beds).
Tongue and groove wood
s heet i ng u t i l i z e d f o r
shal l ow excavat i ons i n
s o f t and medium s o i l s .
S i l t s , sands, gr avel s ,
and cobbl es.
A l l t ypes of s a t ur a t e d
s o i l s and rock.
Uses
Pr ac t i c a 1 l y unr e-
s t r i c t e d use.
Pr a c t i c a l l y unre-
s t r i c t e d . Ext ensi ve
c u r t a i n wal l s around
open excavat i ons.
Formation of i c e i n
t he voi ds s t ops
water.
Comments
Well-understood method us i ng
r e a di l y a va i l a bl e pl ant .
Rapid i n s t a l l a t i o n . St e e l
can be i ncor por at ed i n perma-
nent works o r r ecover ed.
Sump pumping may be r equi r ed.
Est i mat e seepage fl ow based
on 0.01 gpmlsq f t of wal l per
f oot of d i f f e r e n t i a l head.
Decrease i nt e r l oc k l eakage by
f i l l i n g i nt e r l oc k wi t h saw-
d u s t , be nt oni t e , cement
gr out , o r s i mi l a r ma t e r i a l s .
- -
Rapi dl y i ns t a l l e d. Can be
keyed i n t o impermeable s t r a t a
such a s c l a ys or s o f t s hal es .
May be i mpr act i cal t o key in-
t o har d o r i r r e g u l a r bedrock
s ur f a c e s , o r i n open gr avel s .
Treatment e f f e c t i v e from
working s ur f a c e outwards.
Better f o r l a r ge a ppl i c a t i ons
of l ong dur at i on. Treatment
t a ke s l onger t i m e t o
devel ops.
TABLE 7 (cont i nued)
Methods of Groundwater Cont rol
Method
b. Liquid ni t r o-
gen r ef r i ger -
ant
8. Diaphragm
s t r uc t ur a l wal l s
a. Diaphragm
wal l s ( st r uc-
t u r a l con-
c r e t e ) ( see
DM-7.3, C h a p
ter 3)
b. Contiguous
bored p i l e
wal l s o r
impervious wal l
of mixed i n
pl ace pi l e s
Soi l s Sui t abl e
For Treatment
A l l t ypes of s at ur at ed
s o i l s and rock.
A l l s o i l t ypes includ-
i ng t hose cont ai ni ng
boulders.
A l l s o i l t ypes but
penet r at i on through
boul ders may be
d i f f i c u l t and cos t l y
Uses
Formation of ice i n
t he voi ds st ops
water.
Deep basements,
underground con-
s t r uct i on, shaf t s.
Deep basements,
underground con-
s t r uct i on, s haf t s .
,
Comments
Bet t er f or small appl i cat i ons
of s hor t dur at i on where quick
f r eezi ng i s requi red. Liquid
ni t r ogen i s expensive.
Requires s t r i c t si t e cont r ol .
Some ground heave occurs.
Can be designed t o form par t
of a permanent foundation.
Par t i cul ar l y e f f i c i e nt f o r
c i r c ul a r excavat i ons. Can be
keyed i nt o rock. Minimum
vi br at i on and noise. Can be
used i n r e s t r i c t e d space.
Can be put down very cl os e t o
exi s t i ng foundation.
A r api dl y i ns t a l l e d, form of
diaphragm wall. Can be keyed
i nt o impermeable s t r a t a such
a s cl ays or s of t shal es.
FIRST STAGE
GROUND
__----
FINE SILTY SAND
------__
-------------
. . .
NOTE: PUMPING FROM FIRST- STAGE SYSTEM LOWERS WATER TABLE APPROXIMATELY 15FEET WHICH WILL
PERMIT EXCAVATION FORINSTALLATION OFSECOND-STACiE SYSTEM.
DEWATERING USING TWO STAGE WELLPOINT SYSTEM WATER LEVEL AFTER FIRST S T A G E @m M OFEXCAVATION
@WATER LEVEL AFTER SECOND STAGE
@ TWO STAGE -WELLPOINT SYSTEM
+ 22 + 22
I. PI EZOMETER 4. CLAY
2. GROUNDWATER LEVEL 5. DEEP WELLS
3. SAND
6. ARTESIAN WATER PRESSURE REDUCED
TO-36 FEET (HORIZONTAL SCALE/VERTlCAL
SCALE = 2/51
7 DOWNWARD PRESSURE (TCTAL WEIGHT OFSOIL)
DEWATERING SYSTEM OF A DRY DOCK PIT
@ COMBlNE WELLPOINT AND DEEPWELL SYSTEM
FIGURE 13
Methods of Construction Dewatering
r
WATERTABLE
GRAVEL FILTER
JETTING HOLES
(C) DETAILS OF W E W T !WSfW
I. PERFORATED WELL LINER
2. DELIVERY PIPE
3 FILTER MEMA
4. ELECTRIC SUBMERSIBLE PUMP
(Dl DETAILS OF DEEP WELL WITH SUBMERSIBLE PUMP
FIGURE 13 (continued)
Methods of Construction Dewatering
( 2)
Si des of t r enches i n uns t abl e o r s o f t mat er i al , 4 f e e t o r more
i n dept h, s h a l l be shored, sheet ed, braced, sl oped, o r ot herwi se support ed by
ineans of sufficient s t r engt h t o pr ot ect t he employee working wi t hi n them.
( 3 ) Si des of t r enches i n hard or compact s o i l , i ncl udi ng embank-
ments, s h a l l be shored or ot herwi se support ed when t he t r ench i s more t han 4
f e e t i n dept h and 8 f e e t o r more i n l engt h. In l i e u of shor i ng, t he s i d e s of
t he t r ench above t h e &f oot l e v e l may be sl oped t o precl ude c ol l a ps e , but
s h a l l not be s t eeper t han a 1-foot r i s e t o each 112-foot hor i zont al . When t he
out s i de di amet er of a pi pe i s gr e a t e r t han 6 f e e t , a bench of 4-foot minimum
s h a l l be provided a t t he t oe of t he sl oped port i on.
( 4 ) Mat er i al s used f o r sheet i ng and sheet p i l i n g , br aci ng, s hor i ng,
and underpinning s h a l l be i n good s er vi ceabl e condi t i on. Timbers used s h a l l
be sound and f r e e from l a r ge o r l oose knot s, and s h a l l be desi gned and
i n s t a l l e d so a s t o be e f f e c t i ve t o t he bottom of t he excavat i on.
( 5)
Addi t i onal precaut i ons by way of shori ng and br aci ng shal l . be
t aken t o prevent s l i d e s o r cave-ins when ( a ) excavat i ons or t r enches a r e made
i n l ocat i ons adj acent t o backf i l l ed excavat i ons; o r ( b ) where excavat i ons a r e
subj ect ed t o vi br at i ons from r a i l r oa d or highway t r a f f i c , oper at i on of
machinery, or any ot her source.
( 6) Employees ent er i ng bell-bottom pi e r hol es s h a l l be pr ot ect ed by
t he i n s t a l l a t i o n of a removable-type casi ng of s u f f i c i e n t s t r e ngt h t o r e s i s t
s h i f t i n g of t he surroundi ng ear t h. Such temporary pr ot ect i on s h a l l be provid-
ed f o r t he f u l l dept h of t ha t pa r t of each pi e r hol e which i s above t he be l l .
A l i f e l i n e , s u i t a b l e f or i n s t a n t rescue and secur el y f ast ened t o t h e s h a f t s ,
s h a l l be provided. Thi s l i f e l i n e s h a l l be i ndi vi dual l y manned and s epar at e
from any l i n e used t o remove mat er i al s excavated from t he b e l l f oot i ng.
( 7) Minimum requi rement s f or t r ench t i mberi ng s h a l l be i n accordance
wi t h Table 3.
(8)
Where employees a r e r equi r ed t o be i n t r enches 3 f e e t deep o r
more, l adder s s h a l l be provided which ext end from t he f l oor of t h e t r ench
excavat i on t o a t l e a s t 3 f e e t above t he t op of t he excavat i on. They s h a l l be
l ocat ed t o provi de means of e x i t wi t hout more t han 25 f e e t of l a t e r a l t r a ve l .
( 9)
Bracing or shori ng of t r enches s h a l l be c a r r i e d al ong wi t h t h e
excavat i on.
(10) Cross br aces or t r ench j acks s h a l l be pl aced i n t r u e hor i zont al
pos i t i on, spaced v e r t i c a l l y , and secured t o prevent s l i di ng, f a l l i n g , or ki ck-
out s.
(11)
Por t abl e t r ench boxes or s l i di ng t r ench s hi e l ds may be used f o r
t he pr ot ect i on of employees only. Trench boxes or s hi e l ds s h a l l be desi gned,
cons t r uct ed, and mai nt ai ned t o meet accept abl e engi neeri ng st andar ds.
(12) Backf i l l i ng and removal of t r ench suppor t s s h a l l pr ogr es s
t oget her from t h e bottom of t he t rench. Jacks or br aces s h a l l be r el eas ed
sl owl y, and i n unst abl e s o i l , ropes s h a l l be used t o pul l out t he j acks o r
br aces from above a f t e r employees have cl ear ed t he t rench.
REFERENCES
1. Clough, G.W. and Davidson, R.R., Ef f ect s of Const ruct i on on
Geotechnical Engineering, Speci al t y Session No. 3, Rel at i onshi p Between
Design and Construction i n Soi l Engineering, Ninth I nt er nat i onal
Conference on Soi l Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 1977.
2. Departments of t he Army and t he Air Force, Soi l s and Geology,
Procedures f or Foundation Design of Bui l di ngs and Other St r uct ur es
(Except Hydraulic St r uct ur es) , TM 5/818-1/AFM 88-3, Chapter 7,
Washington, D.C., 1979.
3. Terzaghi, K., St a bi l i t y of St eep Slopes on Hard Unweathered Rock,
Norwegian Geotechnical I ns t i t ut e , Publ i cat i on No. 50, 1963.
4. Pet ersen, E.V., Cave-In!, Roads and Engineering Const ruct i on, November
1963, December 1963, January 1964.
5. Goldberg, D.T., Jaworkski, W.E., and Gordon, M.D., Lat er al Support
Systems and Underpinning, Vol. 11, Design Fundamentals, Vol. 111.
Construction Methods, Federal Highway Admi ni st rat i on, Report Nos.
FWA-RD-75-129, 130, 1976.
6. Bjerrum, L., Clausen, J.F. and Duncan, J. M. , St a b i l i t y of Fl exi bl e
St r uct ur es, General Report, Proceedings, Fi f t h I nt er nat i onal European
Conference on Soi l Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 11, 1977'.
7. Lambe, T.W., Braced Excavation, 1970 Speci al t y Conference, Lat er al
St r esses i n t he Ground and Design of Eart h Ret ai ni ng St r uct ur es, June
22-24, Cornel l Uni versi t y, ASCE, 1971.
8. Peck, R.B., Deep Excavations and Tunneling i n Sof t Ground, Proceedi ngs,
Seventh I nt er nat i onal Conference on Soi l Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neeri ng, State-of-the-Art Vol. 1, 1969.
9. O'Rourke, T.P., Cording, E.J. and Boscardin, M., Damage t o Brick
Bearing Wall St r uct ur es Caused by Adjacent Braced Cuts and Tunnels,
Large Ground Movements, John Wiley & Sons, 1977.
10. Cat er pi l l ar Tract or Co., Handbook of Ripping, Fi f t h Edi t i on, Peor i a,
IL., 1975.
11. Frankl i n, J.A., Broch, E. and Walton, G., Logging t he Mechanical
Charact er of Rock, Transact i ons, I ns t i t ut i on of Mining and Met al l urgy,
January 1971.
12. Broch, E. and Frankl i n, J.A., The Point-load St r engt h Test , I nt er -
nat i onal Journal Rock Mechanics and Mining Sci ence, Vol. 9, 1972.
13. Bureau of Mines, Bl ast i ng Vi brat i ons and Thei r Ef f ect on St r uct ur es ,
United St at es Department of t he I nt er i or , 1971.
14. Hendron, A.J., Engineering of Rock Blasting on Civil Projects, Rock
Excavation Seminar Lectures, ASCE, New York, October, 1976.
15. Cashman, P.M. and Harris, E.T., Control of Groundwater by Water
Lowering, Conference on Ground Engineering, Institute of Civil
Engineers, London, 1970.
16. Mazurkiewicz, B.K., Design and Construction of Dry Docks, Trans Tech
Publications, Rockport, MA, 1980.
17. Public Law 91-596 (Williams-Steiger Act), Occupational Safety and
Health Act (OSHA) of 1970, Dec. 29, 1970.
18 Naval Facilities Command P-Publication, P-418, Dewatering
and Groundwater Control.
CHAPTER 2. COMPACTION, EARTHWORK, AND HYDRAULIC FILLS
Sect i on 1. INTRODUCTION
1. SCOPE. Thi s chapt er concerns desi gn and cons t r uct i on of compacted f i l l s
and performance of compacted mat er i al s . Compaction requi rement s a r e gi ven f o r
var i ous appl i cat i ons and equipment. Earthwork cont r ol procedures and a n a l y s i s
of cont r ol t e s t dat a a r e di scussed. Guidance on hydr aul i c f i l l s i s a l s o
i ncl uded.
2. RELATED CRITERIA. For addi t i onal c r i t e r i a concerned wi t h compaction and
eart hwork oper at i ons , consul t t he fol l owi ng sources :
Subj ect Source
Pavements...............................................NAVFAC DM-5.4
So i l Conservation.......................................NAVFAC DM-5.11
Fl exi bl e Pavement Design f o r Airfield...................NAVFAC DM-21.3
Dredging ............................................... F A DM-26
Types of Dredging Equipment.............................NA DM-38
PURPOSE OF COMPACTION.
( 1) Reduce mat er i al compr es s i bi l i t y.
( 2) I ncr eas e mat er i al s t r engt h.
( 3) Reduce permeabi l i t y.
( 4) Cont rol expansion.
(5) Cont rol f r o s t s us c e pt i bi l i t y.
4. APPLICATIONS. The pr i nci pal uses of compacted f i l l i ncl ude s uppor t of
s t r u c t u r e s o r pavements, embankments f o r water r e t e nt i on or f o r l i n i n g r es er -
voi r s and canal s , and b a c k f i l l surroundi ng s t r u c t u r e s or buri ed u t i l i t i e s .
TYPES OF FILL.
a. Cont r ol l ed Compacted Fi l l s . Properl y placed compacted f i l l wi l l be
more r i g i d and uniform and have gr e a t e r s t r engt h t han most na t ur a l s o i l s .
b. Hydraul i c Fi l l s . Hydraul i c f i l l s cannot be compacted duri ng pl ace-
ment and t her ef or e i t i s i mport ant t h a t t he source mat er i al s be s el ect ed car e-
f ul l y.
c. Uncont rol l ed Fi l l s . These c ons i s t of s o i l s or i n d u s t r i a l and domes-
t i c wast es, such a s ashes, s l ag, chemical wast es, bui l di ng r ubbl e, and r ef us e.
Use of as h, s l a g , and chemical waste i s s t r i nge nt l y cont r ol l ed and c ur r e nt
Environmental Pr ot ect i on Agency o r ot her appr opr i at e r egul at i ons must be con-
si der ed.
Section 2. EMBANKMENT CROSS-SECTION DESIGN
1. INFLUENCE OF MATERIAL TYPE. Table 1 lists some typical properties of
compacted soils which may be used for preliminary analysis. For final analy-
sis engineering property tests are necessary.
a. Utilization. See Table 2 for relative desirability of various soil
types in earth fill dams, canals, roadways and foundations. Although practi-
cally any nonorganic insoluble soil may be incorporated in an embankment when
modern compaction equipment and control standards are employed, the following
soils may be difficult to use economically:
( 1 )
Fine-grained soils may have insufficient shear strength or ex-
cessive compressibility.
(2) Clays of medium to high plasticity may expand if placed under
low confining pressures and/or at low moisture contents. See DM-7.1, Chapter
1 for identification of soils susceptible to volume expansion.
(3)
Plastic soils with high natural moisture are difficult to pro-
cess for proper moisture for compaction.
( 4 )
Stratified soils may require extensive mixing of borrow.
2. EMBANKMENTS ON STABLE FOUNDATION. The side slopes of fills not subjected
to seepage forces ordinarily vary between 1 on 1-1/2 and 1 on 3. The geometry
of the slope and berms are governed by requirements for erosion control and
maintenance. See DM-7.1, Chapter 7 for procedures to calculate stability of
embankments.
3. EMBANKMENTS ON WEAK FOUNDATIONS. Weak foundation soils may require par-
tial or complete removal, flattening of embankment slopes, or densification.
Analyze cross-section stability by methods of DM-7.1, Chapter 7. See DM-7.3,
Chapter 2 for methods of deep stabilization, and Chapter 3 for special prob-
lem soils.
4. EMBANKMENT SETTLEMENT. Settlement of an embankment is caused by founda-
tion consolidation, consolidation of the embankment material itself, and
secondary compression in the embankment after its completion.
a. Foundation Settlement. See DM-7.1, Chapter 5 for procedures to
decrease foundation settlement or to accelerate consolidation. See DM-7.3,
Chapter 1 for guidance on settlement potential under seismic conditions.
b. Embankment Consolidation. Significant excess pore pressures can
develop during construction of fills exceeding about 80 feet in height or for
lower fills of plastic materials placed wet of optimum moisture. ~issi~ation
of these excess pore pressures after construction results in settlement. For
earth dams and other high fills where settlement is critical, construction
pore pressures should be monitored by the methods of DM-7.1, Chapter 2.
LABIZ 1
Typi cal Pr oper t i es of Compacted Soi l s
croup
Symbol
CU
CP
CH
CC
SU
SP
SH
SH-SC
SC
HI.
PIL-CL
CL
OL
W
Cll
OH
Notes:
1. Al l propert i ea ar e For condi t i on of "Standard Proctor" mximun 3. Compresaion values a r e f or ver t i cal loading with complete
deosity, except vr l wa of k and CBR which ar e f or "modified l at er al con inement.
Proctor. maximum dmsity.
4. 0) indicate. t hat t ypi cal property i s great er than t he val ue
2. Typical mtength charact eri at i cm ar e f or ef f ect i ve atrength mhovn.
envelopes and ar e obtained from USBR data. (..) i ndi cat es insufficient data avai l abl e f or an estimate.
Soi l Type
Well graded cl ean gravelm.
gravel-nand mixtures.
Poorly graded cl ean
gravels. gravel-sand mix
Si l t y gravel s, poorly
graded gravel-sand-silt.
Clayey gravela. poorly
graded gravel-aand-clay.
Well graded cl ean aands,
gravel l y aands.
Poorly graded cl ean mandm.
sand-gravel mlx.
Si l t y sands. poorly graded
sand-si l t mix.
S a n d ~ i l t c l a y mi x u i t h
al i ght l y pl as t i c fines.
Clayey aandm, poorly
graded sand-clay-mix.
Inorganic a i l t a and clayey
a i l t s .
Mixture of inorganic a i l t
and clay.
Inorganic claya of la, t o
medium pl ast i ci t y.
Organic s i l t a and m i l t -
claya. lw plasticity.
Inorganic clayey s i l t s .
e l a s t i c s i l t s .
Inorganic cl ays of high
pl as t i ci t y
Organic cl ays and s i l t y
cl ays
Ranpe of
Maximu
Dry Unit
Weight,
pcf
125 - 135
115 - 125
120 - 135
115 - 130
110 - 130
100 - 120
110 - 125
110- 130
105 - 125
95 - 120
100 - 120
95 - 120
80 - 100
70 - 95
75 - 105
65 - 100
Range of
Optimum
PIolature,
Parcant
11 - 8
14 - 11
12 - 8
14 - 9
16 - 9
21 - 12
16 - I1
1 5 - 1 1
19 - 11
24 - 12
22 - 12
24 - 12
33 - 21
40 - 24
36 - 19
45 - 21
Typical Value of
Compresaion
At 1.4
tmf
(20 psi )
At 3.6
t af
(50 pmi)
Typical
Cohesion
(an c w
patted)
paf
0
0
.....
.....
0
0
1050
I050
1550
1400
1350
1800 .
...............
1500
2150
..........
Typical
Coeffi ci ent
of Per mer
bi l l t y '
ft./min.
5 x
10-1
>lo-(
>lo-?
>lo-3
>lo-3
5 x >lO-5
2 x >lo-(
5x>10- 7
>10-5
5 x >LO-7
>lo-7
..........
5 x >lo-7
>10-7
..........
StrenRth
Cohesion
(maturated)
paf
0
0
.....
.....
0
0
420
300
2 30
190
460
270
4 20
230
Percent
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.3
.....
2.0
2.6
.....
Range of
CBR Valuam
40 - 80
30 - 60
20 - 60
20 - 40
20 - 40
10 - 40
10 - 40
5 - 30
5 - 2 0
15 or lema
.....
15 or lea.
5 or l e s s
10 or lemm
15 or Isam
5 or l eas
of Original
Height
0.6
0.9
1.1
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.4
2.2
1.7
2.2
2.5
3.8
3.9
.....
Range of
Subgr.de
Hodulum
k
l b l c u in.
300 - 500
250 - 400
100 - 400
100 - 300
200 - 300
200 - 300
100 - 300
100 - 300
100- 300
100 - 200
50 - 200
50 - 100
50 - 100
50 - 150
25 - 100
Characterimtics
0
( I f f act iva
St reaa
Envelop.
Dcgreaa)
>38
>37
>34
>31
38
37
34
33
31
32
32
28
.....
25
19
.....
Tao 9
>0.79
>0.74
>0.67
>0.60
0.79
0.74
0.67
0.66
0.60
0.62
0.62
0.54
0.47
0.35
TABLE 2
Re l a t i ve De s i r a bi l i t y of So i l s a s Compacted F i l l
- Not appr opr l ace f or t h i s t ype of use.
Group
Symbol
GW
GP
GM
CC
SW
SP
St4
SC
ML
CL
OL
MN
CH
OH
-- - ---
Soi l Type
Well graded gr avel s , gravel -
sand mi xt ur es, l i t t l e o r no
f i n e s
Poorly-graded gr avel s ,
gravel-sand mi xt ures, l i t t l e
or no f i ne s
S i l t y gr avel s , poorly graded
gr avel - sand- si l t mi xt ures
Clayey gr avel s , poorly graded
gravel-sand-clay mi xt ures
Well-graded sands, gr avel l y
sands, l i t t l e o r no f i ne s
Poorly-graded sands, gr avel l y
sands, l i t t l e o r no f i ne s
Si l t y sands, poorly graded
sand- si l t mi xt ures
Clayey sands, poorl y graded
sand-clay mi xt ures
Inorgani c s i l t s and very f i n e
sands, rock f l our , s i l t y or
cl ayey f i n e sands wi t h s l i g h t
p l a s t i c i t y
I nor gani c cl ays of low t o
medium p l a s t i c i t y , gr avel l y
cl ays , sandy cl ays , s i l t y
cl ays , l ean c l a ys
Organic S i l t s and or gani c
s i l t - c l a ys of low p l a s t i c i t y
Inorgani c s i l t s , micaceous or
diatomaceous f ~ n e sandy o r
s i l t y s o i l s , e l a s t i c s i l t s
I nor gani c cl ays of hi gh
pl a s t i c i t y, f a t c l a ys
Organic c l a ys of medium hi gh
p l a s t i c i t y
--
RELATIVE DESIRABILITY FOR VARIOUS USES
(No. 1 i s Considered t he Best. No. 14 Least Desi r abl e)
Rolled
m
2
0
U c
e
85
x u
-
-
2
1
-
-
4
3
6
5
8
9
7
10
Ear t h
e
0
-
-
4
I
-
-
5
2
6
3
8
9
7
10
Canal
0
g
c m
0 u
., 1
U . . 4 o 10
* U
w D L
1
2
4
3
6
7
i f
gr avel l y
8
i f
gr avel l y
5
-
9
-
10
-
F i l l Dams
,-, rl
C
m
1
2
-
-
3
i f
gr avel l y
4
i f
gr avel l y
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sect i ons
2
w c
: 2
m s n u
I :
LI w
-
-
4
I
-
-
5
er osi on
c r i t i c a l
2
6
er osi on
c r i t i c a l
3
7
er osi on
c r i t i c a l
-
8-vol
change
c r i t i c a l
-
U
c
U m
m u m u
m r(
O :
-
-
1
2
-
-
3
4
6
5
7
8
9
10
Foundations
u C
2
1
3
4
6
2
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
m
.A
U
m
U *
m
s
3
-
5
1
4
-
6
2
-
7
-
-
-
-
u
Ur l
%5
0 1 I r O
, 2
2
1
3
4
5
2
6
6
7
10
9
11
12
13
14
Roadways
F i l l s
U
%
WU
x r l
a 4 3
E l
1
3
9
5
2
4
10
6
11
7
12
13
8
14
c. Secondary Compression. Even f o r well-compacted embankments, second-
a r y compression and shear s t r a i n can cause s l i g h t s et t l ement s a f t e r compl e-
t i on. Normally t h i s i s onl y of s i gni f i cance i n hi gh embankments, and can
-
amount t o between 0.1 and 0.2 percent of f i l l hei ght i n t hr ee t o f our ye a r s o r
between 0.3 and 0.6 per cent i n 15 t o 20 year s. The l a r g e r val ues a r e f o r
fi ne-grai ned p l a s t i c s oi l s .
5. EARTH DAM EMBANKMENTS. Eval uat e s t a b i l i t y a t t hr e e c r i t i c a l stages; t h e
end of cons t r uct i on s t age, st eady s t a t e seepage s t age, and r api d drawdown
st age. See DM-7.1, Chapter 7 f or pore pr essur e d i s t r i b u t i o n a t t he s e s t a g e s .
Seismic f or ces must be i ncl uded i n t he eval uat i on. Requirements f o r s eepage
cut of f . and s t a b i l i t y d i c t a t e desi gn of c r os s s ect i on and u t i l i z a t i o n o f borrow
mat er i al s .
a. Seepage Cont rol . Normally t he eart hwork of an e a r t h dam is zoned
wi t h t he l e a s t pervi ous, fi ne-grai ned s o i l s i n t he c e n t r a l zone and c o a r s e s t ,
most s t a b l e mat er i al i n t he s he l l . Analyze seepage by t he methods of DM-7.1,
Chapter 6.
( 1 ) Cutoff Trench. Consider t he p r a c t i c a b i l i t y of a p o s i t i v e cut -
of f t r ench ext endi ng t o impervious s t r a t a beneat h t he embankment and i n t o t he
abutments.
( 2) I nt er cept i ng Seepage. For a properl y desi gned and c o n s t r u c t e d
zoned e a r t h dam, t he r e is l i t t l e danger from seepage t hrough t he embankment.
Drainage desi gn gener al l y i s di c t a t e d by neces s i t y f o r i nt er cept i ng s eepage
t hrough t he foundat i on or abutments. Downstream seepage condi t i ons are more
c r i t i c a l f o r homogeneous f i l l s . See DM-7.1, Chapter 6 f o r drai nage a n d f i l -
t e r requi rement s.
b. Pi pi ng and Cracking. A g r e a t danger t o e a r t h dams, p a r t i c u l a r l y
t hose of zoned cons t r uct i on, i s t he t hr e a t of cr acki ng and pi pi ng. Se r i o u s
cracki ng may r e s u l t from t ensi on zones caused by di f f e r e nc e s i n s t r e s s - s t r a i n
pr oper t i es of zoned mat er i al . See Fi gure 1 (Reference 1, I nf l uence of S o i l
Pr oper t i es and Const ruct i on Methods on t he Performance of Homogeneous Ea r t h
Dams, by Sherard) f or c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of mat er i al s accordi ng t o r e s i s t a n c e t o
pi pi ng o r cracki ng. Analyze t he embankment s e c t i on f o r pot e nt i a l t e n s i o n zone
development. Pl ace an i n t e r n a l dr ai nage l a ye r immediately downstream of t h e
cor e t o c ont r ol seepage from pos s i bl e cracki ng i f foundat i on s e t t l e me n t s a r e
expected t o be high.
c. Di sper si ve Soi l . Di spersi ve cl ays should not be used i n dam embank-
ments. Determine t he di s per s i on pot e nt i a l usi ng Tabl e 3 o r t he method out l i n-
ed i n Reference 2, Pi nhol e Test f o r I dent i f yi ng Di sper si ve So i l s , by Sher ar d,
et al . A hol e t hrough a di s per s i ve c l a y wi l l i ncr eas e i n s i z e as water fl ows
t hrough (due t o t he breakdown of t he s o i l s t r uc t ur e ) , whereas t he s i z e of a
hol e i n a non-di spersi ve c l a y would remain e s s e n t i a l l y const ant . Ther ef or e,
dams const r uct ed wi t h di s per s i ve cl ays a r e ext remel y s us c e pt i bl e t o pi pi ng.
FIGURE 1
Resistance of Earth Dam Embankment Materials To Piping and Cracking
.
US STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS 2 - HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
+ an n 8 3 8 9 8 8
GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS
COeeLES
COARSE 1 FINE -1 MEDIUM I
GRAVEL I SAND
1 s I L T r n a * I ( ~ m c o ~ NON-MK:) I
CATEGORY
PIPING RESISTANCE:
0
MATERIAL
CL AND CH WITH PI ) IS, WELL
GRADED SC WITH PI ) 15.
CL AND ML WlTH PI( 15, WELL
GRADED sc AND GC wr r ~
15 ) PI )7.
SP AND UNIFORM SM AND ML
WITH PI ( 7.
CHARACTERISTICS
GRENEST RESISTANCE TO PIPING,SMALL AND MEDIUM CON-
CENTRATED LEAKS Wl U HEALTHEMSELVES. EMBANKMENT
MAY Fi4lL AS A RESULT OF SLOWLY PROGRESSIVE PIPING
CAUSED BY LEAK OF ABOUT V2 CFS.
INTERMEDINE RESISTANCE TO PIPING. SMLY RESISTS
SATURATION OF LOWER PWION OF DOWNSTREAM SLOPE
INDEFINITELY MAY MI L EVENTUALLY AS A RESULT OF
EROSION CAUSED BYA SMALL CWCENTRATED LEAK OR BY
PROGRESSIVE SLOUGHING. IF A LARGE LEAK DEVELOPS,
PIPING CAUSES MIWRE IN A SHORT TIME.
LEAST RESISTANCE TO PIPING.USUAUY FAILS IN A FEW YEARS
AFTER FIRST RESERVOlR FILLING IF S E E M IS ABLE TO
BREAK OUT ON DOWNSTREAM SI DE. SMALL CONCENTRATED
LEAK ON DOWNSTREAM SWPE CAN CWSE FAILURE IN A
SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. HIGH DENSITY FROM COM-
PACTION INCREASES RESISTANCE SIGNIFICANTLY.
.
FIGURE 1 (continued)
Resistance of Earth Dam Embankment Materials To Piping and Cracking
CATBGORY
CRACKING RESISTC\NCE
@
@
0
MATERIAL
CHWITH &(OXnMM AND
PI )M
GC, SC,SM, SP WITH
osO ) 0. 15 MM
CL, ML AND SM WITH PI < 20,
0.15 MM ) D 5 ~ ) 0.02 MM.
CHARACTERlSllCS
HIGH POSTCONSTRUCTlON SETTLEMENT, PARTICULARLY IF
COMWCTED DRY. HAS SUFFICIENT DEFORMABILITY
TO UNDERGO LARGE SHEAR STRAINS FROM DIFFERENTIAL
SETTLEMENT WITHOUT -KING.
SMALL POSTCWSTRUCTlON SETTLEMENT. LITTLE
CHANCE FORCRACKING UNLESS POORtY COMP#CTED
AND LARGE SETTLEMENT IS IMPOSED ON EMBANK-
MENT BY GONSOLlDATlON OF WE FOUNDATION.
MEDIUM TO HIGH POSTCONSTRUCTION SETTLEMENT
AND VULNERABLE TO CRCICKING. SHOULD BE
COMPACTED AS WET AS POSSIBLE CONSISTENT WITH
STRENGTH REWI REMENTS.
TABLE 3
Clay Di spersi on Pot ent i al
*Percent Di spersi on
Over 40'
15 t o 40
0 t o 15
Di spersi ve Tendency
Highly Di spersi ve (do not use)
Moderately Di spersi ve
Resi st ant t o Di spersi on
*The r a t i o between t he f r act i on f i ne r t han 0.005 mm i n a soi l -wat er suspensi on
t ha t has been subj ect ed t o a minimum of mechanical a gi t a t i on, and t he t o t a l
f r act i on f i ne r t han 0.005 mm determined from a r egul ar hydrometer t e s t x 100.
Sect i on 3. COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
1. COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS.
a. Summary. See Table 4 f or a summary of compaction requi rement s of
f i l l s f or vari ous purposes. Modify t hese t o meet condi t i ons and ma t e r i a l s f or
s peci f i c proj ect s.
b. Speci f i cat i on Provisions. Speci fy t he desi red compaction r e s u l t .
St a t e t he requi red dens i t y, moi st ure l i m i t s , and maximum l i f t t hi cknes s ,
allowing t he -cont ract or freedom i n s el ect i on of compaction methods and equi p-
ment. Specify s peci al equipment t o be used i f l oc a l experi ence and a v a i l a b l e
mat er i al s so di ct at e.
2. COMPACTION METHODS AND EQUIPMENT. Table 5 l i st s commonly used compact i on
equipment wi t h t ypi cal s i zes and weights and guidance on use and a p p l i c a b i l i -
t y
3. INFLUENCE OF MATERIAL TYPE.
a. Soi l s ~ n s e n s i t i v e t o Compaction Moisture. Coarse-grained, g r a n u l a r
well-graded s o i l s wi t h less than 4 percent passing No. 200 s i eve (8 p e r c e n t
f or s o i l of uniform gradat i on) a r e i ns ens i t i ve t o compaction moisture. (These
s o i l s have a permeabi l i t y gr eat er than about 2 x 10-3 fpm.) Pl ace t h e s e
mat er i al s a t t he hi ghest pr act i cal moi st ure cont ent , pr ef er abl y s a t ur a t e d.
Vi brat ory compaction gener al l y i s t he most e f f e c t i ve procedure. In t h e s e
mat er i al s , 70 t o 75 percent r e l a t i ve densi t y can be obt ai ned by proper compac-
t i on procedures. I f t h i s is s ubs t ant i al l y hi gher than Standard Pr oct or maxi-
mum densi t y, use r e l a t i ve densi t y f or cont r ol . Gravel, cobbl es and boul de r s
a r e i ns ens i t i ve t o compaction moisture. Compaction wi t h smooth wheel v i b r a t -
i ng r o l l e r s i s t he most ef f ect i ve procedure. Use l ar ge s cal e tests, a s out -
l i ned i n Reference 3, Cont rol of Ear t h Rockf i l l f o r Or ovi l l e Dam, by Gordon
and Miller.
b. Soi l s Sens i t i ve t o Compaction Moisture. S i l t s and some s i l t y s a nds
have s t e e ~ moisture-density curves, and f i e l d moi st ure must be c ont r ol l e d
wi t hi n nairow limits f or e i f e c t i ve -compaction. Clays a r e s ens i t i ve t o mois-
t ur e i n that i f t hey a r e too we t they a r e d i f f i c u l t t o dr y t o optimum moi s-
ture, and i f t hey a r e dr y i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o mi x t he water i n uniformly.
Sens i t i ve cl ays do not respond t o compaction because t hey l os e s t r e ngt h upon
remolding o r manipulation.
c. Ef f ect of Oversize. Oversize r e f e r s t o pa r t i c l e s l a r ge r t han t he
maximum s i z e allowed using a given mold (i.e. No. 4 f o r 4-inch mold, 3 / 4 i nch
f or 6-inch mold, 2-inch f or a-12-inch mold). Large s i z e pa r t i c l e s i n t e r f e r e
wi t h compaction of t he f i ne r s o i l f r act i on. For normal embankment compact i on
t he maximum s i z e cobbl e should not exceed 3 i nches o r 50 percent of t h e com-
pacted l ayer t hi ckness. Where economic borrow sources cont ai n l ar ger s i z e s ,
compaction trials should be run before approval.
TABLE 4
Compaction Requirements
F i l l Ut i l i zed
for:
Support of
s t r uct ur e
Lining f or
canal or small
r eser voi r
Earth dam
gr eat er than 50
f t . high
Earth dam l e s s
than 50 f t .
high
Support of
pavements:
Highways.....
Airfields....
Backf i l l
surrounding
s t r uct ur e
Required Density,
Per cent of
Modified Proctor
95
9 0
9 5
92
See NAVFAC DM-5
See NAVFAC DM-21
90
Special Requirements
F i l l should be uniform. Blending or processing of borrow may be
required. For pl a s t i c cl ays, i nvest i gat e expansion under sat ur at i on
f or vari ous compaction moisture and dens i t i es a t l oads equal t o those
applied by s t r uct ur e, t o determine condi t i on t o minimize expansion.
Clays t ha t show expansive tendencies general l y should be compacted a t
or above optimum moisture t o a densi t y consi st ent with s t r engt h
and i ncompressi bi l i t y required of the f i l l .
For t hi ck l i ni ngs , GW-GC, GC, SC a r e preferabl e f or s t a b i l i t y and t o
r e s i s t erosi ve forces. Single s i ze s i l t y sands with PI l e s s than f i ve
general l y a r e not sui t abl e. Remove fragments l ar ger than 6 inches
before compaction.
Ut i l i ze l e a s t pervious mat er i al s a s cent r al core and coar est mat er i al s
i n out er s hel l s . Core should be f r ee of l enses, pockets, or l ayer s of
pervious mat er i al and successive l i f t s well bonded t o each ot her.
Amounts of oversi ze exceeding 1 percent of t ot a l mat eri al should be
removed from t he borrow pr i or t o a r r i va l on t he embankment.
In small dams t ha t lack el aborat e zoning, mat er i al s t ha t a r e t he most
vulnerable t o cracking and piping should be compacted t o 98 percent
densi t y a t moisture content from optimum t o 3 percent i n excess of
optimum.
Place coar est borrow mat er i al s a t top of f i l l . I nvest i gat e expansion
of pl a s t i c cl ays placed near pavement subgrade t o determine compaction
moisture and densi t y t hat w i l l minimize expansion and provide required
soaked CBR values.
Where ba c kf i l l i s t o be drained, provide pervious coarse-grained
soi l s. For low wal l s, do not permit heavy r ol l i ng compaction
equipment t o operat e cl oser t o t he wall than a di st ance equal t o about
213 t he unbalanced height of f i l l a t any time. For highwalls or wal l s
of speci al design, eval uat e the surcharge produced by heavy compaction
equipment by t he methods of Chapter 3 and speci fy saf e di st ances back
of the wall f or i t s operations.
Tolerable Range
of Moisture
AboutOptimum,
Percent
-2 t o +2
-2 t o +2
-1 t o +2
-1 t o +3
-2. t o +2
-2 t o +2
-2 t o +2
Maximum
Permissible Li f t
Thickness,
Compacted in.
12
6
12 (+I
12(+)
a(+)
a(+)
a(+)
TABLE 4 (continued)
Compaction Requirements
Notes:
1. Density and moisture content refer to "Modified
Proctor" test values (ASTM D 1557)
F i l l Utilized
for:
Backfi l l i n
pipe or u t i l i t y
trenchbs
Drainage
blanket or
f i l t e r
Subgrade of
excavation f or
st r uct ur e
Rock f i l l
2. Generally, a f i l l compacted dry of OMC w i l l have higher
st rengt h and a lower compreesibility even a f t e r saturation.
3. Cornpaction of "Coarse-grained, granular soi l " i s not sensi-
t i ve t o moisture content so long as bulking moisture i s
avoided. Where practicable, they should be placed saturated
and compacted by vibratory methods.
Required Density,
Percent of
Hodif l ed Proctor
90
90
95
-
Tolerable Range
of Moisture
About Optimum,
Percent
-2 t o +2
Thoroughly
wetted
-2 t o +2
Thoroughly
wetted
--- -
Ihxipum
Permissible Li f t
Thickness,
Compacted in.
a(+)
8
-
2 t o 3 f t .
- - - -
Special Requirements
Material excavated from trench generally is sui t abl e f or backf i l l i f
i t does not contain organic matter or refuse. I f backf i l l is f i ne
grained, a cradl e f or the pipe is formed i n nat ural s oi l and backf i l l
placed by tamping t o provide the proper bedding. Where f r ee draining
sand and gravel i s ut i l i zed, the trench bottom may be finished f l a t
and the granular material placed sat urat ed under and around the pipe
and compacted by vibration.
Ordinarily vi brat ory compaction equi hent i s ut i l i zed. Blending of
materials may be required for homogeneity. Segregation must be pre-
vented i n placing and compaction. For compaction adjacent t o and
above drainage pipe, use hand tamping or l i ght t r avel l i ng vibrators.
For rmifoxm bearing or t o break up pockets of f r os t sueceptible mate-
r i a l , scar i f y the upper 8 t o 12 in. of the subgrade, dry or moisten as
necessary and recompact. Certain materiaps, such as heavily precon-
sol i dat ed clays which wi l l not benefi t by compaction, or sat urat ed
silts and s i l t y f i ne sands that become quick during compaction, should
be blanketed with a working mat of lean concrete or coarse grained
material t o prevent disturbance or softening. Depending on foundation
conditions revealed i n exploration, a subst ant i al thickness of loose
s oi l s may have t o be removed below subgrade and recompacted, or
compacted i n place by vi brat i on, or pi l e driving.
For f i l l containing s i zes no l ar ger than ft . , place i n l ayers not
exceeding 24 in. , thoroughly wetted and compacted by t r avel or heavy
crawler t r act or s i n spreading. Material with si zes up t o 2 f t . may be
placed i n 3 f t l i f t s . Placing should be such t hat the maximun s i ze of
rock increases toward the outer slopes. Bocks l ar ger than 1 cu yd i n
volume should be embedded on the slope.
TABLE 5
Compaction Equipment and Methods
Equipment
Type
Sheepsfoot
Rol l er s
Rubber Ti r e
Rol l er
Do.......
Smooth Wheel
Rol l er s
Do....
Appl i cabi l i t y
For f i ne- gr ai ned s o i l s o r
d i r t y coarse-grai ned s o i l s
wi t h more t han 20 per cent
passi ng No. 200 si eve. Not
s u i t a b l e f o r cl ean coarse-
gr ai ned s oi l s . Pa r t i c ul a r l y
appr opr i at e f o r compaction of
i mpervi ous zone f o r e a r t h dam
o r l i ni ngs where bonding of
l i f t s is i mport ant .
For cl ean, coarse-grai ned
s o i l s wi t h 4 t o 8 per cent
passi ng t he No. 200 si eve.
For f i ne- gr ai ned s o i l s o r wel l
graded, d i r t y coarse-grai ned
s o i l s wi t h more t han 8
per cent passi ng t he No. 200
si eve.
Appropri at e f o r subgrade o r
base cour se compaction of
we1 1-graded sand-gr avel
mi xt ur es.
May be used f or f i ne- gr ai ned
s o i l s ot he r t han i n e a r t h
dams. Not s u i t a b l e f o r
cl ean well-graded sands o r
s i l t y uniform sands.
s
Pos s i bl e Var i at i ons i n
Equipment
For e a r t h dam, highway and
a i r f i e l d work, a r t i c ul a t e d
s e l f pr opel l ed r o l l e r s a r e
commonly used. For smal l er
pr oj ect s , towed 40 t o 60
i nch drums a r e used. Foot
cont act pr essur e shoul d be
r egul at ed s o a s t o avoi d
shear i ng t he s o i l on t h e
t hi r d or f our t h pass.
Wide va r i e t y of rubber t i r e
compaction equipment i s
avai l abl e. For cohesi ve
s o i l s , l i ght -wheel l oads,
such a s provided by wobble-
wheel equipment, may be
s ubs t i t ut ed f o r heavy-wheel
l oad i f l i f t t hi ckness i s
decreased. For gr anul ar
s o i l s , l ar ge- si ze t i r e s a r e
des i r abl e t o avoi d shear
and r ut t i ng.
3-wheel r o l l e r s obt ai nabl e
i n wide range of si zes.
2-wheel tandem r o l l e r s a r e
avai l abe i n t he range of 1
t o 20 t on weight. 3-Axle
tandem r o l l e r s a r e gener-
a l l y used i n t he range of
10 t o 20 t ons weight. Very
heavy r o l l e r s a r e used f o r
proof r o l l i n g of subgrade
o r base course.
Requirements f o r Compaction of 95 t o 100 Per cent St andard Pr oct or
Maximum Densi t y
Compacted
Li f t
~ h i ~ k ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
i n.
6
10
6 t o 8
8 t o 12
6 t o 8
Passes o r
coverages
4 t o 6 passes
f o r f i ne-
gr ai ned s oi l .
6 t o 8 passes
f o r coarse-
gr ai ned s oi l .
3 t o 5
coverages
4 t o 6
coverages
4 coverages
1
6 coverages
Dimensions and Weight of Equipment
Foot Foot
Cont act Cont act
Area Pr essur es
sq. f t . p s i
So i l Type
Fine-grained 5 t o 12 250 t o 500
s o i l P1>30
Fine-grained 7 t o 14 200 t o 400
s o i l PI<30
Coarse-grained 10 t o 14 150 t o 250
s o i l
Ef f i c i e nt compaction of s o i l s wet of
optimum r equi r es l e s s cont act pres-
s ur e t han t he same s o i l s a t lower
moi st ur e cont ent s.
Ti r e i n f l a t i o n pr essur es of 35 t o 130
p s i f o r cl ean gr anul ar mat er i al o r
base cour se and subgrade compac-
t i on. Wheel l oad 18,000 t o 25,000
l bs.
Ti r e i n f l a t i o n pr essur es i n excess of
65 p s i , f o r fi ne-grai ned s o i l s of
hi gh pl a s t i c i t y. For uniform cl ean
sands o r s i l t y f i n e sands, use
l a r ge s i z e t i r e s wi t h pr essur es of
40 t o 50 ps i .
Tandem t ype r o l l e r s f or base cour se
o r subgrade compaction 10 t o 15 t on
wei ght , 300 t o 500 l b s per l i n e a l
i n. of wi dt h of r e a r r ol l e r .
3-wheel r o l l e r f o r compaction of
fi ne-grai ned s o i l ; wei ght s from 5
t o 6 t ons f o r mat er i al s of low
p l a s t i c i t y t o 10 t ons f o r mat er i al s
of hi gh pl a s t i c i t y.
TABLE 5 (continued)
Compaction Equipment and Methods
Equipment
TY pe
Vi br at i ng
Sheet sf oot
Rol l er s
Vi br at i ng
Smooth Drum
Rol l er s
Vi br at i ng
Basepl at e
Compactors
Crawl er
Tr act or
Power Tamper
o r Rammer
Appl i cabi l i t y
For coarse-grai ned s o i l s
sand-gravel mi xt ur es
For coarse-grai ned s o i l s
sand-gravel mi xt ur es - rock
f i l l s
For coarse-grai ned s o i l s wi t h
l e s s t han about 12 per cent
passi ng No. 200 si eve. Best
s ui t e d f or mat er i al s wi t h 4 t o
8 per cent passi ng No.200 si eve,
pl aced t horoughl y wet .
Best s ui t e d f o r coarse-grai ned
s o i l s wi t h l e s s t han 4 t o 8
per cent passi ng No. 200 s i eve,
pl aced t horoughl y wet.
For d i f f i c u l t access, t r ench
backf i l l . Sui t abl e f o r a l l
i nor gani c s oi l s .
Possi bl e Var i at i ons i n
Equipment
May have e i t h e r f i xed or
var i abl e c yc l i c frequency.
- do -
Vi br at i ng pads o r pl a t e s
a r e avai l abl e, hand-
pr opel l ed, s i ngl e or i n
gangs, wi t h wi dt h of cover-
age from 1-112 t o 15 f t .
Various t ypes of vi br at i ng-
drum equipment shoul d be
consi der ed f o r compaction
i n l a r ge ar eas.
Tractor weight up to 85 tons
Weights up t o 250 l bs. ,
f oot di amet er 4 t o 10 in.
Requirements f o r Compaction of 95 t o 100 Per cent St andard Pr oct or
Maximum Densi t y
Compacted
Li f t
Thi ckness,
i n.
8 t o 12
6 t o 12
( s o i l )
t o
36 ( r ock)
8 t o 10
6 t o 10
4 t o 6 i n.
f o r si l t
o r c l a y, 6
i n. f o r
coarse-
gr ai ned
~0118.
Passes o r
coverages
3 t o 5
3 t o 5
4 t o 6
3 coverages
3 t o 4
coverages
2 coverages
Dimensions and Weight of Equipment
1 t o 20 t ons bal l as t ed weight.
Dynamic f or ce up t o 20 tons.
- do -
Si ngl e pads or pl a t e s shoul d weigh
no l e s s t han 200 l bs. May be used i n
tandem where working space is avai l -
abl e. For cl ean coarse-grai ned s o i l ,
vi br at i on frequency shoul d be no less
t han 1,600 cycl es per minute.
Vehi cl e wi t h "Standard" t r acks having
cont act pr essur e not l e s s t han 10
psi .
30-lb minimum weight. Consi derabl e
range i s t ol e r a bl e , depending on
mat er i al s and condi t i ons.
Adjust l aborat ory maximum st andard densi t y (from moisture-density
r el at i ons test, see DM-7.1, Chapter 3) t o provide a r ef er ence densi t y t o which
f i e l d densi t y test r e s ul t s (wi t h over si ze) can be compared. U s e t he fol l owi ng
equations t o adj ust t he l aborat ory maximum dry densi t y and optimum moi st ure
cont ent t o val ues t o which f i e l d test dat a (wi t h over si ze pa r t i c l e s ) may be
compared.
where : ymax = adj ust ed maximum dry densi t y pcf
= l aborat ory maximum dry densi t y without
oversi ze , pcf
F = f r act i on of oversi ze pa r t i c l e s by weight
(from f i e l d densi t y t e s t )
where : wj = adj ust ed optimum mosi t ure cont ent
w = moisture cont ent of over si ze (from f i e l d dat a)
g
wo = l abor at or y optimum moi st ure cont ent without over si ze
The densi t y of oversi ze material is assumed as 162 pcf , obt ai ned from
bulk s peci f i c gr avi t y 2.60, mul t i pl i ed by 62.4.
This method i s considered s ui t a bl e when t he weight of over si ze i s
less than 60% by weight, f or well-graded mat eri al s. For poorly graded mate-
r i a l s , f ur t her adjustment may be appropri at e. This method i s modified a f t e r
t ha t descri bed i n Reference 4, Suggested Method f o r Correct i ng Maxim1 Im Densi-
t y and Optimum Moisture Content of Compacted Soi l s f o r Oversize Par t i cl es , by
McLeod; a l s o see Reference 5, Scalping and Replacement Ef f ect s on t he Compac-
t i on Char act er i st i cs of Earth-Rock Mixtures, by Donaghe and Townsend.
Sect i on 4. EMBANKMENT COMPACTION CONTROL
1 GROUND PREPARATION
( 1)
St r i p al l organi cs and any ot her det ri ment al mat er i al from t he sur-
face. In pr a i r i e s o i l s t h i s may amount t o removal of 2 or 3 i nches of top-
s o i l , and i n f or e s t covered land between 2 and 5 or more f eet . Only t he heavy
r oot ma t and t he stumps need be removed, not t he hai r - l i ke r oot s.
(2)
Remove subsurface s t r uct ur es or debr i s which wi l l i nt e r f e r e wi t h t he
compaction or t he speci f i ed ar ea use.
( 3) Scari fy t he s oi l , and bri ng it t o optimum moisture cont ent .
7.2-50
( 4) Compact t he s c a r i f i e d s o i l t o t he s peci f i ed dens i t y.
-
2. FIELD TEST SECTION. By t r i al , devel op a d e f i n i t e compaction pr ocedur e
(equipment, l i f t t hi cknes s , moi st ure appl i cat i on, and number of passes) which
w i l l produce t he s peci f i ed densi t y. Compaction cannot be cont r ol l ed adequat e-
l y by s pot t e s t i ng unl ess a w e l l def i ned procedure i s followed.
3. REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTROL TESTS. Perform i n-pl ace f i e l d dens i t y t est s
pl us s u f f i c i e n t l abor at or y moi st ure-densi t y t e s t s t o eval uat e compaction. For
hi gh embankments i nvol vi ng seepage, s et t l ement , o r s t a b i l i t y , per form p e r i o d i c
t e s t s f o r engi neeri ng pr oper t i es of dens i t y t e s t sampl es, e.g., per meabi l i t y
t e s t s , shear s t r e ngt h t e s t s . See DM-7.1, Chapter 3 f o r l abor at or y mo i s t u r e
dens i t y t e s t procedures and DM-7.1, Chapter 2 f o r f i e l d de ns i t y t e s t met hods.
a. Number of Fi el d Densi t y Test s. Speci f y t he fol l owi ng minimum test
schedul e :
( 1) One t e s t f or every 500 cu yd of mat er i al pl aced f or embankment
const r uct i on.
( 2) One t e s t f o r every 500 t o 1, 000 c u yd of mat er i al f o r c a n a l o r
r es er voi r l i n i n g s o r ot her r e l a t i v e l y t h i n f i l l s ect i ons .
( 3) One t e s t f o r every 100 t o 200 cu yd of b a c k f i l l i n t r e nc he s o r
around s t r uc t ur e s , depending upon t o t a l quant i t y of mat er i al involved.
( 4 )
A t l e a s t one t e s t f o r ever y f u l l s h i f t of compaction o p e r a t i o n s
on mass earthwork.
(5) One t e s t whenever t her e i s a d e f i n i t e s us pi ci on of a change i n
t he qua l i t y of moi st ur e cont r ol or ef f ect i venes s of compaction.
b. Fi el d Densi t y Tes t Methods. See DM-7.1, Chapter 2, f o r f i e l d d e n s i t y
t e s t methods.
Pr oof r ol l i ng ( s pot t i ng s o f t s pot s wi t h a rubber-t i red r o l l e r o r any
l oaded earth-moving equipment) may be used i n conj unct i on wi t h dens i t y test-
i ng, but i s p r a c t i c a l onl y f or ext ensi ve eart hwork or pavement courses.
c. Laborat ory Compaction Test s. Pr i or t o i mport ant eart hwork oper a-
t i ons , obt ai n a fami l y of compaction cur ves r epr es ent i ng t ypi c a l ma t e r i a l s .
I deal l y, t h i s fami l y w i l l form a group of p a r a l l e l cur ves and each f i e l d
dens i t y t e s t w i l l correspond t o a s pe c i f i c compaction curve.
During cons t r uct i on obt ai n supplementary compaction curves on f i e l d
dens i t y t e s t sampl es, approxi mat el y one f or every 10 o r 20 f i e l d t e s t s ,
depending on t he v a r i a b i l i t y of mat er i al s .
4. ANALYSIS OF CONTROL TEST DATA. Compare each f i e l d det er mi nat i on of mois-
t me and dens i t y wi t h appr opr i at e compaction curve t o eval uat e conformance t o
requi rement s.
a. S t a t i s t i c a l Study. Overal l anal ys i s of cont r ol t e s t dat a w i l l r eveal
general t r ends i n compaction and neces s i t y f or a l t e r i ng methods. I nevi t abl y,
a c e r t a i n number of f i e l d det ermi nat i ons w i l l f a l l below s peci f i ed dens i t y or
out si de s peci f i ed moisture range. Tabul at e f i e l d tests, not i ng t he percent age
di f f er ence between f i e l d densi t y and l abor at or y maximum dens i t y and between
f i e l d moi st ure and optimum.
b. Moisture Control. Close moi st ure cont r ol is evidenced i f two-thirds
of a l l f i e l d val ues f a l l i n a range f. 1 percent about t he median moi st ure
cont ent speci f i ed. Er r at i c moisture cont r ol i s evidenced i f approximately
two-thirds of a l l f i e l d val ues f a l l i n a range f. 3 percent about t he median
moisture cont ent speci fi ed. To improve moi st ure cont r ol , blend mat er i al s from
w e t and dry s ect i ons of borrow area.
c. Compactive Ef f or t . Sui t abl e compaction methods a r e being ut i l i z e d i f
approximately two-thirds of a l l f i e l d de ns i t i e s f a l l i n a range of 5 3
percent about t he percent maximum dens i t y required. ~ n s u f f i c i e n t or e r r a t i c
compaction i s evidenced i f approximately two-thirds of al l f i e l d val ues f a l l
i n a range of f. 5 percent about t he percent maximum densi t y requi red. To
improve compaction, consi der methods f or more uniform moi st ure cont r ol , a l t e r
t he number of coverages, weights, o r pr essur es of compaction equipment.
d. Overcompaction. A gi ven compactive e f f or t yi el ds a maximum dry
densi t y and a corresponding optimum moi st ure cont ent . I f t he compactive ef -
f o r t i s i ncreased, t he maximum dry dens i t y i ncr eases but t he corresponding
optimum moisture cont ent decreases. Thus, i f t he compactive e f f or t used i n
t he f i e l d i s hi gher t han t hat used i n t he l abor at or y f or es t abl i s hi ng t he
moisture densi t y r el at i ons hi p, t he s o i l i n t he f i e l d may be compacted above
i t s optimum moi st ure cont ent , and t he s t r engt h of t he s o i l may be lower even
though it has been compacted t o hi gher densi t y. Thi s i s of par t i cul ar concern
f o r high embankments and e a r t h dams. For f ur t her guidance see Reference 6,
St abi l i zat i on of Mat er i al s by Compaction, by Turnbul l and Fost er.
5. INDIRECT EVALUATION OF COMPACTION I N DEEP FILLS. The ext ent of compac-
t i on accomplished is determined by comparing t he r e s ul t s from st andard pene-
t r a t i on t e s t s and cone penet rat i on tests before and a f t e r t reat ment (DM-7.1,
Chapter 2).
6. PROBLEM SOILS. The compaction of high volume change s o i l s r equi r es
s peci al treatment. See DM-7.3, Chapter 3.
Sect i on 5. BORROW EXCAVATION
1. BORROW PIT EXPLORATION
a. Extent. The number and spacing of bori ngs or test p i t s f or borrow
expl or at i on must be s uf f i c i e nt t o determine t he approximate quant i t y and
qua l i t y of const r uct i on mat er i al s wi t hi n an economical haul di st ance from t he
pr oj ect . For mass earthwork, i n i t i a l expl or at i on should be on a 200-foot
gri d. I f var i abl e condi t i ons a r e found during t he i n i t i a l expl or at i ons,
i nt ermedi at e bori ngs or test p i t s should be done. Expl orat i ons should develop
t he following information:
( 1)
A reasonabl y accur at e subsurface p r o f i l e t o t he a nt i c i pa t e d
depth of excavation.
( 2) Engineering pr oper t i es of each mat er i al consi dered f or us e.
( 3) Approximate volume of each mat er i al consi dered f or use.
( 4) Water l evel .
( 5) Presence of s a l t s , gypsums, o r undesi rabl e mi neral s.
( 6 ) Ext ent of organi c o r contaminated s o i l s , i f encountered.
2. EXCAVATION METHODS.
a. Equipment. Design and ef f i ci ency of excavat i on equipment i mproves
each year. Check var i ous const r uct i on i ndust r y publ i cat i ons f or s peci f i ca-
t ions.
b. Ripping and Bl ast i ng. Determine r i p p a b i l i t y of s o i l or rock by bor-
i ngs (RQD and core recovery, see DM-7.1, Chapters 1 and 2), geophysi cal
expl or at i on, and/ or t r i a l excavation.
3. UTILIZATION OF EXCAVATED MATERIALS. I n t he process of earthmoving t h e r e
may be a reduct i on of t he volume ("shri nkage") because of waste and dens i f i ca-
t i on, or an i ncr eas e of volume ("swel l ") i n t he case of rock or dense s o i l s ,
because t he f i n a l densi t y i s l e s s t han i t s or i gi nal densi t y.
a. Borrow Volume. Determine t o t a l borrow volume, VB requi red f o r com-
pacted f i l l a s fol l ows:
YF WL
VB = (% vF) + g
Should be Gamma Sub B
where: YF = dr y uni t weight of f i l l
YB = dr y uni t weight of borrow
VF = requi red f i l l volume
WL = weight l o s t i n s t r i ppi ng, waste, over si ze and t r ans por t at i on
( 1) Compacted Volume. The volume of borrow s o i l requi red shoul d be
i ncreased accordi ng t o t he volume change i ndi cat ed above. A "shrinkage" f ac-
t o r of 10 t o 15 percent may be used f or est i mat i ng purposes.
( 2) Exclusions. A l a r ge percentage of cobble s i z e mat er i al w i l l
i ncr ease t he wast e, because s i z e s l ar ger t han 3 i nches a r e gener al l y excl uded
from compacted f i l l .
b. Rock Fi l l .
(1) Maximum Expansion. Maximum expansion ("swel l ") from i n s i t u
condi t i ons t o f i l l occurs i n dense, hard rock wi t h f i n e f r a c t ur e systems t h a t
breaks i n t o uniform s i zes . Unit volume i n a quar r y w i l l produce approxi -
mat el y 1.5 volumes i n f i l l .
( 2) Minimum Expansion. Minimum expansi on occur s i n porous, f r i a b l e
rock t h a t breaks i n t o broadl y graded s i z e s wi t h numerous s p a l l s and f i ne s .
Unit volume i n quarry w i l l produce approxi mat el y 1.1 volumes i n f i l l .
Sect i on 6 . HYDRAULIC AND UNDERWATER FILLS
1. GENERAL. Where l ar ge qua nt i t i e s of s o i l must be t r ans por t ed and ample
wat er i s avai l abl e, hydr aul i c methods a r e economical. The choi ce of methods
f or pl aci ng hydraul i c f i l l i s governed by t he t ype of equipment a va i l a bl e ,
a c c e s s i b i l i t y of borrow, and envi ronment al r egul at i ons ; s e e Tabl e 6 (Refer-
ence 7, Cont rol f o r Underwater Const r uct i on, by Johnson, e t al . ) . Removal o r
placement of s o i l by hydr aul i c methods must conform t o appl i cabl e wat er
pol l ut i on cont r ol r egul at i ons.
2. PLACEMENT METHODS. Placement, e i t h e r under water o r on l and, shoul d be
done i n a manner t h a t produces a usabl e a r e a wi t h minimum envi ronment al i m-
pact .
a. Deep Water Placement ( over 75 f e e t ) . Most deep wat er placement i s by
bottom dump scows and i s unconfined, wi t h no cont r ol on t u r b i d i t y , except by
t he r a t e of dumping.
b. Shallow Water Placement. Placement by ~ i ~ e l i n e , by mechanical equip-
ment, o r by s i de dumping from deck scows a r e t he most common methods i n shal -
low water. Sheet p i l e cont ai nment , s i l t "cur t ai ns", o r di kes a r e r equi r ed t o
minimize l a t e r a l spreadi ng and envi ronment al impact. Where l a t e r a l spreadi ng
i s not des i r ed and s t eeper s i de sl opes a r e needed, cont r ol t he method of
placement o r use a mixed sand and gr avel f i l l mat er i al . With borrow cont ai n-
i ng about equal amounts of sand and gr avel , underwater sl opes a s s t e e p a s 1: 3
o r 1:2-314 may be achi eved by c a r e f ul placement. To conf i ne t he f i l l , pr ovi de
berms o r di kes of t he coar s es t avai l abl e mat er i al or s t one on t he f i l l perime-
t e r . Where rock i s placed underwater, s l u i c e voi ds wi t h sand t o reduce com-
p r e s s i b i l i t y and possi bl e l o s s of mat er i al i n t o t he rock.
c. Land Placement. On l and, hydr aul i c f i l l s a r e commonly placed by
pi pel i ne o r by mechanical procedures ( i . e. clam s h e l l , dr agl i ne, et c. ) . Dikes
wi t h adj us t abl e weirs o r drop i n l e t s t o cont r ol t he qua l i t y of r e t ur n wat er
a r e used f o r containment.
3. PERFORMANCE OF HYDRAULIC FILLS.
a. Coarse-Grained Fi l l s . The most s a t i s f a c t or y hydr aul i cal l y pl aced
f i l l s a r e t hos e having l e s s t han 15 percent non-pl ast i c f. i nes o r 10 per cent
p l a s t i c f i n e s because t hey cause t he l e a s t t ur bi di t y duri ng placement, d r a i n
f a s t e r , and a r e more s ui t a bl e f or s t r u c t u r a l support t han fi ne-grai ned mate-
ri al . Rel at i ve d e n s i t i e s of 50 t o 60 per cent can be obt ai ned wi t hout compac-
t i on. Bearing val ues a r e i n t he range of 500 t o 2000 pounds per square f oot
depending on t he l e v e l of permi ssi bl e set t l ement . Densi t y, bear i ng and
TABLE 6
Methods of F i l l Placement Underwater
Methods
Bot t om-dump scows
Deck scows
Dumping a t land edge of
f i l l and pushing mate-
rial i n t o water by
bul l dozer
Cha r a c t e r i s t i c s
1. Limited t o minimum dept hs of about 15 f t.
because of scow and t ug d r a f t s .
2. Rapid; qui ck di schar ge ent r aps a i r and mini-
mizes segregat i on.
1. Usable i n shal l ow wat er.
2. Unloading i s slow, by dozer, cl amshel l , o r
hydr aul i c j et s .
3. I nspect i on of mat er i al bei ng placed may b e
d i f f i c u l t .
1. Fi nes i n mat er i al placed below water t end t o
s epar at e and accumulate i n f r o n t of advanci ng
f i l l .
2. Work arrangement shoul d r e s u l t i n c e n t r a l
por t i on being i n advance of s i de p o r t i o n s t o
di s pl ace sideways any s o f t bottom ma t e r i a l s .
3. In shal l ow wat er, bul l dozer bl ade can s hove
mat er i al s downward t o a s s i s t di spl acement of
s o f t mat er i al s .
r e s i s t a nc e t o sei smi c l i quef act i on may be i ncr eased s u b s t a n t i a l l y by vi bro-
probe methods. See DM-7.3, Chapter 2.
b. Fine-Grained Fi l l s . Hydr aul i cal l y pl aced, bottom si l t s and c l a y s
such as produced by maintenance dredgi ng w i l l i n i t i a l l y be a t ver y hi gh wat er
cont ent s. Depending on measures t aken t o i nduce s ur f ace dr ai nage, i t w i l l
t ake approxi mat el y 2 year s bef or e a c r u s t s u f f i c i e n t t o support l i g h t equip-
ment i s formed and t he water cont ent of t he underl yi ng ma t e r i a l s approaches
t he l i qui d l i m i t . Pl aci ng 1 t o 3 f e e t of addi t i onal gr anul ar borrow w i l l
improve t hes e ar eas r api dl y so t h a t t hey can support surcharge f i l l s , wi t h o r
wi t hout v e r t i c a l sand dr ai ns t o a c c e l e r a t e consol i dat i on. Care must be exer-
ci s ed i n appl yi ng t he surcharge so t h a t t he shear s t r engt h of t h e s o i l i s not
exceeded.
4. CONSOLIDATION OF HYDRAULIC FILLS. I f t he c oe f f i c i e nt of per meabi l i t y of
a hydr aul i c f i l l i s l e s s t han 0.002 f e e t per minute, t he cons ol i dat i on t i m e
f o r t he f i l l w i l l be long and pr edi ct i on of t he behavi or of t he completed f i l l
w i l l be d i f f i c u l t . For coarse-grai ned mat er i al s , f i l l cons ol i dat i on and
s t r e ngt h build-up w i l l be r api d and reasonabl e s t r engt h es t i mat es can be made.
Where f i l l and/ or foundat i on s o i l s a r e fi ne-grai ned, i t may be de s i r a bl e t o
moni t or s et t l ement and pore water pr es s ur e di s s i pa t i on i f s t r u c t u r e s a r e
planned. Set t l ement pl a t e s may be placed bot h on t he underl yi ng s o i l and
wi t hi n t he f i l l t o observe set t l ement r a t e s and amounts.
REFERENCES
1. Sherard, J.L., I nf l uence of So i l Pr oper t i es and Const r uct i on Methods on
t he Performance of Homogeneous Ear t h Dams, Techni cal Memorandum 645,
U.S. Department of t he I n t e r i o r , Bureau of Reclamation.
2. Sherard, J.L., Dunnigan, L. P., Becker, R. S., and St eel e, E. S., Pi nhol e
Tes t f o r I dent i f yi ng Di sper si ve So i l s , J our nal of t he Geot echni cal
Engi neeri ng Di vi si on, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT1, 1976.
3. Gordon, B.B., Mi l l er , R.K., Cont rol of Ear t h and Roc kf i l l f o r Or o v i l l e
Dam, Jour nal of t he Geot echni cal Engi neeri ng Di vi s i on, ASCE, Vol. 92, No.
-
SM3, 1966.
4. McLeod, N.W., Suggested Method f o r Cor r ect i ng Maximum Densi t y and
Optimum Moi st ure Content of Compacted So i l s f o r Oversi ze P a r t i c l e s ,
Speci al Procedures f or Test i ng Soi l and Rock f o r Engi neeri ng Pur pos es ,
ASTM STP 479, ASTM, 1970.
5. Donaghe, R.T. , and Townsend, F.C. , Scal pi ng and Replacement Ef f e c t s on
t he Com~act i on Char act er i s t i cs of Earth-Rock Mixtures. So i l S~ e c i me n
. -
Pr epar at i on f o r Laborat ory Test i ng, ASTM STP 599, AS^, 1976.-
6. Turnbul l , W. J . and Fos t er , C.R. St a b i l i z a t i o n of Mat er i al s by Compaction,
Jour nal of t h e Soi l Mechanics and Foundation Di vi si on, ASCE, Vol. 82,
No. SM2, 1956.
7. Johnson, S. J., Compton, J. R., and Li ng, S. C. , Cont rol f o r Underwat er
Const ruct i on, Underwater Sampling, Test i ng, and Const r uct i on Cont r ol ,
ASTM STP 501, ASTM, 1972.
CHAPTER 3. ANALYSIS OF WALLS AND RETAINING STRUCTURES
Sect i on 1. INTRODUCTION
1. SCOPE. Methods of det ermi ni ng e a r t h pr es s ur es a c t i ng on wal l s and
r e t a i ni ng s t r u c t u r e s a r e summarized i n t h i s chapt er . Types of wal l s
consi der ed i ncl ude concr et e r e t a i ni ng wa l l s and gr a vi t y wal l s t h a t move
r i g i d l y a s a u n i t , braced o r t i e d bulkheads of t h i n s heet i ng t h a t d e f l e c t
accor di ng t o t he br aci ng arrangement , and double-wall cofferdams of t h i n
s heet i ng t o conf i ne e a r t h o r rock f i l l .
2. RELATED CRITERIA. Addi t i onal c r i t e r i a r e l a t i n g t o t he desi gn and
u t i l i z a t i o n of wa l l s appear i n t he f ol l owi ng sour ces:
Subj ect Source
Appl i cat i on of Bulkheads and Cofferdams t o
Wat erfront Construction............................NAVFAC DM-?';
St r uc t ur a l Design of Ret ai ni ng Walls...................NAVFAC DM-2
Sect i on 2. COMPUTATION OF WALL PRESSURES
1. CONDITIONS. The pr essur e on r e t a i ni ng wa l l s , bul kheads, or bur i e d
anchorages i s a f unct i on of t he r e l a t i v e movement between t he s t r u c t u r e and
t he sur r oundi ng s o i l .
a. Act i ve St a t e . Act i ve e a r t h pr essur e occur s when t he wal l moves away
from t he s o i l and t he s o i l mass s t r e t c he s hor i z ont a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o mobi l i z e
i t s shear s t r e ngt h f u l l y , and a condi t i on of p l a s t i c equi l i br i um i s r eached.
(See Fi gur e 1 from Reference 1, Excavat i ons and Ret ai ni ng St r uc t ur e s , by t he
Canadian Geot echni cal Soci et y. ) The r a t i o of t he hor i z ont a l component o r
a c t i ve pr es s ur e t o t he v e r t i c a l stress caused by t he weight of s o i l i s t he
a c t i ve pr essur e c o e f f i c i e n t (K,). The a c t i ve pr essur e c o e f f i c i e n t a s
def i ned above a ppl i e s onl y t o cohesi onl ess s o i l s .
b. Pas s i ve St a t e . Passi ve e a r t h pr essur e occur s when a s o i l mass i s
compressed hor i z ont a l l y, mobi l i zi ng i t s shear r e s i s t a nc e f u l l y ( s e e Fi gur e 1).
The r a t i o of t he hor i zont al component of passi ve pr es s ur e t o t he v e r t i c a l
s t r e s s caused by t he weight of t he s o i l i s t he passi ve pr es s ur e c o e f f i c i e n t
(Kp). The pas s i ve c oe f f i c i e nt , a s def i ned her e, a ppl i e s onl y t o cohesi on-
l e s s s o i l . A s o i l mass t h a t i s ne i t he r s t r e t c he d nor compressed i s s a i d t o be
i n an a t - r e s t s t a t e . The r a t i o of l a t e r a l s t r e s s t o v e r t i c a l s t r e s s i s c a l l e d
t he a t - r e s t c o e f f i c i e n t (KO).
FIGURE 1
Effect of Wall Movement on Wall Pressures
6 -
5
-
a
\
E
\
w 1.0-
J
0.8
-I ry
2
g 0.6
g 0.5
IL 0.4
y ~ 2
0
T 0.3
-
-
- K~
m
-
-
5
K A
\-
;
, , ,
\
6 Os2
MEDIUM SAND
S
0.1
0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.002 OD04
WALL ROTATION, Y/H
MMNITUDES OF WALL RUTATION TOREACH WILURE
SOIL TYPE
AND CONDITION
DENSE COHESIONLESS
LOOSE COHESIONLESS
STIFF COHESIVE
SOFT COHESIVE
ROTATION Y/H*
ACTIVE WSI VE
.oOO5 .002
. 002 -006
.O1 .02
.02 .04
Y = HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT
H = HEIGHT OF THE WALL
2. COMPUTATION OF ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PRESSURES. See Fi gure 2' f o r f or mul as
f or a c t i ve and passi ve pr essur es f or t h e si mpl e cas e on a f r i c t i o n l e s s v e r t i -
-
c a l f ace wi t h hor i zont al ground sur f ace. Three bas i c condi t i ons r e q u i r e d f o r
v a l i d i t y of t he formul as a r e l i s t e d i n Fi gure 2. Under t hes e c ondi t i ons t h e
f a i l u r e s ur f ace i s a pl ane and t he formul as r epr es ent pr es s ur es r e q u i r e d f o r
equi l i br i um of t he wedge shaped f a i l u r e mass.
The i n t e n s i t y of pr essur es appl i ed depends on wal l movements, as t h e s e con-
t r o l t he degree of shear s t r engt h mobi l i zat i on i n surroundi ng s oi l . ( See
Fi gure 1 f or t h e magnitude of t he movement necessar y f o r a c t i v e c o n d i t i o n t o
e xi s t . ) Wall f r i c t i o n and wal l v e r t i c a l movements a l s o a f f e c t t he p a s s i v e and
a c t i ve pressures.
The e f f e c t of w a l l f r i c t i o n on a c t i ve pr essur es i s smal l and o r d i n a r i l y i s
di sr egar ded except i n case of a s e t t l i n g w a l l where i t can be very s i g n i f i -
cant . The e f f e c t of w a l l f r i c t i o n on passi ve pr es s ur es i s l a r ge , b u t d e f i -
n i t e movement i s necessar y f o r mobi l i zat i on of w a l l f r i c t i o n . (See Ta b l e 1
f or t ypi cal ul t i mat e f r i c t i o n f a c t or s and adhesi on between wal l and b a c k f i l l . )
I n t he absence of s pe c i f i c t e s t dat a, use t hes e val ues i n comput at i ons t h a t
i ncl ude e f f e c t s of w a l l f r i c t i on.
Unless a wal l i s s e t t l i n g , f r i c t i o n on i t s back a c t s upward on t he a c t i v e
wedge ( angl e 6 i s pos i t i ve , s ee Fi gure 5) , reduci ng a c t i v e pr essur es.
General l y, w a l l f r i c t i o n a c t s downward agai ns t t he passi ve wedge ( a n g l e 6 i s
negat i ve) , r e s i s t i n g i t s upward movement and i ncr eas i ng passi ve pr e s s ur e s .
a. Uniform Backf i l l , No Groundwater. Compute ac-t i ve and pas s i ve pr es-
s ur es by methods from Fi gure 2.
b. Sl opi ng Backf i l l , No Groundwater, Granul ar So i l , Smooth Wall. Com-
put e a c t i ve and passi ve pr es s ur es by methods from Fi gur e 3. Use Fi gur e 4 t o
det ermi ne t he pos i t i on of f a i l u r e s ur f ace f or a c t i v e and passi ve wedge.
c. Sl opi ng Wall, Granul ar So i l With Wall Fr i ct i on. Use Fi gur e 5 (Refer-
ence 2, Tabl es f o r t he Cal ul at i on of t he Pas s i ve Pr es s ur e, Act i ve P r e s s u r e
and Bearing Capaci t y of Foundat i ons, by Caquot and Ker i s el ) t o compute a c t i v e
and passi ve e a r t h pr essur e coef f i ci ent s .
d. Sl opi ng Backf i l l , Granul ar So i l wi t h Wall Fr i c t i on. Use Fi g u r e 6
(Reference 2) t o compute a c t i ve and passi ve e a r t h pr essur e c o e f f i c i e n t .
e. Uniform Backf i l l , S t a t i c Groundwater. Compute a c t i v e e a r t h and wat er
pr es s ur es by formul as i n Fi gure 7.
f . General Formula f o r Coef f i ci ent s of Pas s i ve and Act i ve Ea r t h Pr e s -
sure. Use Fi gur e 8 f or sl opi ng wal l wi t h f r i c t i o n and sl opi ng b a c k f i l l .
g. S t r a t i f i e d Backf i l l , Sl opi ng Groundwater Level. When c o n d i t i o n s
i ncl ude l ayer ed s o i l , i r r e g u l a r surcharge, wal l f r i c t i o n , and s l opi ng ground-
water l e v e l , det ermi ne a c t i ve pr essur es by t r i a l f a i l u r e wedge. (See Fi g u r e
7.)
Tr i a l wedge i s bounded by a s t r a i g h t f a i l u r e pl ane o r a s e r i e s of
s t r a i g h t segments a t d i f f e r e n t i nc l i na t i on i n each st rat um. Commence t h e
a na l ys i s wi t h f a i l u r e pl ane or i ent ed a t t he angl e shown i n Fi gure 4.
PASSIVE WEDGE
I. MATERIALS ARE HOMOGENEOUS.
2. SUFFlClENT MOVEWENT HAS OCCURRED SO SHEAR STRENGTH ON RUPTURE SURFACE IS (MPLETELY MOBILIZED.
3. WALL IS VERTICAL.NO SHEAR FORCES ARE PRESENT ON BACK OF WALL.RESULTANT FORCES ARE HORIZONTAL.
FIGURE 2
Computation of Simple Act i ve and Passi ve Pr es s ur es
TABLE 1
Ultimate Fr i c t i o n Fact or s and Adhesion f o r Di s s i mi l a r Ma t e r i a l s
I nt e r f a c e Mat er i al s
Mass concr et e on t he f ol l owi ng f oundat i on ma t e r i a l s :
Clean sound rock..................................
Clean gr avel , gravel -sand mi xt ur es, coar s e sand...
Clean f i ne t o medium sand, s i l t y medium t o c oa r s e
sand, s i l t y o r cl ayey gravel....................
Clean f i n e sand, s i l t y o r cl ayey f i n e t o medium
sand..........................................
Fi ne sandy si l t , nonpl a s t i c silt..................
Very s t i f f and hard r e s i dua l o r pr econsol i dat ed
clay.........................................
Medium s t i f f and s t i f f c l a y and s i l t y clay........
(Masonry on f oundat i on ma t e r i a l s has same f r i c t i o n
f act or s . )
St e e l s heet p i l e s a ga i ns t t he f ol l owi ng s o i l s :
Clean gr avel , gravel -sand mi xt ur es, well-graded
rock f i l l wi t h s p a l l s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clean sand, s i l t y sand-gravel mi xt ur e, s i n g l e s i z e
hard rock fill..................................
S i l t y sand, gr a ve l or sand mixed wi t h si l t o r c l a y
Fi ne sandy s i l t , nonpl as t i c silt..................
Formed concr et e o r concr et e s heet p i l i n g a ga i ns t t he
fol l owi ng s oi l s :
Clean gr avel , gravel -sand mi xt ur e, well-graded
rock f i l l wi t h s p a l l s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clean sand, s i l t y sand-gravel mi xt ur e, s i n g l e s i z e
hard r ock fill..................................
S i l t y sand, gr a ve l o r sand mixed wi t h si l t o r c l a y
Fi ne sandy si l t , nonpl a s t i c silt..................
Vari ous s t r u c t u r a l mat er i al s :
Masonry on masonry, igneous and metamorphic r ocks :
Dressed s o f t rock on dr essed s o f t rock..........
Dressed har d rock on dr essed s o f t rock..........
Dressed har d rock on dr essed hard rock..........
Masonry on wood ( c r os s grain).....................
St e e l on s t e e l a t s heet p i l e interlocks...........
I n t e r f a c e Mat er i al s (Cohesion)
Very s o f t cohesi ve s o i l ( 0 - 250 ps f )
Sof t cohesi ve s o i l (250 - 500 ps f )
Medium s t i f f cohesi ve s o i l (500 - 1000 ps f )
St i f f cohesi ve s o i l (1000 - 2000 ps f )
Very s t i f f cohesi ve s o i l (2000 - 4000 ps f )
Fr i c t i o n
f a c t o r ,
t a n 8
0.70
0.55 t o 0.60
0.45 t o 0.55
0.35 t o 0.45
0.30 t o 0.35
0.40 t o 0.50
0.30 t o 0.35
0.40
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.40 t o 0.50
0.30 t o 0.40
0.30
0.25
0.70
0.65
0.55
0.50
0.30
F r i c t i o n
a ngl e , 8
de gr e e s
35
29 t o 31
24 t o 29
19 t o 24
17 t o 19
22 t o 26
17 t o 19
22
17
14
11
22 t o 26
17 t o 22
17
14
3 5
3 3
2 9
2 6
17
Adhesion Ca ( p s f )
0 - 250
250 - 500
500 - 750
750 - 950
950 - 1, 300
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION, 4, DEGREES
F~
KA 8 Kp= COEFFICIENTS FOR COULOMB'S EQUATION FOR RRTIVE AND
Pp=K XT PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE (NO SHEAR STRESS ON
-
VERTICAL PLANES).
3 PA= ACTIVE RESULTANT 4 =ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION
PASSIVE PRESSURE ACTIVE PRESSURE Pp =PASSIVE RESULTANT i3 =SLOPE ANGLE
Y = UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL
H = HEIGHT OF WALL
<
- -
FIGURE 3
Act i ve and Passi ve Coe f f i c i e nt s , Sl opi ng Ba c kf i l l
(Granul ar Soi l s )
I
ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION, 4 ,DEGREES
I
PASSIVE PRESSURE
FA1LURE
PLANE
ACTIVE PRESSURE
TAN
C O T a p = - ~ ~ ~ + + f i + ~ ~ N 2 + -
a ~ 8 a p =ANGLE BETWEEN CRITICAL FAILURE PLANE AND VERTICAL
=ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION
= SLOPE ANGLE
THE ANGLES SHOWN CORRESPOND TO THE COEFFICIENTS
OF ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PRESSURE GIVEN IN FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 4
Pos i t i on of Fa i l ur e Sur f ace f o r Act i ve and Pas s i ve Wedges
(Granul ar Soi l s )
Act i ve and Passi ve Coef f i ci ent s with Wall Fr i c t i o n
(Sl opi ng Wall)
7.2-66
FIGURE 6
Active and Passive Coeffi ci ents with Wall Fri ct i on
(Sloping Backfi l l )
-7.2-%7
HORIZONTAL BACKFILL
UNIFORM SURCHARGE
WALL FRICTION NEGLIGIBLE
ACTIVE EARTH
PREssURE AT ANY HEIGHT =(EFFECTIVE uZ) XFAN~~S- ~/ ~~- ~CTAN (45-4/21
NEGATIVE PRESSURE BE
BROKEN SLOPE BACKFILL
IRREGULAR SURCHARGE
WALL FRICTION l NC WDED
SLOPING GROUND WATER LEVEL
RE ON FiL\ILURE
FIGURE 7
Computation of General Active Pressures
7.2-68
PA= y!& KA
KA = c o ~ ~ ( g - 8 ) - -
K~ = cos2 B a s ( @- 8 ) [ I ~ I ~ * + ~ ) S ~ N ( C P + B ~ ~ -
cos ( 8- 8) cos(8-B) 1
K~ VALUES ARE SATISFACTORY FOR 8 4 +/3 BUT ARE UNCONSERVATIVE RM 8 ) +/3 AND
THEREFORE SHOULD NOf BE USED.
FIGURE 8
Coeffi ci ents KA and Kp for Walls with Sloping Wall and
Fri cti on, and Sloping Backfi l l
Compute r e s ul t a nt passi ve f or ce by t r i a l f a i l u r e wedge anal ys i s .
(See Fi gure 9). When wal l f r i c t i o n i s i ncl uded, compute pr essur es from a
f a i l i n g mass bounded by a c i r c ul a r a r c and s t r a i g h t plane. Determine l oc a t i on
of passi ve r es ul t ant by summing moments about t oe of wal l of a l l f or ces on
t h a t por t i on of t he f a i l i n g mass above t he c i r c u l a r ar c. Depending on com-
pl exi t y of cr os s s ect i on, di s t r i but e passi ve pressures t o conform t o l oc a t i on
of r e s ul t a nt , or anal yze t r i a l f a i l u r e s ur f aces a t i nt er medi at e hei ght s i n t he
passi ve zone. When wal l f r i c t i o n i s negl ect ed, t he trial f a i l u r e s ur f ace i s a
s t r a i g h t plane. See Fi gure 2.
( 1) Simple Cross Section. For a simple cr os s s ect i on behind a wal l ,
anal yze t he t r i a l f a i l u r e plane extending upward from t he l owest poi nt of t h e
a c t i ve zone on t he wal l . Determine t he l ocat i on of t he a c t i ve r e s ul t a nt by
summing moments of a l l f or ces on t he wedge about t oe of wedge. Di s t r i but e
a c t i ve pressures t o conform t o t he l ocat i on of r es ul t ant .
( 2) Complicated Cross Section. For complicated cr os s s ect i ons ,
anal yze t r i a l wedges a t i nt ermedi at e hei ght s above t he base of t he a c t i ve zone
t o determine pressure di s t r i but i on i n more d e t a i l . Force act i ng on an
increment of wal l hei ght equal s di f f er ence i n r e s ul t a nt f or ces f or wedges'
t aken from t he t op and bottom of t h a t increment.
3. EFFECT OF GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS. Incl ude i n pr essur e computations t he
e f f e c t of t he gr eat es t unbalanced water head ant i ci pat ed t o a c t acr os s t h e
wal l .
a. General Conditions. For a major s t r uc t ur e , anal yze seepage and
drai nage e f f e c t by flow net procedures. Upl i f t pressures i nf l uenci ng wal l
f or ces a r e t hose act i ng on f a i l u r e sur f ace of a c t i ve or passi ve wedge.
Resul t ant u p l i f t f or ce on f a i l u r e sur f ace determined from flow n e t i s appl i ed
i n f or ce diagram of t he f a i l u r e wedge. See vect or U, t he r e s u l t a n t wat er
f or ce, i n Fi gures 7 and 9.
b. St a t i c Di f f e r e nt i a l Head. Compute water pr essur es on wal l s a s shown
i n t op panel of Fi gure 10.
c. Rai nf al l on Drained Walls. For cohesi onl ess mat er i al s , sust ai ned
r a i n f a l l i ncr eas es l a t e r a l f or ce on wal l 20 t o 40 percent over dr y b a c k f i l l ,
depending on b a c k f i l l f r i c t i o n angle. The cent er panel of Fi gure 10 (Refer-
ence 3, Cont ri but i on t o t he Anal ysi s of Seepage Ef f ect s i n Backf i l l s , by Gray)
shows flow net s e t up by r a i n f a l l behind a wal l wi t h v e r t i c a l dr ai n. Thi s
panel gi ves t he magnitude of r es ul t ant u p l i f t f or ce on f a i l u r e wedge f or
var i ous i nc l i na t i ons of f a i l u r e plane t o be used i n anal ys i s of t he a c t i ve
wedge .
d. Seepage Beneath Wall. See bottom panel of Fi gure 10 (Reference 4,
The Ef f ect of Seepage on t he St a b i l i t y of Sea Walls, by Ri chart and Schmert-
mann) f or cor r ect i on t o be appl i ed t o act i ve and passi ve pr essur es i n cohe-
s i onl es s mat er i al f o r st eady seepage beneat h a wal l .
4. SURCHARGE LOADING. For t he e f f e c t s of surcharge l oadi ng, see Fi gur es 7
and 9.
VECTOR DIAGRAMS :
FIGURE 9
Computation of General Passive Pressures
NO F W. A%,APp ARE
CORRECTIONS FOR SEE-.
FIGURE 10
Effect of Groundwater Conditions on Wall Pressures
a. Poi nt Load and Li ve Load. Use Fi gure 11 (Reference 5, Anchored Bulk-
heads, based on t he work by Terzaghi ) t o compute l a t e r a l pr essur e on wa l l due
t o poi nt l oad and l i n e l oads; t h i s assumes an unyi el di ng r i g i d wal l and t he
-
l a t e r a l pr essur es a r e approxi mat el y doubl e t he val ues obt ai ned by e l a s t i c
equat i ons. The assumption of an unyi el di ng r i g i d wal l i s cons er vat i ve and i t s
a ppl i c a bi l i t y should be eval uat ed f o r each s p e c i f i c wa l l .
b. Uniform Loading Area. For uniform sur char ge l oadi ng l a t e r a l stress
can be computed by t r e a t i ng t he surcharge a s i f i t were b a c k f i l l and mul t i pl y-
i ng t he v e r t i c a l s t r e s s at - any dept h by- t he appr opr i at e e a r t h pr es s ur e coef--
f i c i e nt .
c. Uniform Rect angul ar Surcharge Loading. For t he e f f e c t of t h i s load-
i ng s ee Fi gure 12 ( s e e Reference 6, La t e r a l Support Systems and Underpi nni ng,
Volume 1, Design and Const ruct i on (Summary), by Goldberg, e t al . ) . I f t he
cons t r uct i on procedures a r e such t h a t t he wal l w i l l move duri ng t he appl i ca-
t i o n of l i v e l oads , t hen t he pr essur e cal cul at ed from Fi gur e 12 w i l l be
conservat i ve.
d. Pr a c t i c a l Consi derat i ons. For desi gn purposes, i t i s common t o con-
s i d e r a di s t r i but e d s ur f ace l oad surcharge on t he or der of 300 psf t o account
f or s t or age of cons t r uct i on mat er i al s and equipment. Thi s sur char ge i s usual -
l y appl i ed wi t hi n a r a t he r l i mi t ed work ar ea of about 20 f e e t t o 30 f e e t from
t he wal l and i s a l s o i nt ended t o account f or concent r at ed l oads from heavy
equipment ( concr et e t r ucks , cr anes, et c. ) l ocat ed more t han about 20 f e e t
away. I f such equipment i s ant i ci pat ed wi t hi n a few f e e t of t he wal l , i t must
be accounted f o r s epar at el y.
5. WALL MOVEMENT. For t he e f f e c t of wal l movement on t he e a r t h pr e s s ur e
c oe f f i c i e nt s , s ee Fi gure 1.
a. Wall Rot at i on. When t he a c t ua l est i mat ed wal l r o t a t i o n i s less t ha n
t he val ue r equi r ed t o f u l l y mobi l i ze a c t i ve or passi ve condi t i ons , a d i u s t t h e
e a r t h pr essur e c oe f f i c i e nt s by usi ng t he diagram on t he upper r i g h t hand cor -
ner of Fi gure 1. Rel at i vel y l a r g e movements a r e r equi r ed t o mobi l i ze t he
passi ve r es i s t ance. A s a f e t y f a c t or must be appl i ed t o t he ul t i mat e pa s s i ve
r e s i s t a nc e i n or der t o l i m i t movements.
b. Wall Tr ansl at i on. Wall uniform t r a n s l a t i o n r equi r ed t o mobi l i ze
ul t i mat e passi ve r e s i s t a nc e or a c t i ve pressure i s approxi mat el y equi val ent t o
movement of t op of wal l based on r ot a t i on c r i t e r i a gi ven i n Fi gure 1.
c. I n t e r n a l l y Braced Fl exi bl e Wall. Sheet i ng on c u t s r i g i d l y br aced a t
t he t op undergoes i ns uf f i c i e nt movement t o produce f u l l y a c t i v e condi t i ons .
Hori zont al pr es s ur es a r e assumed t o be di s t r i but e d i n a- t r apezoi dal di agram.
(See Sect i on 4.) The r e s ul t a nt f or ce i s hi gher t han t h e o r e t i c a l a c t i v e f or ce.
For cl ays , t he i n t e n s i t y and d i s t r i b u t i o n of hor i zont al pr es s ur es depend on
t he s t a b i l i t y number No = Y H/c. (See Sect i on 4.)
d. Ti ed Back Walls. So i l movement as s oci at ed wi t h pr es t r es s ed t i e d back
wal l s i s us ual l y l e s s t han wi t h i n t e r n a l l y braced f l e x i b l e w a l l s , and des i gn
pr essur es a r e hi gher . (See Sect i on 4.)
FIGURE 11
Hor i zont al Pr essur es on Ri gi d Wall from Sur-face Load
VALUE OF UH(g)
L
PRESSURES FROM LINE LOAD QL
(BOUSSINESQ EQUATlOFl MODIFIED BY EXPERIMENT)
H2
VAWE OF UH (-1
FOR m >0.4:
J
f
SECTON A-A
PRESSURES FROM POlNT WAD Qp
(BWSSINESQ EQUATION
MODIFIED BY EXPERIMENT)
FIGURE 12
Lateral Pressure on an Unyielding Wall due to
Uniform Rectangular Surface Load
i
f
p = 0.5
q =SURCHARGE
L = LENGTH RPRALLELTD WALL
B
m= - n = -L p=qxI p B = LENGTH PERPENDICULAR
Z ' Z TO WALL
0 I 2 3 4 5.8
L
n = - ------
z
-
e. Rest r ai ned Walls. I f a wal l i s prevent ed from even s l i g h t movement,
t hen t h e e a r t h remains a t or near t he val ue of at-rest condi t i ons . The coef -
f i c i e n t of e a r t h pr essur e a t - r e s t , KO, f o r normal l y consol i dat ed cohesi ve o r
gr anul ar s o i l s i s approximately:
where : 9' = e f f e c t i v e f r i c t i o n angl e
Thus f o r 8' = 30, KO = 0.5.
For over-consol i dat ed s o i l s and compacted s o i l s t h e r ange of KO may
be on t he or der of 1.0. In cohesi onl ess s o i l s , f u l l a t - r e s t pr es s ur e w i l l
occur onl y wi t h t he most r i g i d l y support ed wal l . In hi ghl y p l a s t i c c l a ys ,
s o i l may cr eep, and i f wal l movement i s prevent ed, a t - r e s t condi t i ons may
redevel op even a f t e r a c t i ve pr essur es a r e es t abl i s hed.
f. Basement and Ot her Below Grade Walls. Pr essur e on w a l l s below gr ade
may be computed based on r e s t r a i ni ng condi t i ons t h a t pr evai l , t ype of back-
f i l l , and t h e amount of compaction.
6. EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES.
a. St aged Const ruct i on. As e a r t h pr essur es a r e i nf l uenced by wal l move-
ment, i t i s i mport ant t o consi der each s t age of cons t r uct i on, e s pe c i a l l y wi t h
regard t o br ace placement and i t s e f f e c t s .
b. Compaction. Compaction of b a c k f i l l i n a confi ned wedge behind t h e
wal l t ends t o i ncr eas e hor i zont al pr es s ur es beyond t hose r epr esent ed by a c t i v e
o r a t - r e s t val ues. For guidance on hor i zont al pr essur e comput at i ons as s oci -
at ed wi t h t he compaction of gr anul ar s o i l , s ee Fi gure 13 ( a f t e r Reference 7,
Ret ai ni ng Wall Performance During Backf i l l i ng, by Ingol d).
Clays and ot her fi ne-grai ned s o i l s , a s wel l a s gr anul ar s o i l s , wi t h
consi der abl e amount of c l a y and s i l t 0 1 5 %) a r e not normal l y used a s b a c k f i l l
mat er i al . Where t hey must be used, t h e e a r t h pr essur e should be cal cul at ed on
t he ba s i s of "at - r est " condi t i ons or hi gher pr essur e wi t h due cons i der at i on t o
pot e nt i a l poor dr ai nage condi t i ons, swel l i ng, and f r o s t act i on.
c. Hydraul i c Fi l l s . Active pr essur e c oe f f i c i e nt s f o r l oos e hydr aul i c
f i l l mat er i al s range from about 0.35 f o r cl ean sands t o 0.50 f o r s i l t y f i n e
sands. Pl ace hydr aul i c f i l l by procedures which permit runoff of wash wat er
and prevent bui l di ng up l a r ge hydr os t at i c pr essur es. For f u r t h e r gui dance s ee
di s cus s i on on dredgi ng i n DM-7.3, Chapter 3.
7. EARTHQUAKE LOADING. The pr essur e duri ng eart hquake l oadi ng can be com-
puted by t he Coulomb t heory wi t h t he addi t i onal f or ces r e s ul t i ng from ground
accel er at i on. For f u r t h e r guidance on t he s ubj ect s ee Reference 8, Design of
Ear t h Ret ai ni ng St r uc t ur e s f o r Dynamic Loads, by Seed and Whitman. A synopsi s
of some mat er i al from t h i s Reference fol l ows:
Y
a q P
- -- - - - - - - - -
\
FOR Zc LZi d
FOR Z>d
Fh = K~ y' z
i
-
@h
P (ROLLER LOAD) = DEAD W7: OF ROLLER +CENTRIFUGAL FORCE
WIDTH OF ROLLER
a : DISTANCE OF ROLLER FROM WALL
L: LENGTH OF ROLLER
USE FIGURES 2, 3, 5 OR 6 FOR KA
FIGURE 13
Horizontal Pressure on Walls from Compaction Effort
( 1) A si mpl e procedure f o r det ermi ni ng t he l a t e r a l f or ce due t o an
eart hquake i s t o compute t he i n i t i a l s t a t i c pr essur e and add t o i t t h e
i ncr eas e i n pr essur e from ground motion. For a v e r t i c a l wal l , wi t h horizon-
t al b a c k f i l l sl ope, and 8 of 35O, (which may be assumed f o r most p r a c t i c a l
cas es i nvol vi ng gr anul ar f i l l ) , t he e a r t h pr es s ur e c oe f f i c i e nt f o r dynamic
i ncr eas e i n l a t e r a l f or ce can be approximated a s 314 kh, kh bei ng t h e
hor i zont al accel er at i on i n g' s. The combined e f f e c t of s t a t i c and dynamic
f or ce i s:
Assume t he dynamic l a t e r a l f or ce PE = 318 7 H2kh acts a t
0.6 H above t he wal l base. Ef f ect of l i que f a c t i on i s consi dered i n DM-7.3,
Chapter 1.
( 2) For ot her s o i l and w a l l pr oper t i es , t he combined r e s u l t a n t a c t i v e
f or c e :
where : @* = P +$J = modified s l ope of b a c k f i l l
8* = 8+ JI = modified s l ope of wal l back
F =
~ 0 ~ 2 8 *
cos JI cos 28
kv = v e r t i c a l ground accel er at i on i n g' s .
For modifed sl ope@ * and 8 *, obt ai n KA( ~ * , 8 *) from t h e
appl i cabl e Fi gur es 3 t hrough 8. Determine F from Fi gur e 14. Dynamic pr es s ur e
increment APE can be obt ai ned by s ubt r act i ng PA ( a l s o t o be det ermi ned
from Fi gur es 3, 7, o r 8 f o r gi ven P and 8 val ues) from PAE. The r e s u l t a n t
f or ce w i l l vary i n i t s l ocat i on depending on wal l movement, ground
accel er at i on, and wal l bat t er . For p r a c t i c a l purposes i t may be appl i ed a t
0.6 H above t he base.
( 3 ) Unless t he wal l moves o r r o t a t e s s u f f i c i e n t l y , pr es s ur es gr e a t e r t han
a c t i v e case w i l l e x i s t and t he a c t ua l l a t e r a l pr es s ur es may be as l a r g e as
t hr ee t i mes t he val ue deri ved from Fi gure 14. I n such s i t u a t i o n s , d e t a i l e d
a na l ys i s usi ng numeri cal t echni ques may be des i r abl e.
( 4 ) Under t he combined e f f e c t of s t a t i c and eart hquake l oad a f a c t o r of
s a f e t y between 1.1 and 1.2 i s accept abl e.
( 5) In cas es where s o i l i s below wat er, add t he hydrodynamic pr es s ur e
computed based on:
(A) WALL CONFIGURATION
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Q5
TAN $
FIGURE 14(a)
Values of F for Determination of Dynamic Lateral Pressure Coef f i ci ent s
EXAMPLES:
CASE I - VERTICAL WALL WlTH HORIZONTAL BACKflLL
COMBINED EFFECT OF STATIC AND DYNAMIC
FORCE.
H= 20' / r F
PAE = Fl +F2
KA =0.27 (FROM FIGURE 2 FOR t$ =35O)
F1= 1/2 y ~ 2 KA=
1/2 (120)(20)~ (0.27) = 6480 LB
RESULTANT ACTING ATA DISTANCE OF
H/3 = 6.7' FROM BASE OF WALL
F~ = 3/8 y ~ 2 Kh =
H/3 -6.7'
318 (120) (2012 (0.2) = 3600 LB.
ACTING AT 12FT. (0.6H) FROM BASEOFWALL
CASE 2 - SLOPING WALL WlTH SLOPING BACKFILL
JI zTAN-l '.2-= 120
1-0.05
TAN J/ = 0.21
9 = K)O
8 Kvz.05
p = 15.
F =0.9 (FROM FIGURE 140)
0.6 x 20 =12.01
ASSUME A S M ~ WALL,^ =O
9*= e++ = IOt12.22O
p*=p+J/ = 15+I2 = 2 7 O
* *
FROM THE EQUATION IN FIGURE8 KA (P,8 ) =
=Q71
KA (p,81=0.41, P ~ = I / ~ x ( I ~ o ) x ( ~ o ) ~ x o . ~ I = ~ ~ o L B .
PAE = 1/2 y~~ KA ( I -KV) F
= 1/2 (120) (20)2 (0.71 ) (1-0.05) (0.9) =I4569 LB.
A PE = 14569 -9840 = 4729 LB.
FIGURE 14(b)
Example Calculations for Dynamic Loading on Walls .
where : pw = hydrodynamic pr es s ur e a t dept h z below wat er s ur f ace
Yw = u n i t weight of wat er
h = dept h of wat er
z = dept h below t he water s ur f ace
( 6 ) Add t he ot her i n e r t i a e f f e c t of t he s t r u c t u r e i t s e l f f o r c a l c ul a t -
i ng t he requi red s t r u c t u r a l s t r engt h. An optimum desi gn i s t o s e l e c t t h e
t hi nnes t s ect i on wi t h t he l a r g e s t bending and s hear r e s i s t a nc e ( i . e. most
f l e xi bl e ) .
( 7) When appl yi ng t h i s eart hquake l oadi ng a na l ys i s t o e xi s t i ng e a r t h re-
t ai ni ng s t r uct ur es , p a r t i c u l a r l y where hi gh groundwater l e v e l s e x i s t , it may
be found t h a t r e s u l t i n g s a f e t y f a c t or i s l e s s t han 1.1. In such cas es ,
proposed cor r ect i ve measures must be submi t t ed t o NAVFAC HQ f o r revi ew and
approval .
8. FROST ACTION. Lat er al f or ces due t o f r o s t a c t i on a r e d i f f i c u l t t o pre-
d i c t and may achi eve hi gh val ues.
Backf i l l mat er i al s such a s si l t s and cl ayey si l t s (CL, MH, ML, OL) a r e f r o s t
s us cept i bl e, and w i l l exer t excessi ve pr essur e on w a l l i f proper pr ecaut i ons
a r e not t aken t o curb f r os t . Swelling pr es s ur es may be exer t ed by cl ays of
hi gh p l a s t i c i t y (CH). Under t hes e condi t i ons , desi gn f o r a c t i v e pr es s ur es i s
i nadequat e, even f o r yi el di ng wal l s , a s r e s ul t i ng wal l movement i s l i k e l y t o
be excessi ve and cont i nuous. St r uct ur es us ual l y a r e not desi gned t o with-
st and f r o s t generat ed s t r es s es . I ns t ead, pr ovi s i ons shoul d be made so t h a t
f r o s t r e l a t e d s t r e s s e s w i l l not devel op o r be kept t o a minimum. Use of one
o r more of t he fol l owi ng may be necessary:
( i )
Permanently i s o l a t e t he b a c k f i l l from sour ces of wat er e i t h e r by
provi di ng a very permeable dr a i n or a very impermeable ba r r i e r .
( i i ) Provi de pervi ous b a c k f i l l and weep hol es. (See DM-7.1, Chapt er 6
f o r t he i l l u s t r a t i o n on complete dr ai nage and pr event i on of f r o s t t hr us t . )
( i i i ) Provi de impermeable s o i l l a ye r near t he s o i l s ur f ace, and grade t o
dr a i n s ur f ace water away from t he wal l .
9. SWELLING ACTION. Expansion of c l a y s o i l s can cause very hi gh pr es s ur es
on t he back of a r et ai ni ng s t r uct ur e. Clay b a c k f i l l s shoul d be avoided when-
ever possi bl e. Swelling pr essur es may be eval uat ed based on l abor at or y t e s t s
and wal l desi gned t o wi t hst and swel l i ng pressures. Provi di ng gr anul ar non-
expansive f i l t e r between t he c l a y f i l l and back of wal l di mi ni shes s wel l i ng
pr essur es and s i gni f i c a nt l y l i m i t s acces s t o moi st ure. Guidance on s o i l sta-
b i l i z a t i o n methods f or cont r ol of heave a r e gi ven i n DM-7.3, Chapter 3. Com-
pl e t e dr ai nage ( s e e DM-7.1, Chapter 6) i s one of t he t echni ques t o cont r ol
heave .
10. SELECTION OF STRENGTH PARAMETERS. The choi ce of s t r e ngt h paramet ers is
governed by t h e s o i l permeabi l i t y c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s , boundary dr ai nage and
l oadi ng condi t i ons , and time.
a. Sat urat ed Cohesive Soi l s. For sat ur at ed cohesive s o i l s of low perme-
a b i l i t y , where s uf f i c i e nt t i e i s not avai l abl e f or complete drai nage, use
undrained shear st r engt h, and t o t a l stress f or ear t h pressure computations.
Such condi t i on w i l l e xi s t during and immediately a f t e r completion of
const ruct i on.
b. Coarse-grained Soi l s. In coarse-grained s o i l s such a s sand, which
have hi gh permeabi l i t y, use ef f ect i ve s t r e s s st r engt h parameter 6' , f or
- - - -
e a r t h pressure computations. Also, where s uf f i c i e nt t i m e is avai l abl e f or t he
di ssi pat i on of pore pressure i n l e s s t han pervious s oi l , use e f f e c t i ve stress
st r engt h parameters c1 and 8' . In t h i s case, pore pressure i s hydr ost at i c
and can be est i mat ed f a i r l y accurat el y.
In s oi l s such a s si l t and cl ayey sand, where pa r t i a l drai nage occurs
duri ng t he time of const ruct i on, perform anal ysi s f or l i mi t i ng condi t i ons,
i.e. ef f ect i ve stress with 6' onl y, t o t a l s t r e s s with c , and desi gn f or t he
worst case.
Sect i on 3. RI GI D RETAINING WALLS
1. GENERAL CRITERIA. Rigid r et ai ni ng walls a r e those t ha t develop t h e i r
l a t e r a l r esi st ance pri mari l y from t h e i r own weight. Examples of r i gi d s' t ruc-
t ur es a r e concret e gr avi t y walls, t hi ck concret e s l ur r y wal l s, gabion walls,
and some rei nforced e a r t h w a l l s rei nforced f or l i mi t ed movements. Theor et i cal
wal l pressures a r e discussed i n Sect i on 2. Requirements f or r esi st ance
agai nst overt urni ng and sl i di ng of four pr i nci pal wal l t ypes a r e given i n
Fi gure 15. Evaluate over al l s t a b i l i t y agai nst deep foundation f ai l ur e. (See
DM-7.1, Chapter 7.) Determine allowable beari ng pressures on the base of t he
wal l (see Chapter 4).
a. Sl i di ng St abi l i t y. Pl ace t he base a t l e a s t 3 f t below ground sur-
face i n f r ont of t he w a l l and below dept h of f r os t act i on, zone of seasonal
volume change, and depth of scour. s l i di ng s t a b i l i t y must be adequate with-
out i ncl udi ng passi ve pressure a t t he toe. I f i ns uf f i ci ent s l i di ng resis-
t ance i s avai l abl e, i ncrease base width, provide pi l e foundation or , lower
base of wall and consi der passi ve r esi st ance below f r os t depth. I f t he wal l
i s supported by rock or very s t i f f cl ay, a key may be i ns t a l l e d below t he
foundation t o provide addi t i onal r esi st ance t o s l i di ng (see Fi gure 15).
b. Set t l ement and Overturning. For w a l l s on r e l a t i ve l y i ncompressi bl e
foundat i ons, appl y overturning c r i t e r i a of Figure 15. I f foundat i on i s com-
- - - -
pr essi bl e, compute settlement-by methods of DM-7.1, Chapter 5 and est i mat e
tilt of r i gi d w a l l from t he set t l ement . I f t he consequent tilt wi l l exceed
accept abl e limits, proportion t he wall t o keep the r es ul t ant force a t t he
middle t hi r d of base. I f a wal l settles such t hat t he r esul t i ng movement
forces i t i nt o t he s o i l which it support s, t hen t he l a t e r a l pressure on t he
act i ve s i de i ncr eases subst ant i al l y.
c. Overal l St abi l i t y. Where r et ai ni ng wal l s a r e underl ai n by weak
s oi l s , t he over al l s t a b i l i t y of the s o i l mass cont ai ni ng t he r et ai ni ng wal l
should be checked wi t h respect t o t he most c r i t i c a l surface of s l i di ng ( see
DM-7.1, Chapter 7). A minimum f act or of s af et y of 2.0 i s desi r abl e.
LOCATION OF RESULTANT
MOMENTS ABOUT TOE:
ASSUMING g = O
OVERTURNING
MOMENTS ABOUT mE:
IGNORE WERTI.R?NIffi IF R IS WITHIN MIDDLE
THIRD (SOIL), MIDDLE HALF (ROCK).
CHECK R AT Dl FFERENT HORIZONTAL PLANES
FOR GRAVITY WALLS.
SEM KiRAVlTY
RESISTANCE ffiAINST SLIDING
F= (W+\) TAN 8 +ca B -- ,
----_ -
FOR COEFFICIENTS OF FRICTION BETWEEN
BASE AND SOlL SEE TABLE- I
Cq =ADHESION BETWEEN SOlL AND BASE
TAN 8 = FRICTION =TOR BETWEEN SOIL
WINCWDES WEIGHT OFWALL AND SOlL IN FRONT
FOR GRAVITY AND SEMIGRAVITY WALLS.
l NUDES WEIGHT OF WALL AND SOlL ABOVE
FOOTING, FORCANTILEVER AND COUNTERFORT
CONTACT PRESSURE ONFOUNDATION
FOR ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE FOR INCLINED
LOAD ONSTRIP FOUNDATION,SEE CHAPTER 4.
COUNTERFORT FOR ANALYSIS OF PILE LOADS BENEATH STRIP
FOUNDATION, SEE CHAPTER 7.
OVERALL STABILITY
SECTION A-A
FIGURE 15
Design Criteria for ~ i g i d Retaining Walls
51
b .. :. . *
- . ..
. . . :.- .* A .- . : 6 ' . ..
:.; : :, -.. .
' .-. b . ' .
4? - . . , ' . ' . A " ' - 4 . .. . . . .
a - &' . . . , . r - - . ; . -. . '. b . -...
C = SHEAR STRENGTH OF
-
- ~ I / / / / / ' = FOUNDATION SO1L
d
PP
Fs = FACTOR OF SAFETY
-_
INTACT :: . *;
, A - CQ = ADHESION -CONCRETE
- / / / / I / - -
a,- --
ON SOIL
Pp = PASSIVE RESISTANCE
8 : FRICTION ANGLE-
CONCRETE ONSOlL
RESISTANCE AGAl NST SLl Dl NG ON KEYED FWNDATKINS
COMWESOILS F= (w+PV)TAN 8 + c a ( e - a ~ ) t c ( a 7 ) +pp
GRANULAR WLS F = (W +PV ) TAN 8 +pP
Fs =E
PH
FIGURE 15 (continued)
Design Cri teri a for Rigid Retaining Walls
d. Drainage. Pos i t i ve dr ai nage of b a c k f i l l i s des i r abl e. ( See DM-7.1,
Chapter 6 f or dr ai nage desi gn. ) As a minimum, provi de weep hol es wi t h pocket s
-
of coarse-grained mat er i al a t t he back of t he wal l . An impervious s u r f a c e
l ayer should cover t he b a c k f i l l , and a g u t t e r shoul d be provided f o r c o l l e c t -
i ng runoff.
2. LOW WALLS. It has been t he pr a c t i c e of t he Naval F a c i l i t i e s Engi neeri ng
Command t o consi der w a l l s l e s s t han 12 f e e t i n hei ght "low wal l s. " For t h e s e ,
knowledge of s o i l pr oper t i es coul d be adequat e f o r desi gn, and de t a i l e d t e s t -
i ng and el abor at e pr essur e comput at i ons may not be j u s t i f i e d economi cal l y.
a. Equi val ent Fl ui d Pressures. Use equi val ent f l u i d pr es s ur es of Fi gur e
16 (Reference 9, So i l Mechanics i n Engi neeri ng Pr act i ce, by Terzaghi and Peck)
f or s t r a i g h t sl ope b a c k f i l l and of Fi gure 17 (Reference 9 ) f o r broken s l ope
ba c kf i l l . Incl ude dead l oad surcharge a s an equi val ent weight of b a c k f i l l .
For r e s ul t a nt f or ce of l i n e l oad sur char ge, s ee bottom l e f t panel of Fi gur e
11. I f a wal l r e s t s on a compressi bl e foundat i on and moves downward wi t h
r es pect t o t he b a c k f i l l , i ncr eas e pr essur es by 50 percent .
b. Drainage. The equi val ent f l ui d. pr essur es i ncl ude e f f e c t s of seepage
and time condi t i oned changes i n t he ba c kf i l l . However, pr ovi s i ons shoul d be
made t o prevent accumulation of water behind t he wal l . As a minimum, pr ovi de
weep hol es f o r drai nage. Cover b a c k f i l l of s o i l t ypes 2 and 3 ( Fi gur e 16)
wi t h a s ur f ace l a ye r of impervious s oi l .
Sect i on 4. DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE WALLS
1. ANCHORED BULKHEADS. Anchored bulkheads a r e formed of f l e x i b l e s heet i ng
r es t r ai ned by t i eback and by penet r at i on of sheet i ng below dredge l i n e . See
Fi gure 18 f or desi gn procedures f or t hr ee common penet r at i on condi t i ons.
a. Wall Pressures. Compute a c t i ve and passi ve pr essur es usi ng t h e
appr opr i at e Fi gur es 2 through 7. Determine r equi r ed dept h of penet r at i on of
sheet i ng and anchor p u l l from t hes e pressures. See Fi gure 18 f o r guidance.
b. Wall Movements. Active pr essur es a r e r e di s t r i but e d on t he w a l l by
def l ect i on, moving away from t he pos i t i on of maximum moment. Reduce t he com-
puted maximum moment t o al l ow f or - f l e x i b i l i t y of sheet i ng. Moment r educt i on
i s a f unct i on of t he wal l f l e x i b i l i t y number. See Fi gure 19 (Reference 10,
Anchored Sheet P i l e Walls, by Rowe). Sel ect sheet i ng s i z e by successi ve
approxi mat i ons so t h a t sheet i ng s t i f f n e s s i s compat i bl e wi t h reduced desi gn
moment .
c. Drainage. Incl ude t he e f f e c t of probable maximum d i f f e r e n t i a l head
i n computing w a l l pressures. Where pr act i cabl e, provi de weep hol es or s peci al
drai nage a t a l e v e l above mean water t o l i m i t d i f f e r e n t i a l water pressures.
VALUES OF SLOPE ANGLE B , DEGREES
CIRCLED NUMBERS INDICATE THE FOLLOWING SOIL TYPES :
a CLEAN SAND AND GRAVEL: GW, GP, SW, SP.
@ DIRTY SAND AND GRAVEL OF RESTRICTED PERMEABILITY - GM,GM-GP, SM-SP,SM.
@ STIFF RESIDUAL SILTS AND CLAYS, SILTY FINE SANDS, CLAYEY SANDS AND
GRAVELS: CL,ML,CH,MH,SM,SC,GC.
FIGURE 16
Design Loads for Low Retaining Walls (Strai ght Slope ~ a c k f i l l )
SOIL TYPE I SOIL TYPE 2 SOI L TYPE 3
0 0. 2 0.4 0. 6 0.8 1.0
VALUES OF RATIO HI/H
.
FOR DESCRIPTION OF SOILTYPE SEE flGURE I6
.
FIGURE 17
Design Loads f or Low Retaining Walls (Broken Slope Backfi l l )
I. COMPUTE PRESSURES BY METHODS OF FIGURES 2 TO7
PASSIVE PRESSURES FORCLEAN OARSE GRAIN SOILS
INCLUDE WALL FRICTION (%).TABLE I. FOR ACTIVE OR
PASSIVE PRESSURES IN ALLOTHER SOILTYPES,
IGNORE WALL FRICTION.
FS =2 TO3 FWI COARSE GRAINED SOILS
FS = 1.5 TO 2 FQR FINE GRAINED SOILS
3. ANCHOR PULL: Ap PA^ PA^ - Pp/FS] dl d=ANCHOR M N G
4. MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT (MMAx.) IN SHEETING
COMPUTED BY THE FREE EARTH SUPPORT MEMOD AND
APPLYING PA^ AP. FOR SHEETING IN SAND
APPLY MOMENT REDUCTION FOR FLEXIBILITY OF FIGURE 19.
FREE EARTH SUPPORT - GENERAL CASE
DESIGN STEPS I, 2, AND 3 SAME AS ABOVE
EARTH SUPPORT.
4. COMPUTE MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT ( M ~ x . 1 IN
SHEETING BY FREE EARTH SUPPORT METHOD
APPLYING PA , Pp/FS AND Ap.
5. COMPUTE P KCORDING TOFtGURE 19. IF P 2 20, M DESIGN
IS COMPUTED FORTHE SWN @@ ASSMNG SIMPLE
SUPPORT AT POINT @
IF P ( 20 OBTAIN MOMENT REDUCTION FOR FLEXIBILITY
FROM FIGURE B.
6. INCREASE PENETRATIOW COMPUTED (D) BY =%TO
ALLOW FOR DREDGING, SCOUR, ETC.
I. COMPUTE PRESSURES AS ABOVE.
EXCEPT THAT PASSIVE PRESSURE DECREASES TO
ZERO AT TOP OF HARD STRATUM.
2: PENETRATION IN HARD STRATUM :
TAKE MOMENTS ABOUT POINT@AND SOLVE FOR P ~ :
ESTIMATE I F REACTION PB CAN BE PROVIDW BY
4. MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT IN SHEETING COMPUTED BY
APPLYING PA, Pp AND Ap TO SPAN @@ASSUMING
SIMPLE SUPPORT AT@. NO REDUCTION FOR FLEXIBILITY.
--
FIGURE 18
Desi gn Cri t eri a for Anchored Bulkhead (Free Earth Support)
1 .o
.9
.8
x
a .7
I
I
\
z .6
'3
8
P .5
I
E 4
2
.3
.2
VALUE OF p = (H*')~ IN [g] PER RUNNING FOOT OF WALL
rn
EXAMPLE: PENETRATION IN VERY COMPACT SAND
M MAX = 950,000 IN. LB/FT.
H=33FT, D=15FT.
f S = 25,000 PSI, E=30,000,000 PSI
TRY ZP 32,1=385.7IN.4,~=38.3 IN.^
(33+15)4 x 124 IN.^
p ' 30,000,000 x 3857 = 9'5 - LB.
MDES'~N 2 0.68, M E ~ ~ G ~ =645,000 IN. LB/ FT
4 MMAX.
-
- 645000 = 16,800 PSI
fs IC=j 3a.'3
16,800 ( 25,000 PSI
TRY A SMALLER SECTION.
LOAD DIAGRAM MOMENT DIAGRAM
LEGEND
MMAX = MAXIMUM POSITIVE MOMENT IN SHEETING COMPUTED BY METHODS OF FIGURE 18.
M DESIGN = MAXIMUM POSITIVE MOMENT FOR DESIGN OF SHEETING.
(H + E = SHEETING MODULUS OF ELASTICITY, PSI
P = FLEXIBILITY NUMBER : -
E I
' I = SHEETING MOMENT OF INERTIA, IN.^ PER RUNNING
NOTES
FOOT OF WALL.
I. MDES~GN IS OBTAINED BY SUCCESSIVE TRIALS OF SHEETING SIZE UNTIL MAX. BENDING
STRESS IN SHEETING EQUALS ALLOWABLE BENDING STRESS.
2. NO REDUCTION IN M ~ x . IS PERMITTEDFOR PENETRATION IN FINE GRAINED SOILS OR LOOSE
OR VERY LOOSE COARSE GRAINED SOILS.
3. FLEXIBILITY NUMBER IS COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF LUBRICATED INTERLOCKS.
FIGURE 19
Reduction i n Bending Moments i n Anchored Bulkhead from Wall F l e x i b i l i t y
d. Anchorage System. Most of t he d i f f i c u l t i e s wi t h anchored bulkheads
a r e caused by t he i r anchorage. A t i eback may be car r i ed t o a buri ed deadman
-
anchorage, t o p i l e anchorage, pa r a l l e l wal l anchorage, or it may be a d r i l l e d
and grouted anchor ( see DM-7.3, Chapter 3). See Figure 20 f or criteria f or
desi gn of deadman anchorage. I f a deadman must be posi t i oned cl ose t o a wal l ,
anchorage r esi st ance i s decreased and an addi t i onal passi ve r eact i on i s re-
qui red f or s t a b i l i t y a t t he wal l base. Pr ot ect t i e rods by mappi ng,
pai nt i ng, or encasement t o r e s i s t corrosi on. Where ba c kf i l l w i l l s e t t l e
s i gni f i cant l y or unevenly, t o avoid l oadi ng by overburden, encl ose t i e rod i n
a r i gi d t ube, providing ver t i cal support i f needed t o el i mi nat e sag.
e. Example of Computation. See Figure 21 f or example of anal ysi s of
anchored bulkhead.
f . Const ruct i on Precautions. Precaut i ons during const r uct i on a r e a s
f 011 ows :
( 1)
Removal of s of t material, or placement of f i l l i n the "passi ve"
zone should precede t he dri vi ng of sheet pi l es.
( 2)
Deposit backf i l l by working away from t he wal l r at her than
toward i t t o avoid t rappi ng s of t mat er i al adj acent t o sheet i ng.
( 3)
Before anchorage i s placed, sheet i ng i s loaded a s a cant i l ever
wal l , and saf et y during const ruct i on st ages should be checked.
g.
Sand Dike Backfi l l . When granul ar backf i l l is scar ce, a sand di ke
may be placed t o form a plug acr oss t he pot ent i al f a i l ur e sur f ace of t he
act i ve wedge a s shown i n Figure 22. Where such a di ke r e s t s on fi rm founda-
t i on s oi l , t he l a t e r a l pressure on t he bulkhead w i l l be onl y the act i ve pres-
sur e of t he di ke mat eri al . For f ur t her guidance, see Reference 11, Founda-
t i ons , Ret ai ni ng and Ear t h St r uct ur es, by Tschebot ari off.
2. CANTILEVER SHEET PILE WALLS. A cant i l ever wal l der i ves support from t he
passi ve r esi st ance below t he dredge l i n e t o support t he act i ve pressure from
t he s o i l above t he dredge l i ne without an anchorage. This type of w a l l i s
s ui t abl e onl y f or hei ght s up t o about 15 f e e t and can be used onl y i n granu-
l a r s oi l s or s t i f f cl ays. See Figure 23 f or a method of anal ys i s ( a f t e r
Reference 12, St eel sheet Pi l i ng Design Manual, by U.S. St eel Corporation).
For cohesive s oi l s consi der no negat i ve pressure i n t ensi on zone. Fi gures 24
and 25 (Reference 12) may be used f or simple cases.
3. INTERNALLY BRACED FLEXIBLE WALLS. To r e s t r a i n foundation or t rench exca-
vat i ons, f l e xi bl e wal l s can be braced l a t e r a l l y a s the excavation proceeds.
This r e s t r a i ns l a t e r a l movement of t he s o i l and cause l oads on t he braces
which exceed t hose expected from act i ve e a r t h pressure. Braces may be e i t h e r
long raking braces or r el at i vel y shor t hor i zont al cr oss braces between t r ench
wa l l s . Design e a r t h pressure diagram f or i nt er nal l y braced f l e xi bl e wal l s a r e
shown i n Figure 26 ( a f t e r Reference 6) f o r excavations i n sand, s of t cl ay, or
s t i f f cl ay.
EFFECT OF ANCHOR WCATION
RELATIVE TO THE WALL
ANCHOR BUXm LEFT OF b~ PROVIDES NORESISTANCE.
ANCHOR BLOCK RIGHT OF bf PROVIDES FULL
RESISTANCE WITH NOLOAD TRANSFERRED TO WALL.
HOR B W K BETWEEN b~ AND bf PROVIDES
PARTIAL RESISTANCE AND TRANSFERS LOAD aPp
TOBASE OF WALL.
FOR FREE BODY a b e d
ERE PA =ACTIVE FORCE ON BACK OF de AT
CONTIN WUS ANCHOR WALL LOCATE0
BETWEEN RUPTURE SURF . AND
SL OE ATFRICTION ANGLE
Kp OeTAlNED FROM FIGURE 5
USING - b# 0.5 KA IS OBTAINED FROM FldURE 3
FIGURE 20
Design Cr i t e r i a f o r Deadman Anchorage
FIGURE 20 (continued)
Design Cri teri a f or Deadman Anchorage
EFFECT OF DEPTH AND SWI NG
OF ANCHOR BUCKS
J
i
M a R ESISTANCE FOR hl 2
L CONTINUOUS WALL:
ULTIMATE ApC/d ZP~- PA~HERE Apc/d IS ANCHOR RESISTANCE AND PO ,@
L
TAKEN PER LINEAL FOOT OF WALL.
T 2. INDIVIDUAL ANCHORS:
~ F~ ~ ~ + ~ , ULTI MATEA~ = ~ ( P~ - P~ ) + ~ P~ TAN( ~ WHEREP~ = RESULTNT
A-A A-A
FORCE OF SOIL AT REST ON VERTICAL AREA c d e OR c"de.
CONTINUOUS
WALL ANCHORS 'NwlwAL IF d = h + b , ~ ~ / d sm%w~pdd RR~ ~ TI NUX~ S WALL.
L FORTHIS CONDITION IS AND L'= h.
IF d< h+b,Ap/d =~d - %(.3 ~ p d d ) , c=h.
N C H R RESISTANCE FOR hl ( a
ULTIMATE Ap/d OR Apc/d EQUALS BEARM CAWCITY OF STRIP FO(mNG OF
WIDTH hl AND SUCHCRE UYD Y ( h- +),SEEFIGURE I CHAPTER^
USE FRICTON ANGLE f :WHERE TAN @ =0.6 TAN 6.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
I. ALUlWABLE VALUE OF Ap AND A ~ c =ULTIMATE VALUE/2, FAGTOR OF SAFETY OF 2 AGAlNST FAILURE.
2. V U E S OF KA AND Kp ARE FOR COHESIONLESS MATERIALS. I F BACKFILL HAS BOTH #AND C STRENGTHS,COMPUTE
kMl VE AND M I V E FORCES ACCORDING TO FIGURES 7 AND9 FINE GRAINED SOILS OF MOMUM TO HIGH
PLASTICITY SHOULD NOT BE USED AT THE ANCHORAGE.
3. SOILS WITHIN PASSIVE WEDGE OFANCHORAGE SHALL 8E COMMED TO NO LESS THCIN 90%OF MAX. UNIT
WEIGHT ( ASTM D698 TEST).
4. TIE ROD IS DESlGNEll FOR ALLOWABLE Ap ORA~c . TIE ROD CONNECTWS TO WALL AND ANCHORAGE ARE =NED
FOR 1.2 (ALUDWABLE Ap OR Apc).
5. TIE ROD CONNETION TO ANCHORAGE IS MADE AT THE LOCATION OF THE RESULTANT EARTH PRESSURES
KTI NG ON THE VERTICAL FACE OF THE ANCHORAGE.
t.3'4 QL 5,000 PLF
~q =so0 PSF
.23 KSF
a =I -An
.TY.= +l ; 25? C1= 100PSF
r
PH=2.75 KIP
yT = 115 PCF
I
KA (FROM FIGURE 3) z.41
PA^ = 10.4 KIP
21.09~
I
24' ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM
77 -1 - , A1 NET WATER PRESSURE DIAGRAM
= 4.05 KIP
+2 = 3s0, C2= 50 PSF
yT = 1% WF
9 ~ 4 = 10.9 KIP
KA (FROM FIGURE 5 )=.n
+ 1 .a3
5-94 Kp (FROM FIGURE 5)=6.0
ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE (SEE FIGURE 2)
INCWDING UNIFORM SURCHARGE q
U H = y Z K ~ -2C ll(A
,UH z.30x.41-2x.O W = O
, uH =(.m+5~.115).41-2x.10 mz . 2 3 KSF
, UH=(.30+5~.115+19~.053).41-2 %.I0 s.65 KSF
=(.30+5x.115+19x.053).27-2~.~ Wz.46 M
=.46+6~.068~.27=.57KSF
@,a~( = .46+(6+14)rD68~.27=.83KSF
PRESSURE OF LINE LWD SURCHARGE
(SEE FIGURE II )
m = +=&=o.I
PH = 0.55 QL=0.55 ~5 ~2. 75 KIP
U)CATION OF RESULTANT :
R=.60H =.60x30=18'
NET WATER PRESSURE
PASSIVE PRESSURE
UH' YZ K ~ + ~ c 6
@,uH = o + ~ x D s ~ = . ~ ~ K s F
@, UHz. 068 x 14~6.0+2 x . 0 5 W = 5.94 KSF
SAFETY FACMR AGAINST TOE FAILURE :
TAKE MOMENTS ABOUT . . . . - . . - . . -. . . - . - - -
-
p MOMENTS OF W ~ V E FORCES
-
C MOMENTS OF ACTIVE FORCES
ANCHOR PULL
AP =CpA-CPp/FS
1 = 155 +2.75+0.4+4.05 +10.9- %!@= 12.37 KIPS
-
MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT IN SHEETING
POINT OF ZERO SHEAR:
x2
12.37-1.55 -2.75-45X -.022 x -0
X z l 3 . 6 ' ~ ~ ~ ) ~ OUTSIDE WATER LEVEL
MOMENT REDUCTION :
ASSUME:^^ =~T,OOOPSI, E=JO,O,OOO PSI
TRY ZP 32, I =MS.? IN^, s=3a3 IN^
+ 4
P =(FROM FWRE 19 = ILLD)
= .83; Y ON z.83 x 669 ~72. 1 FT-KIPS
MMAx
TRY A SMALLER SECTION
FIGURE 21
Example of Analysis of Anchored Bulkhead
FIGURE 22
Sand Dike Scheme f or Controlling Active Pressure
'
RETAl N 1 NG
l ' ~ b 6 0 . 1 ~
STABLE DREDGE SLOP
. SAND DIKE .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...... .
.... . . : -. :. ... ':
-..- ........... :;.:-:.....: .....:.:........ ::::..
..:.... . . . . . . . . . . ..........
:. :-::: :
..
. .
: :
:. '..-:-:'..::'..-.-;DENSE .;.SAND
rnlJCTURE%
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
.
'I -
/ I
H
I
. . . .
. . . . . - ; ..-::.::
. . :... : ..:::.a;..
NOTE: WATER LEVELS CAN
BE D1FFEREb.F C:;'; ?-SITE
SIDES DUE TOPUMPING,TlDAL
FLUCTUATIONS AND OTHER
REASONS.
E '
1. Assume a t r i a l dept h of penet r at i on, D. Thi s may be est i mat ed from
t h e f ol l owi ng approximate c or r e l a t i on.
* H = hei ght of pi l i ng above dredge l i n e
2. Determine t he a c t i ve and passi ve l a t e r a l pr es s ur e usi ng a ppr opr i a t e
c o e f f i c i e n t s of l a t e r a l e a r t h pr essur e. I f t h e Coulomb method i s
used, i t shoul d be used cons er vat i vel y f o r t he passi ve pr essur e.
3. Sa t i s f y t he r equi r ement s of s t a t i c equi l i br i um: t h e sum of t he
f or ces i n t h e hor i zont al di r e c t i on must be zer o and t he sum of t h e
moments about any poi nt must be zero. The sum of t he hor i z ont a l
f or c e s may be wr i t t e n i n terms of pr essur e ar eas :
_C -
A(EA1A2) - A( FBA~ ) - ~ ( E C J ) = 0
Solve t he above equat i on f or t he di s t ance, 2. For a uniform
gr anul ar s o i l ,
K~ ~2 - KA ( H+D) ~
z =
(Kp - KA) (H+2D)
FIGURE 23
Anal ysi s f o r Cant i l ever Wall
St andard Pe ne t r a t i on
Resi st ance, N
Blows/foot
0 - 4
5 - 10
11 - 30
31 - 50
+5 0
Depth of Penet r at i on*
2.OH
1.5H
1.25H
1.OH
0.75H
4. Take moments about poi nt F. I f sum of moments i s ot her t han zero,
r eadj ust D and repeat cal cul at i ons u n t i l sum of moments around F i s
zero.
5. Compute maximum moment a t poi nt of zero shear.
6. Increase D by 20% .- 40% t o r e s ul t i n approximate f a c t or of s af et y of
1.5 t o 2.
FIGURE 23 (cont i nued)
Analysis f or Cant i l ever Wall
c HVM .A/xw w ' HIOIM.ld t13d OllVt1 I N 3 WOW
EXAMPLE
Backf i l l : fi = 30 Underlying Cohesive Stratum: C = 750 p s f
Y = 120 pcf y a w 60 ps f
Y' = 60 pcf
Depth H t o mud l i n e = 20 f t
Depth t o water = 5 f t
a = 5/20 = 0.25
Wall f r i c t i o n = 0.3 (Tabl e 1 )
KA = 0.31 (Fi gure 5)
YEH = 120 x 5 + 15 x 60 = 1,500 psf
qu = 2C = 1,500 psf
USING FIGURE 25:
2 q " - ~ ~
- - 3000- I5O0 = 4. 03
Y ' K A H
60 X 0.31 X 20
Depth r a t i o , . ! = 0.69
H
D cal cul at ed = 0.69 x 20 = 13.8 f t
D desi gn = 13.8 x 1.3 = 17.9 f t
Moment r a t i o = 0.33
= 0.33 x 60 x 0.31 x (2013 = 49,104 f t - l b / f t of w a l l
FIGURE 25 (cont i nued)
Cant i l ever St e e l Sheet P i l e Wall i n Cohesive Soi l wi t h Granul ar Ba c kf i l l
(a) SAND
u h = 0. 65 KA.YH
WHERE KA- TAN~ (45-+/ 2)
FIGURE 26
Pr es s ur e Di s t r i but i on f o r Brace Loads i n I n t e r n a l l y Braced Fl e xi bl e Walls
CI
F2 I1
-
F3
1 2
Fq
13
e-+
FI
; I
4
(b) SOFT TO MEDIUM CLAY
F2 - -
1 2
5 - _ -
1 3
F4 -
KA = I - m- ;
%&
YH
m = 1 except where c ut i s
I I
under l ai n by deep s o f t
$' (+++)Q~ normal l y cons ol i dat ed
c l a y, t hen m = 0. hFSB
ASSUME HINGES ATSTRUT
LOCATIONS FOR CALCULATING
See Fi gur e 28 f o r Fact or of Saf et y
STRUT FORCES a ga i ns t bottom i n s t a b i l i t y ,
(FSB): 1 L F S ~ L 1 . 5
F- l
F2 11
Om2SH ( STIFF CLAY
-
-
I (N0<4
1 2
. - A
For 4<No<6, use l a r g e r of
F3 L
0.50H
diagrams ( b) and ( c) .
uh1=0.2 y H; Uh2=0. 4yH
l 3
-
I U s e lower val ue when movements
F4 a r e minimal and s h o r t
c ons t r uc t i on peri od.
-
d
I (No>6
For c l a ys base t h e s e l e c t i o n on
0.75 H No = Y H/c
u h = ~ A - y . ~
4 C
a. Wall wi t h Raking Braces. When s ubs t ant i al excavat i on i s made bef or e
pl aci ng an upper br ace, movement of t he wal l i s gr e a t e s t a t t he t op and pres-
-
sur es approach a c t i ve values. See Fi gure 27 f o r desi gn c r i t e r i a .
b. Braced Narrow Cuts. When a narrow cut i s braced s t i f f l y a s excava-
t i on proceeds, sheet i ng i s r es t r ai ned a t t he t op and t he wal l de f l e c t s inward
a t t he base. Design t he wal l employing t he following st eps:
( 1)
Compute f act or of s af et y agai ns t bottom i n s t a b i l i t y ( Fi gur e
28).
( 2)
Compute s t r u t forces ut i l i z i ng t he method i n upper panel of
Figure 27.
( 3)
Compute requi red s ect i on f or wal l and wale using method i n upper
panel of Figure 27. In computing t he requi red wal l s ect i ons , archi ng could be
accounted f or by reducing t hese pressures somewhat i n a l l but t he upper span.
A reduct i on of 80% of t he val ues shown would be appropri at e.
( 4 )
Re-compute s t r u t f or ces and t he requi red s ect i ons of w a l e s and
wal l using t he pressure diagram of lower panel of Fi gure 27 f o r each const ruc-
t i on st age.
(5)
Compare s t r u t f or ces, and requi red s ect i ons computed i n St ep ( 4)
t o those computed i n St ep ( 3) and s e l e c t t he l a r ge r f or ce or s ect i on f o r
design. See example i n Figure 31.
4. TIED BACK FLEXIBLE WALL. Depending on t he width of excavat i on and ot he r
f act or s ( s ee Chapter 1 ) i t may be economical t o r e s t r a i n excavat i on wal l s by
t i e backs. The use of t i e backs depends on t he exi st ance of s ubs oi l s adequat e
t o provide requi red anchorage. For mul t i -l evel t i e back systems, d r i l l e d i n
t i e backs (i . e. anchors) a r e usual l y used. For a s i ngl e l e ve l t i e back (e-g. ,
bulkheads), a deadman anchorage, ba t t e r pi l e anchorage o r a pa r a l l e l w a l l
anchorage a r e us ual l y considered. For de t a i l s on t he dr i l l e d anchors -
process and hardware, see Reference 6. For de t a i l s on ot her anchorage systems
s ee Reference 12 and Reference 13, Foundation Const ruct i on, by Carson. .
a. Pressure Di st r i but i on. For s of t t o medium cl ay use a t r i a ngul a r
di s t r i but i on, i ncreasi ng l i ne a r l y wi t h depth. For a l l ot her s o i l s us e a
uniform pressure di s t r i but i on. See Fi gure 29.
b. Design Procedures. Apply a desi gn procedure s i mi l ar t o i n t e r n a l l y
braced excavat i on a s shown i n Fi gure 27.
5. EXAMPLE OF COMPUTATION. See Figure 30 f o r example of anal ys i s of braced
wal l of narrow cut , and Figure 31 f or an example of excavat i on i n s t ages .
6. STABILIZING BERMS. On occasi on i t i s pr act i cal t o i ncr ease t he resis-
t ance of f l e xi bl e walls by using s t a bi l i z i ng berms. The l a t e r a l r e s i s t a nc e of
a s t a bi l i z i ng berm w i l l be less than t ha t f or an e a r t h mass bounded by a
hor i zont al pl ane a t t he t op el evat i on of t he berm.
w
SOLDIER BEAM
WITH LAGGING
FLEXIBLE WALL OF NARROW CUT
I. COMPUTE PRESSURES ON WALL ABOVE BASE OF CUT BY METHODS OF FIGURE 26. FOR WATER
AT BACKFILL SURFACES USE Y'YSUB AND ADD PRESSURES R)R UNBALANCED WATER
LEVEL. FOR WATER AT BASE OF CUT USE Y 'YT. INTERPOLATE BETWEEN THESE PRESSURE
DIAGRAMS FOR AN INTERMEDIATE WATER LEVEL.
2. DETERMINE STABILITY OF BASE OFCUT BY METHODS OF FIGURE 28. IF BASE IS STABLE,SHEETING
TOES IN SEVERAL FEET AND NO FORCE ACTS ON BURIED LENGTH. IF BASE IS UNSTABLE,SHEETING
PENETRATES AS SHOWN IN FIGURE 28 AND UNBALANCED FORCE PC1 ACTS ON BURIED LENGTH. IN
ANY CASE, PENETRATION MAY BE CONTROLLED BY REQUIREMENT FOR CUT-OFF OF UNDERSEEME.
3. MOMENTS IN SHEETING BETWEEN BRACES = 0.8 x (SI MPLE SPAN MOMENTS 1, EXCEPT FOR UPPER
SPAN WHERE MOMENT = 1.0 x (SIMPLE SPAN MOMENT). MOMENTS IN SHEETING AT POINT @ IS
COMPUTED FOR CANTILEVER SPAN BEWW@, INCLUDING UNBALANCED FORCE ~j l .
4. REACTION AT BRACES COMPUTED ASSUMING SIMPLE SPAN BETWEEN BRACES.
-
FIGURE 27
Des i gn Criteria for Braced Flexible Walls \
I
FIGURE 27 (continued)
Design Criteria for Braced Flexible Walls
%
SHEETING OR SOLDIER
BEAMS WITH LAGGING
PA= RESULTANT ACTIVE PRESSURE
=RESULTANT BELOW FLEXIBLE WALL WlTH RAKING BRACES
POINT @
1. COMPUTE ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PRESSURES BY METHODS IN SECTION 2. PASSIVE
PRESSURES FOR CLEAN,COARSE-GRAINED SOILS INCLUDE WALL FRICTION (%),TABLE I.
IGNORE WALL FRICTW FOR M I V E PRESSURES IN OTHER SOILTYPES AND FOR
ACTIVE PRESSURES IN ALL SOILS.
2 MAXIMUM MOMENlS IN SHEETING AND MAXIMUM LOADS IN BRACES ARE U S W OBTAINED
AT A CONSTRUCTION STME WHEN EXCAVATION FOR A BRACE AND WALE IS COMPLETE
AND JUST PRIOR TO PLACING THE BRACE. FOR EACH SUCCESSIVE STAOE OF EXCAVATm
COMPUTE SHEETING MOMENTS AND BRACE LOADS BY ASSUMING SIMPLE SPAN BETWEEN
WWEST BRACE THEN IN PLACE AND POINT OF ZERO NET PRESSURE BuOW EXCAWTION.
3. FORTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION CONMTDNS,APPLY FACTOR OFSAFETY OF 1.5 Tt) COMPUTE
PASSIVE PRESSURES. TO ALLOW R)R POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION SURCHARGE AND RIGIDITY
OF UPPER BRACE POINT, INCREASE LOAD ON UPPER WALE AND BRACE BY ISO/'OF COMPUTED
VALUE.
4. REQUIRED PENETRATION OF SHEETING BEUIW FINAL SUBGRADE GENERALLY IS CONTROCLED
BY CONDITIONS AT COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION. PENETRATION REQUIRED IS DETERMINED BY
EQUILIBRIUM OF FREE ENDED SPAN BEUW POINT @. ASSUMING FIXITY AT POINT@:
p ~ ~ 4 - * k ' 2 - ~ g = ~
MS =ALLOWABLE MOMENT IN SHEETING
5. CHECK POSITIVE MOMENTS IN SPAN BEIDW POINT @ FOR THIS FINAL W I N G CONDITION.
A
CUT IN COHESIONLESS SOIL
STABILITY IS INDEPENDENT OF H AND B, BUT VARIES
WITH 71 # AND SEEPAGE CONDITION.
SAFETY FACTOR, Fs = 2Ny2 (%) KA TAN 9
N ~ 2
= BEARING CAPACITY FACTOR, FIGURE I ,CHAPTER 4
IF GROUNDWATER IS AT A DEPTH OF (8) OR MORE BELOW
BASE OF CUT:
3 AND Y2 ARE TAKEN AS MOIST UNlT WEIGHT
I F GROUNDWATER IS STATIC AT BASE OF CUT :
TI = MOIST WEIGHT, Y2 =SUBMERGED WEIGHT.
IF SEEPME IS MOVING UPWARD TO BASE OF CUT :
Y2 = (SATURATED UNlT WIGHT 1 - (UPLIFT PRESSURE)
CUT IN CLAY, DEPTH OF CLAY UNLIMITED (T ) 0.78 )
L : LENGTH OF CUT IF SHEETING TERMINATES AT BASE OF CUT :
SAFETY =TOR, FS =
NC C
Y T H + ~
NC = BEARING CAPACITY FETOR, FIGURE 2, CHAPTER 5
WHICH DEPENDS ON DIMENSIONS OF THE
EXCAVATION : B , L AND H (USE H = Z 1.
C = UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH OFCLAY IN
FAILURE ZONE BENEATH AND SURROUNDING
BASE OF CUT.
q = SURFACE SURCHARGE.
IF SAFETY FACTOR IS LESS THAN 1.5, SHEETING MUST BE
CARRIED BELOW BASE OF CUT TD INSURE STABILITY.
FORCE ON BURIED LENGTH:
IF HI ) - - P z.7 (yTH8-I . 4CH-rCB)
3 m 1 H
I FH I ( - - , P ~ = I ~ ) H ~ ( Y ~ H - * ~ - ~ ~ ) : 8
CUT IN CLAY, DEPTH OF CLAY LIMITED BY HARD STRATUM ( ~ $ 0 . 7 ~ )
SHEETING TERMINATES AT BASE OF CUT. SAFETY F m :
CONTlNUOlE EXCAVATION ; FS = N
cD YTH+q
RECTANGULAR EXCAVATION ; Fs = NCR
CI
Y T H + ~
NCD AND NCR =BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS.
FIGURE 5 CHAPTER 4, WHICH DEPEND ONDIMENSIONS OFTHE
EXCAVATION : B , L AND H , (USE H =Z
HARD STRATUM
NOTE: IN EACH CASE FRICTION AND ADHESION ON BACK OFSHEETING IS DISREGARDED.
CLAY IS ASSUM ED TO HAVE A UNIFORM SHEAR STRENGTH = C THROUGHOUT FA1 WRE ZONE.
.
FIGURE 28
Stabi l i ty of Base for Braced Cut
Compute pr es s ur e based on at - r es t
condi t i ons wi t h KO from 0.5 t o
0.6. I n normally consol i dat ed c l a ys
excessi ve pr e s t r e s s i ng shoul d not be
permi t t ed because of t he pot e nt i a l
f o r induced consol i dat i on. Use
desi gn procedure a s i n Fi gur e 26.
FIGURE 29
Pr essur e Di s t r i but i on f o r Tied-Back Wal l s
SOFT TO MEDIUM CLAY
ELEVATION PLAN
7
FIGURE 29 (cont i nued)
Pr essur e Di s t r i but i on f o r Tied-Back Walls
SANDS
:i .
Where deformat i ons a r e c r i t i c a l and
t i e-backs a r e pr es t r es s ed t o 100% of
des i g l oad, compute pr essur e based
on a t - r e s t condi t i ons. Use KO = 0.4
u
f o r dense sand, and KO = 0.5 f o r
04 KoYH TO Q5KoyH
l oos e sand.
STIFF TO VERY STIFF CLAY Use pr es s ur e or di nat e t o produce t he
same f or ce a s f or braced excavat i on.
fi
TO
0.3 YH
H
0.3 i s appl i cabl e f o r s t a b i l i t y number
of about 4, and 0.15 i s appl i cabl e when
s t a b i l i t y number i s l e s s t han 4. Use
desi gn procedure a s i n Fi gure 26.
GIVEN CONDITIONS :
EXCAVATION IN SILTY CLAY.
c =400 PSF,# =O,yT =I 20 PCF
LENGTH OF EXCAVATION , L = 80'
DETERMINE : PRESSURES ON WALL. FORCE ON BURIED
LENGTH OF SHEETING AND STABILITY OF BASE OF CUT.
-
1 I llhl 1
STABILITY OF BASE OF CUT(SEE FIGURE 28)
-
F ~ ~ = K, =0 (NO UNIFORM SURCHARGE )
YT H+ ~
. -
H 2 - 2 0
FOR NC ,(FIGURE 2 ,CHAPTER 5) r= -- -4.67,
i p H 3 L= B w=Q15,NCC 12 ~6. 9 B 12
N C R = N ~ ~ ( I + Q ~ B/L)z6.9(l+Q2(Q15))=7.1
120x20+0
~1.18 (1.5
Fs =
7.1 400
DRIVE SHEETING BELOW BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION
PRESSURE ON WALL FROM SURROUNDING SOIL (SEE FWRE 26)
ch = KA YH = 0.69 x 0.12 x 20 -1.66 KSF
LOCATION OF RESULTANT:
R~ =
1. 66~Y2~( 15+~3) +1. 66~15~15/ 2
=8.81t
29.05
PRESSURES ON WALL FROM SURCHARGE (SEE FIGURE II)
a
PH2 = .78 -f z. 78 % =.39 KIP
LOCATION OF RESULTANT:
Rs. 59H =.59x20=11.8'
FORCE ON BURIED LENGTH OF SHEETING : ( SEE FIGURE 28)
ASSUME HI = 5 < k-- , FOR T ) 0.78 RESULTANT K)RCE P H ~ :
3 -
P H ~ '1.5 x 5(0.12x20-
O4 x20
-3.14 x 4 ) = 1.6 KIP
12
NOTE : ALL COMPUTATIONS ARE PER LINEAR FOOT OF WALL.
FIGURE 30
Example of Analysis of Pressures on Flexible Wall of Narrow Cut
In Clay - Undrained Conditions
FIGURE 31
Example of Excavation in Stages
A
,
ASSUMPTIONS
I. NO SURCHARGE LOAD. 2. NO WALL FRICTION
PROPERTIES
# = 30 y ~0. 125 KCF y' = 0.0625 KCF
c = O DEPTH OF EXCAVATK)N 40'
GWL =lo1 BELOW
GROUND LEVEL
e
rv
-I- -
rC/
STAGE I STAGE It FI NAL STAGE
COMPUTATIONS
FROM FIGURE 2
KA ' 1/3, Kp = 3
A. STAGE I
( PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF BRKE 1 )
SHEETING ACTS AS CANTILEVER WALL.
USE FIGURE 24
a =o Kp/ KA=9
D/H = 0.95 :. REQUIRED 0 = 0.95 x 8 x 1.4 = 10.64 < 40'
MMA X / ~ ' KA. ~ ~ ~ 0 . 3 7 MMAX = 3.946 FT-KIP
-
-
B. STAGE II:
I. ACTIVE PRESSURE
AT WATER LEVEL,UA (10) = 1/3 x 0.125 x 10= 0.417 KSF
AT EXCAVATION LEVEL,uA (18) = 0.417+ 1/3 x 0.0625 x 8 = 0.583 KSF
WATER PRESSURE ON ACTIVE SIDE
PW (18)=0.0625 x 8 = 0.500 KSF
TOTAL PRESSURE (18) = UA(18) + PW (18) = 1.083 KSF
2. POINT OF ZERO NET PRESSURE
APPLY FS = 1.5 TO Kp
SLOPE OF THE NET PRESSURE DIAGRAM = (3/15 - 1/31 0.0625 -0.104
1 083
DISTANCE TO (A) = d. 104 = 10.41 FT
3. REACTION AT (I) AND (A) PER LINEAR FOOT OF WALL
ASSUME HINGE (ZERO BENDING MOMENT) AT (A)
R (1) = b1.083 x 10.41 x V2 x (2/3 x 10.41) +(1.083-0.4171~8 x 1/2 x(10.41+8/3) +0.417 x 8 x
(10.41+8/2)+0.417x10x1/2x(10.41+8+10/3)1x I
(10.41+11)
R( I ) = 7.817 K,USE R(1) ~1.15 x7.817 =8.99K N-9.OK
R (A) = 5.905 K N- 5.9 K
4. POINT OF ZERO SHEAR
TRY A WWTION BETWEEN BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION (DEPTH 18') AND (1)
7.817-(112 XIO X O . ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ X O . ~ I ~ ~ - ~ I ~ ~ X ~ ~ X ~ S ~ ~ = O , so=zn'
5. MAXIMUM MOMENT
MwX. zk8I7 x(7.75e3g - E l 2 xlOx4417)x(275+ Fg- ~ 2 7 5 x 0 . 4 R ) x ~ ]
-[a x r ~ 7 ! 5 ~ x ~ ) 8 xE] 3 ~41.9 FT-KP
C. FINAL STAGE
I. PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
USE PRESSURE DIAGRAM FROM FIGURE 26
Yav = 0.25 x 0.125 + 0.75 x 0.0625 =O.mI = I KSF
q, = 0.65 x 1/3 x 0.0781 x 40 =0.677 KSF
PW (30) = 0.0625 x 30 = 1.875 KSF
FIGURE 3 1 (continued)
Example of Excavation in Stages
FIGURE 31 (continued)
Example of Excavation in Stages
.
2. STRUT LOADS PER LINEAR FOOT OF WALL
RII) zP.677 x 112/2 c0.0625 x 12/2 x7/ d I/K)=l0.14 K,FOR DESIGN R 1:1.15 xf0.14 : 11.66K
R O ) = ( E ~ . ~ ~ ~ X I ~ ) + ( I / ~ X ( I . I I ~ - O . ~ ~ x7)-10.14a ~1. 115~10~10/ 2) +
(1/2 ~(1.740-1.115) x10 xl0/31) 1/10 S9.52K
R(3)= (b.677 x 27) + ( V2 ~(1.740 -0.677) x 171 - 10.14 -9.54 +( 1.740 x9 x 9/21 +
( l/2 x (2.302- l.740) x 9 x9/3)) 1/9 = 16.33 K
~(4):&6 x 0.677) +(1/2 ~(2.302-0.677) x 26 1-10.14-9.52-16.3a +( 2.302 x 4 x 4/21 +
1 1/2 x ( 2.550 - 2.302 ) x 4 x 4/31) l/4 = 14.27 K
3. MOMENT
MAXIMUM MOMENT IS LIKELY TO OCCUR BETWEEN (3) AND (4).
POINT OF ZERO SHEAR FROM (3).
8, 67
2.302-1.74
1.74 x 9 x 9/22) + l/2 x (2.302 - 1.74) x 9 x 9/37 x 1/9 = 1.74 W+(I/2) (
) (x) (i)
X = 4.61 FT.,U= 2.027 KSF
4 61
M M ~ (8.67~4.61)- (l.74~4.61 x %)-112 x (2027-1.74) x 4.6 1 x f
= 20.5 FT KIP; M DESIGN '0.8 x 20.5 = 16.4 FT- KIP.
D. SUMMARY
CONSTRUCTION STRUT LOADS MOMENTS
STAGE KIP FT - KIP
I
-
3.95
I1 R(1) = 8.99 41.9 BETWEEN (I) AND (4)
FINAL
R(1) = 11.66; R(2) = 9.52 16.4 BETWEEN (3) AND (4)
R(3) = 16.33; R(4) = 14.27
NOTE: 0 THE MOMENT AT STAGE II IS GREATER THAN THE FINAL MOMENT.
INTERMEDIATE STAGES MUST ALSO BE CHECKED AS PER PROCEDURE IN FIGURE 27.
(B) IF SIMPLE AREA METHOD IS SELECTED FORTHE COMPUTATIONS OF LOADS
IN STRUTS (1) AND (21, THEN LOAD IN ( I ) WlLL DECREASE AND (2)
WlLL INCREASE.
w
E. PENETRATION BELOW SUBGRADE
I. PRESSURE COMPUTATION
ACTIVE U, (10') = 1/3 x 0.125 x 10= 0.417 KSF
UA(36') =1/3 x 0.125 x 10+ 1/3 x 0.0625 ~ 2 6 10958 KSF
QA (dl = 1/3 x 0.125 x 10+ 1/3 x 0.0625 x 30 = 1.042 KS F
WATER PRESSURE (UNBALANCED HEAD) PASSIVE PRESSURE
PW (36') ~0.0625 x 26 = 1.625KSF
3
up (Dl = 1.3 ~0.0625 xD=O.I25D
pW (40') = 0.0625 x 30 5: 1.875 KSF
(APPLY FS 4.5 TO PASSIVE PRL3SURE)
2583 -0.958 + 1.625
2.917 = 1.042 + 1.875
2. DEPTH REQUIREMENT TO LIMIT MOMENT IN SHEETING
( SEE FIGURE 27 (CONTINUED), 4. )
USE PZ 27 S = 30.2 IN~/FT OF WALL
USE ua = 27,000 PSI
30.2
27 = 67.95 FT-KIP = MS ALLOWABLE MOMENT = l2
TAKE MOMENTS ABOUT (4) TO DETERMINE D.
67.95 + (/2 x 0.125 D x D x (4+ 2/3 D,) - 2.583 x 4 x 4/2- V2 x (2.917-2.583 r 4 x 2/3 x 4
-2.917xDx(4+D/2)- 1/2 x(1/3x0.0625) DxDx(4+2/3D)=O
03 -35.3 02 -332.5 D +1296.6 SO
DQ3FT.
3. DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR CONTROL OF PIPING. ( DM -7.1, CHAPTER 6)
ASSUME W/HW = 1.5 ( I.E., WIDE EXCAVATION)
Fs = 1.2
D/HW = 0.65
OR D = 30 x 0.65 = 19.5 FT
HENCE PIPING GOVERNS THE DEPTH OF PENETRATION FORTHE SHEETING.
FIGURE 31 (continued)
Example of Excavation in Stages
a. Method of Anal ysi s. Perform wedge f or ce equi l i br i um f o r s ever al
trial f a i l u r e sur f aces, and pl ot correspondi ng val ues of hor i zont al r e s i s -
t ance f o r each t r i a l f a i l ur e - surface. The minimum val ue of hor i zont al r e s i s -
t ance obt ai ned from t he curve i s t he t o t a l passi ve e a r t h pr essur e f or t h e
berm. An approximate method of anal ys i s i s t o r epl ace t he berm wi t h an
equi val ent sloping pl ane, and as s i gn an appr opr i at e passi ve pr essur e coef f i-
ci ent .
b. Graphic Procedure. A graphi c procedure (Culmann ~e thod) f o r evalu-
a t i ng t he l a t e r a l r es i s t ance f or gr anul ar s o i l s i s gi ven i n Fi gure 32.
7. SOLDIER PILES. A frequent l y used i n t e r n a l braci ng system c ons i s t s of
s ol di e r p i l e s wi t h l aggi ng. The passi ve e a r t h r es i s t ance act i ng on i ndi -
vi dual s ol di er pi l e s may be computed a s shown i n Fi gure 33. For cohesi ve
s o i l s use uniform r es i s t ance of 2c negl ect i ng t he s o i l r es i s t ance t o a dept h
of 1.5 t i m e s t he p i l e width b from t he bottom of t he excavat i on. For granu-
l a r s o i l s , determine K without wal l f r i c t i o n and negl ect t he s o i l r es i s -
P
t ance t o a dept h equal t o b below t he bottom of t he excavation. Tot al r e s i s t -
i ng f or ce i s computed by assuming t he p i l e t o have an e f f e c t i ve wi dt h of 3b,
f or a l l t ypes of s oi l s . This i s because t he f a i l u r e i n s o i l due t o i ndi vi dual
p i l e elements i s di f f e r e nt from t h a t of cont i nuous wal l s f o r which pr essur e
di s t r i but i ons a r e deri ved.
8. GABION STRUCTURES. As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Fi gure 34, gabions a r e compartment-
ed, r ect angul ar cont ai ner s made of heavi l y gal vani zed s t e e l or polyvinyl-
chl or i de (PVC) coat ed w i r e , f i l l e d with st one from 4 t o 8 i nches i n s i z e , and
a r e used f o r cont r ol of bank er osi on and s t a bi l i z a t i on. When wat er qua l i t y i s
i n doubt (12<pH<6) or where hi gh concent r at i on of organi c aci d may be pr es ent ,
PVC coat ed gabions a r e necessary. A t t he cons t r uct i on s i t e , t he i ndi vi dual
gabion uni t s a r e l aced t oget her and f i l l e d with st one.
a. Design. Gabions a r e designed a s mass gr avi t y s t r uc t ur e s ( s ee Fi gur e
15). When desi gni ng a v e r t i c a l f ace wal l i t should be bat t er ed a t an angl e of
about 6' t o keep t he r es ul t ant force toward t he back of t he wall. The coef-
f i c i e n t of f r i c t i o n between t he base of a gabion wal l and a cohesi onl ess s o i l
can be t aken a s t an0 f or t he s oi l . The angl e of wal l f r i c t i o n , 8 , may be
taken a s 0.9@. Where t he r et ai ned mat er i al i s mostly sand, a f i l t e r c l o t h
or granul ar f i l t e r i s recommended t o prevent any l eachi ng of t he s oi l . Deter-
mine t he uni t weight of gabions by assuming t he por osi t y t o be 0.3. Speci f i c
gr avi t y of common mat er i al ranges between 2.2 (sandst one) and 3.0 ( ba s a l t ) .
Along a l l exposed gabion f aces t he out er l ayer of s t ones should be hand pl aced
t o ensure proper al i gnment , and a neat compact square appearance.
b. Cohesive Soi l s. A system of gabion count er f or t s i s recommended when
desi gni ng gabion s t r uc t ur e s t o r e t a i n cl ay sl opes. They should be used a s
headers and should extend from t he f r ont bf t he wal l t o- a poi nt a t l e a s t one
gabion l engt h beyond t he c r i t i c a l s l i p c i r c l e of t he bank. Count erfort s may
be spaced from 1 3 f e e t (very s o f t cl ay) t o 30 f e e t ( s t i f f cl ay) . A f i l t e r i s
a l s o requi red on t he back of t he wal l so t hat cl ay w i l l not cl og t he f r e e
dr ai ni ng gabions.
Figure 32
Culmann Method f or Determining Passi ve Resi st ance of Eart h Berm
(Granular Soi l )
7.2-113
STABILIZING BERM
CULMANN LINE
PLANE OF SHEAR
---------
SlVE RESISTANCE, Pp
1. Draw berm t o scal e.
2. Layout OX from poi nt 0 a t angl e 6 below hor i zont al .
3. Layout OY from poi nt 0 a t angl e (a+6 ) below OX.
4 . Assume f a i l u r e sur f aces or i gi nat i ng a t poi nt 0 and passing t hr ough
poi nt s a, by c , et c.
5. Compute t he weight of each f a i l u r e wedge.
6 . Layout t he weight of each f a i l ur e wedge along OX t o a conveni ent
scal e.
7. Draw a l i ne pa r a l l e l t o OY f or each f a i l ur e wedge from i t s wei ght
pl ot t ed on OX t o i t s f a i l ur e pl ane ( ext r apol at ed where necessary).
8. Connect t he i nt er s ect i ng poi nt s from 7 above wi t h a smooth cur ve -
t h i s i s t he Culmann Curve. Draw a tangent t o t h i s curve which i s
a l s o pa r a l l e l t o OX.
9 . Through t he t angent poi nt F , draw a l i n e pa r a l l e l t o OY t o
i nt e r s e c t OX a t w ~ . Distance FWF i s t he val ue of Pp i n t he wei ght
scal e.
10. Normal component of t he passi ve r es i s t ance, PN = Pp cos 8 .
11. To compute pressure di s t r i but i on on t he wal l , assume a t r i a ngul a r
di s t r i but i on.
a
FIGURE 33
Passive Pressure Distribution for Soldier Pi l es
1
J
GIVEN #1=30O, y = 1 2 5 ~ ~ ~ , b = 1 . 5 ' , ~ = 1 5 '
flND ULTIMATE RESISTANCE OFTHE BOTTOM OFTHE SOLDIER PlLE TO
HORIZONTAL LOAD.
K ~ = TAN^ (45+#/2 )
= 3
'125 X 1.5 = l88PSF=O.l88KSF, C15=125X I5=1875 PSF=IB75 KSF
41 =
0'188+1'875 X 13.5 X 3 X ( 3 Xl.5) = 188KlPS
2
-
b
-L - ,b
w 8" KP
EFFECTIVE PILE WIOTH=3b UNORAINEO STRENGTH
EFFECTIVE STRESS (COHESIONLESS
OR COHESIVE)
(COHESIVE)
NOTE : RESISTANCE SHOWN IS PER FOOT OF EFFECTIVE PlLE WIDTH.
Gabion Ret ai ni ng Wall
Types - Common Gabion w a l l s
shown on accompanying
diagrams ar e:
a ) Bat t ered f ace wal l wi t h
hor i zont al ba c kf i l l .
b) Stepped f ace w a l l wi t h
sloped ba c kf i l l .
c ) Bat t ered f ace wa l l wi t h
sloped backf ill.
d) Stepped f ace w a l l wi t h
hor i zont al ba c kf i l l .
The choi ce of e i t he r bat t er ed o r
stepped f aces r e s t s wi t h desi gner ;
" stepped f ace recommended i f wal l
i s more t han 10 f e e t high.
Gabion F i l l - Hard, dur abl e, cl ean
st one 4 t o 8 i nches i n
s i z e or ot he r approved
s i ze.
Design: Design c r i t e r i a f or gr avi t y wal l s apply. Wall s ect i on r e s i s t i n g
overt urni ng and sl i di ng. To i ncr ease wal l s t a b i l i t y , recommended t o
tilt t he wal l a t an angl e of 6' (i.e. 1:lO).
The angl e of f r i c t i on between t he base of gabion wal l and gr anul ar
s o i l may be assumed 0.9 times t he angl e of i nt e r na l f r i c t i o n of s oi l .
For r et ai ni ng cl ay sl opes, a system of gabion count er f or t s i s
recommended.
Compute act i ve s o i l pressure behind t he wal l usi ng Coulomb Wedge
t heory and desi gn mass of t he wal l t o balance t he f or ce exer t ed by
t ha t s o i l wedge. (Higher t han act i ve pr essur es may be used depending
on compaction condi t i ons and l i mi t at i ons on deformations.)
Maximum pressure a t t he base of gabion wal l must be l e s s t han t he
ant i ci pat ed bearing capaci t y of t he s o i l under t he wal l .
When water qual i t y i s i n doubt (pH below 6 o r gr eat er t han 12) or
where hi gh concent rat i on of organi c aci ds may be present , us e of PVC
(pol yvi nyl chl ori de) coated gabions i s recommended.
FIGURE 34
Gabion Wall
9. REINFORCED EARTH. Reinforced e a r t h i s a system of t yi ng ve r t i c a l f aci ng
uni t s i nt o a s o i l mass with t he i r t e ns i l e s t r i ps . It c ons i s t s of four ele-
ments: ( 1) a s oi l ba c kf i l l , ( 2) t e ns i l e r ei nf or ci ng s t r i p s , (3) f aci ng -
elements a t boundaries, and (4) mechanical connect i ons between rei nforcement s
and faci ng elements. The s o i l backf i l l i s gener al l y gr anul ar mat er i al wi t h
not more t han 15% by weight passing a No. 200 mesh si eve. It should not
cont ai n mat er i al s cor r osi ve t o r ei nf or ci ng s t r i ps . Rei nforci ng s t r i p s i ncl ude
smooth and rough s t r i p s of non-corrodable met al s or t r eat ed met al s about 3
i nches wide. Facing cons i s t s of s t e e l s ki n o r pr ecast concret e panel s about 7
i nches t hi ck.
A wal l const ruct ed of rei nforced e a r t h i s a gr avi t y wal l and i t s s af et y shoul d
be checked a s i n Figure 15.
I nt er nal s af et y of rei nforced e a r t h i s checked a s i l l us t r a t e d i n Fi gure 35.
For f ur t her guidance on rei nforced e a r t h see Reference 14, ~ e i n f o r c e d Ear t h
Ret ai ni ng Walls, by Lee, e t al . and Reference 15, Symposium of Ear t h
Reinforcement, Proceedings of a Symposium, by American Soci et y of Ci vi l
~- ~
Engineers.
10. EARTH FILLED CRI B WALLS. See Fi gure 36 (Reference 16, Concrete Cr i b
Ret ai ni ng Walls, by Port l and Cement Associ at i on) f o r t ypes and desi gn c r i -
t er i a. For s t a b i l i t y agai nst ext er nal f or ces , a c r i b wal l i s equi val ent t o
gr avi t y r et ai ni ng wal l (Fi gure 15). For desi gn of s t r uc t ur a l el ement s, s ee
Reference 17, Foundations, Design and Pr act i ce, by Seelye.
Sect i on 5. COFFERDAMS
1. TYPES. Double-wall or c e l l ul a r cofferdams cons i s t of a l i n e of c i r c ul a r
c e l l s connected by smal l er a r c s , pa r a l l e l semi -ci rcul ar wal l s connected by
s t r a i ght diaphragms, or a successi on of cl over l eaf c e l l s ( s ee Fi gure 37). For
anal ys i s , t hese conf i gur at i ons a r e transformed i nt o equi val ent pa r a l l e l w a l l
cofferdams of width B.
2. ANALYSIS. St a bi l i t y depends on r a t i o of width t o hei ght , t he r e s i s t a nc e
of an inboard berm, i f any, and type and drai nage of c e l l f i l l mat er i al s .
a. Ext er i or Pressures. Usually a c t i ve and passi ve pr essur es a c t on ex-
t e r i or f aces of t he sheet i ng. However, t her e a r e except i ons t o t h i s and t hes e
a r e i l l us t r a t e d i n Fi gure 37.
b. St a b i l i t y Requirements. A c e l l must be s t abl e agai ns t s l i di ng on i t s
base, shear f a i l u r e between sheet i ng and c e l l f i l l , shear f a i l u r e on cent er -
l i n e of c e l l , and i t must resist bur st i ng pressures through i nt er l ock t ensi on.
These f act or s a r e i nfl uenced by foundation type. See Figure 37 f or desi gn
c r i t e r i a f or cofferdams wi t h and without berms, on foundat i on of rock o r of
coarse-grained o r fine-grained s oi l . See Reference 18, Design, Const ruct i on
and Performance of Cel l ul ar Cofferdams, by Lacroix, et al . , f o r f ur t her
guidance.
I
Qh=$Yd
THICKNESS = t
Saf et y agai ns t breaki ng of r ei nf or ced s t r i ps .
Fs =
fs W t
H A Y H S X
S = Hori zont al spaci ng between s t r i p s X = Ve r t i c a l Spacing between s t r i p s
fs = al l owabl e s t r e s s of r ei nf or ced s t r i p s .
-
~ y ~ i c a l l ~ W = 3'*. A hi gh f a c t or of s a f e t y, Fs = 3.2, i s used even t hough
al l owabl e met al s t r e s s i s u t i l i z e d i n computing s t r i p t hi ckness. Thi s i s
done t o account f o r unknowns such a s dur a bi l i t y and corrosi on.
2 Lmin.W TAN 8
SAFETY AGAl NST PULLOUT FS =
KA.
.X
bin i s measured beyond zone of Rankine f a i l ur e . The upper s t r i p s may not
have enough l engt h t o f u l f i l l t h i s requi rement , but a s l ong a s t he aver age
l engt h of a l l t he s t r i p s s a t i s f i e s t h i s condi t on t he wal l i s consi der ed
s at i s f act or y.
d = dept h beneath top of wal l
t = t hi ckness of s t r i p
Y = u n i t weight of b a c k f i l l
B = wi dt h of wal l
KA = c oe f f i c i e nt of each a c t i ve pr es s ur e ( hi gher t han a c t i v e
val ue may be used depending on compaction condi t i ons and
l i mi t a t i ons on deformations).
8 = angl e of f r i c t i o n between r ei nf or ci ng s t r i p and t h e b a c k f i l l
mat er i al
1 = e f f e c t i ve l engt h of t i e beyond pot e nt i a l s l i di ng s ur f ace
FIGURE 35
Rei nforced Ear t h
PANYING DIAGRAMS.
CRIBBING MATERIALS -TIMBER,CONCRETE ,AND METAL.
FILL-CRUSHED STONE ,OTHER COARSE GRANULAR MATERIAL,INCLlJDING ROCK LESS THAN I2 INCHES H SIZE.
DESIGN - DESKN CRITERIA FOR GRAVITY WALLS APPLY. WALL SECTION RESISTING OVERTURNING IS
-
TAKEN AS A RECTANGLE OF DIMENSW ( H x b ). WEIGHT OF CRlB IS EQUAL TO THAT OF MATERIAL
WITHIN (H x b), INCLUDING WEIGHT OF CRlB MEMBERS. UIW WALLS (4 FT HlGH AND UNDER 1 MAY BE MADE
WITH A PLUMB FACE. HIGHER WALLS ARE BATTERED ONTHE FACE AT LEAST 2 INCHES PER FOOT. FOR
HlGH WALLS (12 FT. HlGH AND WER) THE BATTER IS INCREASED ORSUPPLEMENTAL CRIBS AOOED AT
THE W K . SUCH WALLS ARE VERY SENSITIVE TO TRANSVERSE DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENTS. WALLS
WITH CONVEX BACK ARE MORE DESIRABLE FOR GREATER HEIGHT. IN OPEN FACE CRIBS,THE SPACE
BETWEEN STRETCHERS S WL D NOT EXCEED 8 INCHES SOAS TO PROPERLY RETAIN THE FILL.EXPANSION
JOINTS FOR CONCRETE AND METAL CRIBBING ARE SWED NOMORE THAN 90 FEET.
FILLING -THE WALL SHOULD NOT BE LAID UP HIGHER THAN 3 FEET ABWE THE LEVEL OF THE FILL
WITHIN THE CRIB.
BIN TYPE RETAINING WALL - COMPOSED OF METAL BINS OR CELLS JOINED TO SPECIALCWMNAR UNITS
AT THE CORNERS. THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE THE SAME AS FOR CRlB WALLS EXCEPT THAT
SUITABLE DRAINAGE BEHIND THE WALLS IS NEEDED. INTERNAL STRESSES ARE INVESTIGATED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRITERIA FOR CELLULAR WALLS.
FIGURE 36
Design Cr i t e r i a f o r Cri b and Bin Walls
TYPICAL CELL CONFIGURATWS EQUIVALENT RECTANGULAR
EQUIVALENT RECTANGULAR
a = 450 B =.87!5D
CIRCULAR CELLS SEMICIRCULAR CELLS CLOVERLEAF TYPE CELL
TYPICAL SECTION
INBOARD FACE
STEEL SHEET PILE
WATER SURFACE IN THE CELL
TOP OF ROCK,SAND,OR CLAY
SLOPE OF FREE SURFME IN CELL DEPENDS ON
PERMEABILITY OF CELL FILL ... UNLESS SPECIAL
DRAINME IS PROVIDED AND SLDPE IS CONTROUEn
ASSUME THE FOLLOWING: FREEDRAINING COARSE
GRAINED FI LL (GW,GP,SW,SP): SLOPE I
HORIZONTAL TO I VERTICAL: Sl LTY COARSE
GRAINED Fl LL (GW,GC,SM,SC): SLOPE 2 TO I :
FINE GRAINED FILL: SLOPE 370 1.
HORIZONTAL STRESS DIAGRAMS IN CELL Fl LL
a
CENTER PLANE OF CELL IN BOARD SHEETING
K = 0.5 TO0.6
I ,
C
d -
-P; - I -Y, , , H -' p i -L
1 - -
p;
-
--
P;' YSUBH
pb = [ Y ( ~ - ~ J ) + Y ~ ~ ~ ( HJ- +I ] +~~( H3- %)
P ~ ' K E ( H - H ~ ) + Y ~ ~ ~ ( H I J
pi'^ p ( H - ~ 3 ) IS^^ HJ]
FIGIJRE 37
Design Criteria for Cellular Cofferdams
7.2-119
PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSIS
1. Equivalent width of cofferdam.
Assume B = 0.85H f o r f i r s t t r i a l .
2. Ef f ect i ve weight of c e l l f i l l . w = [B(H-H1)Y~+ B(H1) Ysubl
3. Average di st ance between cr os s L
walls.
4. Hori zont al act i ve f or ce on P; = KA
Ys,,
2
outboard si de - compute using
KA = t an2(45 - 6/21.
5. Coef f i ci ent of hor i zont al ear t h K ( var i es - see hor i zont al
pressure. pressure - diagram)
6. Water f or ce on outboard si de.
( ~ 1 2
pw = Yw 2
7. Hori zont al passi ve f or ce due t o Pp = Pp'+Pwi (i ncl ude
berm pl us water force. wal l f r i c t i on between
sheet p i l e and s o i l
H
8. Net overt urni ng moment due t o
H 2 H4
Mo.(PWx 3 ) + ( ~ h ~ 7 ) - ( P p x T )
t o t a l hor i zont al force. ( poi nt of appl i cat i on of Pp i s
approximated a s H4/3, see References
i n t e xt f or f ur t her guidance)
9. Resi st i ng moment due t o c e l l MR = W(B12)
f i l l .
10. Radius of c e l l wall. R
11. I nt er l ock t ensi on. T r P b L
where Pb = t o t a l hor i zont al stress
a t poi nt b
Zone a t maximum i nt er l ock t ensi on
l ocat ed a t H/4 above base. See
stress diagram, Inboard Sheet i ng
and r ef er ences c i t e d i n t e xt
12. Ultimate i nt er l ock st rengt h.
Tu = 16 ki p/ i n f or or di nar y U.S.
s t e e l sheet pi l e s and 28 ki ps / i n
f or high i nt er l ock U.S. s heet
pi l e s
13. Ef f ect i ve uni t weight. YE = weighted average of c e l l
f i l l YT and )'SUB (above and
below water i n t he c e l l )
FIGURE 37 (cont i nued)
Design Cr i t e r i a f o r Cel l ul ar Cofferdams
14. Fr i c t i on angl e of s o i l and 8 = 213 dl'
s t e e l .
15. Coef f i ci ent of f r i c t i o n between X = use 0.5 f o r smooth rock,
c e l l f i l l and rock. f o r a l l ot her use t an0
16. Drained angl e of sheari ng
r es i s t ance of s oi l .
+ '
17. Coef f i ci ent of i nt er l ock f = 0.3
f r i c t i o n .
18. Hori zont al e f f e c t stress on p' = ( s ee pr essur e diagram f o r
a v e r t i a l plane. s ubs cr i pt )
19. Hori zont al e f f e c t f or ce on a PI = ( s ee pr essur e diagram f o r
v e r t i c a l plane. s ubs ci pt )
FIGURE 37 (cont i nued)
Design Cr i t e r i a f o r Ce l l u l a r Cofferdams
i
DESIGN METHODS
COFFERDAM ON ROCK - WITH BERM
1. Fact or of s af et y agai nst s l i di ng on Base
Fs =
) 1.25 (TEMP0RARI)TO 1.5 (PERMANENT)
P ~ ~ + P ~ - P ~ -
2. Fact or of s af et y agai nst overt urni ng, Fo
F ~ = $ L 3 TO 3.5
3. Fact or of saf et y agai ns t excessi ve i nt er l ock t ensi on, Fi
Fi = +1 1.5 TO 2.0
4. Fact or of s af et y agai nst ve r t i c a l shear on cent er l i ne, Fvs (Terzaghi )
FYS = 2/3 8 [ pi TAN + + ( pIi - pp) d 1 I. 25 (TEMPORARY WALL)
Mo 1.50 ( PERMANENT WALL)
Where P'a i s cal cul at ed using t he e f f e c t i ve s t r e s s diagram f o r t he
Center Plane of cel l , and equal s t he ar ea efgh wi t h K = 0.5 t o 0.6; and
P'~ i s cal cul at ed usi ng t he e f f e c t i ve stress diagram of Inboard
Sheeting, and equal s ar ea ab' c' d wi t h K = 0.4.
5 . Fact or of s af et y agai nst t i l t i n g , Ft
I I
F+ =- -
B
TE~2H( 1TAN2+- TTAN3++I ( f H ) I.25(TEMPORARY)
Mo 6
FOR K = T A N ~ ( ~ ~ - + / ~ )
B - 1.50 (PERMANENT
6 .
Fact or of s af et y agai nst shear a t c e l l f i l l , sheet p i l e i nt er f ace, Fsf
B
Fsf =- "&
Mo [ ( P ~ + P ~ + ~ ) T A N 8 + ~ i f + ] 2 i;g :::!EL,":))
Where Po' i s cal cul at ed using t he ef f ect i ve s t r e s s diagram f o r
Outboard Sheet i ng, and i s equi val ent t o ar ea j kl wi t h K = 0.7 t o 1.0.
7. Sel ect value of B which s a t i s f i e s a l l requirements.
COFFERDAM ON ROCK - WITHOUT BERM
Follow desi gn St eps 1 through 7 a s above f or cofferdam with berm.
8. Put Pp = 0 i n a l l equat i ons t o compute Mo and f act or of saf et y.
9 .
I n computing Fvs, pai is cal cul at ed usi ng t he stress diagram f o r
Inboard Sheet i ng, and equals ar ea ab' c' d with K = 0.4.
FIGURE 37 (Continued)
Design Cr i t er i a f or Cel l ul ar Cofferdams
COFFERDAM ON DEEP SAND FOUNDATION - WITHOUT BERM
10. Penet rat i on of sheet pi l i ng may depend on underseepage r equi r ement s
which a r e eval uat ed with flow net . I n gener al , t h i s i s t o avoi d pi pi ng
a t inboard toe.
2H
Dl = D2 = -
3
H
o r Dl = D2 = 7 i f water l evel i s lqwered a t l e a s t g b e l o w i nboar d
ground surface.
11. Check f a c t or s of s af et y f or St eps 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 above f or
cofferdams on rock.
12. Fact or of
s af et y f o r s t a b i l i t y agai ns t beari ng capaci t y f a i l u r e , Fbc
Fbc = - "It ) 2 (NOTE:Pp=O)
W +6Mo -
B i ?
Qult = ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY FORCONTINUOUS FOOTING OF WIDTH B (SEE CHAPTER 4 )
13. Penet r at i on t o avoid pull-out of outboard sheet i ng.
1 1.5, WHERE Qult = ULTl MATE PULLOUT CAPACITY PER LINEAR FOOT OF
Q P
WALL = 1/2 K,,Y~ D~'TAN 8 x PERIMETER INOTE:P~=O), AND ctp=
Mo
B
38 ( 1 + 4 ~ )
COFFERDAM ON DEEP SAND FOUNDATION - WITH BERM
14. Design a s per s t eps f or cofferdam on deep sand foundation wi t hout berm,
except t ha t passi ve r es ul t ant Pp i s included i n r e s i s t i ng over t ur ni ng
moment .
15. St a bi l i t y agai nst beari ng capaci t y f a i l ur e i s not a s c r i t i c a l wi t h
presence of berm.
16. Penet r at i cn of sheet i ng requi red t o avoid piping is eval uat ed wi t h fl ow
net .
17. Penet r at i on of Outboard Sheeting t o avoid pull-out i s t he same as f or
cofferdam on deep sand without berm except i ncl ude Pp i n c a l c ul a t i on
of Mom
COFFERDAM ON STIFF TO HARD CLAY
18. Design procedures same a s f or cofferdams on sand. St a bi l i t y a g a i n s t
beari ng capaci t y f a i l ur e of inboard t oe Fbc 1 2.5. Penet r at i on of
sheet i ng t o avoid piping i s usual l y not important.
19. Penet r at i on t o avoid pull-out of Outboard Sheet i ng
"It ) 1.5; Qp SAME ASSTEP 13
-
QUl! = C. DI X PERIMETER ( Co FROM TABLE I 1
FIGURE 37 (Continued)
Design Cr i t e r i a f or Cel l ul ar Cofferdams
7.2-123
COFFERDAM ON SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF CLAY
20. Design procedures same a s f or cofferdams on deep sand, wi t h
modi fi cat i ons a s per following st eps. Penet rat i on t o avoid
piping is usual l y not important.
21. Fact or of Safet y f o r , s t a b i l i t y agai nst bearing capaci t y f a i l u r e , Fbc
Fbc from St ep 12 - > 3
22. Because of i nt er nal i n s t a b i l i t y due t o set t l ement of compressi bl e
foundation, f act or of s af et y agai nst ve r t i c a l s t r e s s on c e nt e r l i ne
Fvs from Step 4 qhould be
(L+Q25B) 1.25 (TEMPORARY)
FVS * X ~ X ( L+0.5B) 1{ I. 50 (PERMANENT
I nves t i gat e over al l s t a b i l i t y of cofferdam with r espect t o s l i di ng
along a curved sur f ace below t he bottom of t he sheet i ng by s l ope
s t a b i l i t y anal ys i s from DM-7.1 CHAPTER 7.
23. I nves t i gat e and eval uat e seams of pervi ous sand wi t hi n t he cl ay depos i t
which could develop excessi ve u p l i f t pressure below t he base of t he
cofferdam.
24. Evaluate penet r at i on of outboard sheet i ng t o avoid pull-out a s per St ep
19.
FIGURE 37 (cont i nued)
Design Cr i t er i a f or Cel l ul ar Cofferdams
(1) Sand Base. For c e l l w a l l s on sand, penet r at i on of s he e t i ng must
be s uf f i c i e nt t o avoi d pi pi ng a t i n t e r i o r t oe of wal l and t o prevent p u l l o u t
of outboard sheet i ng.
( 2 ) Clay Base. For cofferdams on c l a y, penet r at i on of out boar d
sheet i ng us ual l y i s cont r ol l ed by t he pul l out requi rement and pi pi ng i s not
c r i t i c a l .
( 3) Bearing Capacity. For cofferdams on e i t h e r c l a y or sand, check
t he beari ng capaci t y a t t he i nboard t oe by methods of Chapt er 4.
c. Cel l Deformations. The maximum bul gi ng of c e l l s occur s a t about 114
of t he hei ght above t he base of t he cofferdam and t he c e l l s tilt about 0.02 t o
0.03 r adi ans due t o t h e di f f er ence i n l a t e r a l l oads on t h e out board and
i nboard faces. Def l ect i ons under t he l a t e r a l over t ur ni ng l oads a r e a func-
t i on of t he dimensions, t he foundat i on s uppor t , and t he pr oper t i es of t h e c e l l
f i l l ( s ee Reference 19, Fi el d Study of Ce l l ul a r Cofferdams, by Brown).
3. CELL FILL. Clean, coarse-grai ned, f r ee- dr ai ni ng s o i l s a r e pr ef er r ed f o r
c e l l f i l l . They may be placed hydr aul i cal l y o r dumped t hrough water wi t hout
compaction or s pe c i a l drai nage.
a. Mat er i al s. Clean gr anul ar f i l l ma t e r i a l s shoul d be used i n l a r g e and
c r i t i c a l c e l l s . Every a l t e r n a t i v e shoul d be s t udi ed bef or e accept i ng f i ne -
grai ned backf i l l . These s o i l s produce hi gh bur s t i ng pr es s ur es and minimum
c e l l r i g i d i t y . Thei r use may ne c e s s i t a t e i n t e r i o r berms, i ncr eased c e l l
wi dt h, o r pos s i bl y cons ol i dat i on by sand dr a i ns o r pumping wi t hi n t he c e l l .
Al l so t mat er i al t rapped wi t hi n t he c e l l s must be removed before f i l l i n g .
b. Drainage. Weep hol es should be i n s t a l l e d on i nboard s heet i ng t o t h e
c e l l f i l l . For c r i t i c a l c e l l s and margi nal f i l l mat er i al , suppl ement ary
drai nage by wel l poi nt s , or wel l s wi t hi n c e l l s have been used t o i ncr eas e c e l l
s t a b i l i t y .
c. Ret ar dat i on of Corrosion. When cofferdams a r e used a s permanent
s t r uc t ur e s , e s pe c i a l l y i n br acki sh or seawat er, sever e cor r os i on occur s from
t op of t he t he s pl as h zone t o a poi nt j us t below mean low wat er l evel . Use
pr ot ect i ve coat i ng, cor r os i on r e s i s t a n t s t e e l and/ or cat hodi c pr ot ect i on i n
t hes e ar eas.
REFERENCES
1. Canadian Geot echni cal Soci et y, Excavat i ons and Ret ai ni ng St r uc t ur e s ,
Canadian Foundation Engi neeri ng Manual, Pa r t 4, 1978.
2. Caquot, A., and Ker i s el , F., Tabl es f o r t he Cal cul at i on of Pas s i ve
Pr essur e, Act i ve Pr essur e and Beari ng Capaci t y of Foundat i ons,
Gaut hi er-Vi l l ars, Par i s .
3. Gray, H., Cont r i but i on t o t he Anal ysi s of Seepage Ef f e c t s i n Ba c kf i l l s ,
Geotechnique, 1958.
4. Ri char t , F.E., and Schmertmann, F., The Ef f e c t s of seepage on t he
St a b i l i t y of Sea Wal l s, Proceedi ngs, F i r s t Conference on Coast al
Engi neeri ng, Uni ver si t y of Fl or i da, Gai nes vi l l e, FL.
5. Based on work by Terzaghi , K., Anchored Bulkheads, Tr ansact i on, ASCE,
Paper No. 2720, Vol. 119, 1954.
6. Goldberg, D.T., Jaworski , W.E., and Gordon, M.D., La t e r a l Support
Systems and Underpinning, Vol. I, Design and Const r uct i on (Summary),
FHWA-RD-75, Federal Highway Admi ni st rat i on, 1976.
7. Ingol d, T.S., Ret ai ni ng Wall Performance During Backf i l l i ng, J our nal
of t h e Geot echni cal Engi neeri ng Di vi si on, ASCE, Vol. 105, GT5, 1979.
8. Seed, H.B. and Whitman, R.V., Design of Ear t h etain in in^ St r uct ur es f o r
Dynamic Loads, Lat er al St r e s s e s i n t he Ground and Design of Ear t h
Ret ai ni ng St r uct ur es , ASCE, Cor nel l Uni ver si t y, 1970.
9. Terzaghi , K., and Peck, R.B., So i l Mechanics i n Engi neeri ng Pr a c t i c e ,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , New York, 1967.
10. Rowe, P.W., Anchored Sheet P i l e Walls, Proceedi ngs, I n s t i t u t i o n of
Ci vi l Engi neers, London, January, 1952.
11. Tschebot ar i of f , G.P., Foundat i ons, Ret ai ni ng and Ear t h St r uct ur es , 2nd
Edi t i on, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1973.
12. United St a t e s St eel Corporat i on, St e e l Sheet Pi l i ng Design Manual,
United St a t e s St eel , Pi t t s bur gh, PA., 1975.
13. Carson, A. C., Foundation Const ruct i on, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965.
14. Lee, K.L., Dean, B. and Vageron, J. M. J. , Rei nforced Ear t h Ret ai ni ng
Walls, J our nal of Soi l Mechanics and Foundation Di vi si on, ASCE, Vol.
99, No. SM10, 1973.
15. ASCE Proceedi ngs, Symposium on Ear t h Reinforcement, ASCE Annual
Convention, Pi t t s bur gh, PA., 1978.
16. Port l and Cement Associ at i on, Concret e Cr i b Ret ai ni ng Walls, Concrete
Informat i on No. St . 46, Chicago, IL., May, 1952.
17. Seelye, E.E., Foundat i ons, Design and Pr a c t i c e , John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, New York, 1956.
18. Lacroi x, Y. , Es r i g, M. I . and Luschem, U., Desi gn, Cons t r uct i on and
Performance of Ce l l ul a r Cofferdams, La t e r a l St r e s s e s i n t he Ground and
Design of Ea r t h Ret ai ni ng St r uc t ur e s , ASCE, Cor nel l Uni ver s i t y, 1970.
19. Brown, P.P., Di scussi on of Paper by White, Chency and Duke, Fi e l d
Study of Ce l l ul a r Cofferdams, Tr ansact i on, ASCE, Paper No. 3426, Vol.
128, Par t 1, 1963.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
CHAPTER 4. SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Sect i on 1. INTRODUCTION
1. SCOPE. This chapt er pr es ent s c r i t e r i a f or t he desi gn of shallow founda-
t i ons , methods of determining al l owabl e beari ng pr essur es, and t reat ment of
problems i n swel l i ng and col l apsi ng subsoi l s. For t he maj or i t y of s t r uc t ur e s
t he desi gn of f oot i ngs i s cont r ol l ed by l i mi t i ng set t l ement s. (See RELATED
CRITERIA below.) Thi s chapt er di scusses permi ssi bl e beari ng pr essur es as
l i mi t ed by shear f ai l ur e. Shallow foundat i ons a r e of t he following t ypes;
spread f oot i ngs f o r i s ol at ed columns, combined f oot i ngs f or support i ng t he
l oad from more t han one s t r uc t ur a l uni t , s t r i p foot i ngs f or wal l s, and mats o r
r a f t s beneath t he e nt i r e bui l di ng area. Also, included i s guidance f o r foot -
i ngs subj ect ed t o upl i f t . Design of deep anchors f or such f oot i ngs i s covered
i n DM-7.3, Chapter 3.
2. RELATED CRITERIA. See DM-7.1, Chapter 5 f o r det ermi nat i on of s et t l ement s
of shallow foundations. See NAVFAC DM-2 f or c r i t e r i a f or l oads appl i ed t o
foundat i ons by vari ous s t r uct ur es and s t r uc t ur a l desi gn of foundat i ons.
3. APPLICATIONS. Shallow foundat i ons can be used where t her e i s a s ui t a bl e
beari ng st rat um near t he sur f ace, no hi ghl y compressible l ayer s below, and
cal cul at ed set t l ement s a r e accept abl e. Where t he beari ng st rat um a t ground
sur f ace i s underl ai n by weaker and more compressible mat er i al s , consi der t he
use of deep foundat i ons or pi l es . See Chapter 5.
Sect i on 2. BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
1. LIMITATIONS. Allowable beari ng pr essur es f o r shallow foundat i ons a r e
l i mi t ed by two consi derat i ons. The s af et y f act or agai nst ul t i mat e s hear
f a i l u r e must be adequate, and set t l ement s under al l owabl e beari ng pr es s ur e
should not exceed t ol er abl e values. I n most cases, set t l ement governs t he
foundat i on pressures. See DM-7.1, Chapter 5 f o r eval uat i on of set t l ement s.
For major s t r uct ur es , where r e l a t i ve l y high foundation beari ng pr essur es yi el d
s ubs t ant i al economy, determine ul t i mat e beari ng capaci t y by det ai l ed explora-
t i on, l abor at or y t es t i ng, and t heor et i cal anal ysi s. For small o r temporary
s t r uct ur es , est i mat e al l owabl e beari ng pr essur es from penet r at i on tests, per-
formance of nearby bui l di ngs, and presumptive beari ng. val ues; see Paragraphs 3
and 4.
2. THEORETICAL BEARING CAPACITY.
a. Ul t i mat e Bearing capaci t y. To anal yze ul t i mat e beari ng capaci t y f or
vari ous l oadi ng s i t uat i ons , s ee Fi gures 1 through 5. For t hes e anal yses t he
dept h of foundat i on embedment i s assumed t o be l e s s t han t he foundat i on width,
and f r i c t i on and adhesion on t he foundat i on' s ve r t i c a l s i des a r e negl ect ed.
I n general , t he anal yses assume a rough f oot i ng base such a s would occur wi t h
cast -i n-pl ace concrete.
Fi gur es 1 t hrough 5 pr es ent ul t i mat e beari ng capaci t y diagrams f o r
t he fol l owi ng cases:
( 1) See Fi gure 1 (Reference 1, I nf l uence of Roughness of Base and
Ground Water Condi t i on on t he Ul t i mat e Bearing Capaci t y of Foundat i ons, by
Meyerhof) f o r shal l ow f oot i ngs wi t h concent r i c v e r t i c a l l oad. Formulas shown
assume groundwater a t a dept h below base of f oot i ng equal t o o r gr e a t e r t han
t he narrow dimension of t he foot i ng.
( 2)
Use Fi gure 2 (Reference 1 ) t o det ermi ne groundwater e f f e c t on
ul t i mat e beari ng capaci t y and t he dept h of f a i l u r e zone. For cohesi ve s o i l s ,
changes i n groundwater l e v e l do not a f f e c t t h e o r e t i c a l ul t i mat e bear i ng
capaci t y.
( 3)
Use Fi gure 3a (Reference 2, The Beari ng Capaci t y of Foundat i ons
Under Eccent r i c and I ncl i ned Loads. bv Meverhof) f o r i ncl i ned l oad on cont i nu-
* .
ous hor i zont al f oot i ng and f o r i ncl i ned load on cont i nuous i ncl i ned f oot i ng.
( 4 )
Use Fi gure 3b f o r eccent r i c l oad on hor i zont al foot i ng.
( 5 ) Use Fi gur es 4a; 4b (Reference 3, The U l t i m a t e Beari ng Capaci t y
of Foundations on Sl opes, by Meyerhof) f o r shal l ow f oot i ng wi t h concent r i c
v e r t i c a l l oad pl aced on a sl ope o r near top of sl ope.
( 6 )
Use Fi gure 5 (Reference 4, The Bearing Capaci t y of Foot i ngs on
a Two-Layer Cohesive Subsoi l , by Button) f o r shal l ow f oot i ng wi t h concent r i c
v e r t i c a l l oad on two l ayered cohesi ve s o i l .
These diagrams assume gener al shear f a i l u r e which normal l y occurs i n
dense and r e l a t i v e l y i ncompressi bl e s oi l s . Thi s t ype of f a i l u r e i s us ual l y
sudden and cat as t r ophi c; i t is char act er i zed by t he exi s t ence of a well-
defi ned f a i l u r e pat t er n. I n c ont r a s t , i n l oos e o r r e l a t i v e l y compressi bl e
s o i l s , punching or l o c a l shear f a i l u r e s may occur a t lower bear i ng pressures.
Punching o r l o c a l shear f a i l u r e s a r e char act er i zed by a poor l y def i ned f a i l u r e
s ur f ace, s i g n i f i c a n t v e r t i c a l compression below t he f oot i ng and ver y l i t t l e
di st ur bance around t he f oot i ng peri met er.
To approximate t he l o c a l or punching shear f a i l u r e s , t he bear i ng
capaci t y f a c t or s shoul d be cal cul at ed wi t h reduced s t r engt h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c*
and @* defi ned as:
c* = 0.67 c
@* = tan'l (0.67 t a n $)
For more de t a i l e d and pr eci s e anal ys i s , s ee Reference 5, Beari ng Capaci t y of
Shallow Foundat i ons, by Vesic.
b. Allowable Bearing Capacity. To obt ai n al l owabl e beari ng capaci t y,
us e a s af et y f a c t o r of 3 f o r dead l oad pl us maximum l i v e load. When p a r t of
t he l i v e l oads a r e temporary (eart hquake, wind, snow, et c. ) use a s a f e t y
f a c t o r of 2. I ncl ude i n desi gn dead l oad t he e f f e c t i v e weight of f oot i ng and
s o i l d i r e c t l y above foot i ng. See Fi gur es 6 and 7 f or examples of al l owabl e
beari ng capaci t y cal cul at i ons .
FIGURE 1
Ul t i mat e Bearing Capaci t y of Shallow Foot i ngs With Concent ri c Loads
7.2-131
.
ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY =quit
CONTINUOUS FO(TT1NG;GENERALCASE
C-IlY ASSUMING
WEMHTLESS FOUNDATION SOlL
q"= PORTION OF BEARING
CAPACITY FROM WEIGHT OF
FOUNDATION SOILS
m quit ~1. 3 cNc+yDNq+0.6yRN Y
FORCOHESIONLESS FOUNDATION
SOILS ( c=O)
CONTINUOUS FOOTING :
SQUARE OR RECTANGULAR FOOTING:
quit = yDNq+QSyBNy
ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTDN, 4, DEGREES
+B
L= LENGTH FOOTING , 2Rd
* THEORETICAL FAILURE ASSUMED FAILURE
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
I. D l B
2. SOlL IS UNIFORM TO DEPTH do ) B .
3. WlER LEVEL W E R THAN do BELOW BASE
OF FOOTING.
4. VERTICAL LOAD CONCENTRIC.
5. FRACflON AND ADHESION ON VERTICAL SIDES OF
FOOTING ARE NEGLECTED.
6. FOUNDATION SOlL WITH PROPERTIES ~,t#J,y
w
CIRCULAR FOOTING:
q,l t = yDNs + WY R N y
FOR COHESIVE FOUNDATION
SOILS (t#J =o 1
CONTINUOUS FOOTING:
quit =CNc+y D
SQUARE OR RECTANGULAR FWllNG:
B
qdt = c N c ( l + 3 ~ ) + y D
CIRCULAR FOOTING:
quit ~1. 3 cNC+yD
ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION DEGREES
DEPTH OF WATER TABLE - A
DEPTH OF FAILURE ZONE- do
I
ASSUMED CONDITIONS :
L= LENGTH FOOTING I. GROUNDWATER LEVEL IS
ROUGH BASE HORIZONTAL
SURFACE FOOTING 2. PRESENCE OF GROUNDWATER
HAS NO EFFECT ON COHESIVE
SOIL WITH # -0.
CONTINUOUS FOOTING :
SURFACE FOOTING : D = 0
B
"It = c N ~ + wUi b+~( y ~- y aub) ] T N ~
SHALLOW FOOTING : 0 1 B
IF d & ~
quit =CN~+[ Y~, , ~ D + ( Y ~ - ~ ~ , , ~ ) ~ ] ~q
+OmS Yaub BNy
IF D< d i (D+do)
VALUES OF BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS
N~ ~q AND ~y ARE SHOWN IN FIGURE I.
RECTANGULAR FOOTING :
R A C E F I N D =O
ul t =cNc(l+.3
)+ [ y a ~ ~ + ~ ( y - ~ ~ ~ ~ g 0.4 BNy
SHALLOW FOOTING: DL'B, IF d& D
=CN~( I +. ~ [ ~ ~ u b ~ + ( ~ ~ ' ~ a u b ) d ] Nq
+~-~YSII b BN y
CIRCULAR FOOTING : RADIUS = R= B/2
SURFACE FOOTING: D =0
quit =I.3CNc + [ yaub+~( y~- yaub) ] 0.6 RNy
SHALLOW FOOTING: DI 2R, IF d& D
~1.3 cNc+ [yaub ~ + ( y ~ - y a u b ) d ~ q 4 . 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ .
IF D( d& (D+do) RNfI
FIGURE 2
Ultimate Bearing Capacity With Groundwater Effect
FIGURE 3a
Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Continuous Footings With Incl i ned Load
.
4
6
4
cn -
a 0
e =
0
s
2
c
P
0
9
300
E
K
il
b 200
V)
W
3
loo
w
z* 50
25
10
5
I
INCLINATION OF FOOTING, a DEGREES
YE
quit ' C k q + 2 N y q
I
INCLUDED W O N INCLINED FOOTINGS
&
6
4
V) w
a o
g '
d 2
>
k
0
d O
4
300
E
L
2
m
200
k
V)
W
3
s loo
w
*
z 50
25
10
5
I
0 20 40 60
INCLINATION OF LOAD, a DEGREES
Ye
qu(t=CNCq +-
2 N ~ q
INCLUDED LOAD ON HORIZONTAL FOOTINGS
For rectangular footi ngs
reduce dimension as fol l ows:
(6) RE~UCED AREA-RECTANOUUR FOOTING
For a ci rcul ar footi ng of
radi us R, the e f f e c t i ve area
At e = 2 x (area of ci rcul ar
segment ADC),consider A',
to AC
be a rectangl e with L' / B' = %
REDUCED AREA M
=T-
A' e
= 2s = B' L'
I
!k
e2= Q L' = ( 2 s Jz)1'2
ole =o0o
B' = I' JET
R+ep
I
(C) REDWED AREA-CIRCULAR POOTlNO
s = -- T ~ 2 F2-+R2 SIN ' 1 ( %j
2
FIGURE 3b
Eccentri cal l y Loaded Footings
CASE I : CONTINUOUS FOOTING BT TOP OFSLOPE
Water a t do - > B
4 u l t ' c N c q + ~ 2 N y q 2 @
Water a t Ground Surface
qul t ' CNcq + ys ub Nyq @
I f B I H:
-
Obtain Ncq from Fi gure 4b f o r Case I wi t h No = 0.
I nt er pol at e f o r val ues of 0 < D / ~ < 1
I nt er pol at e qui t between EQ @ and @) f o r wat er a t i nt er medi at e
l evel between ground sur f ace and do = B.
I f B > H:
Obtain N~~ from Fi gur e & f o r Case I wi t h s t a b i l i t y number
Y H
No = -
C
I nt er pol at e f or val ues O< D / ~ < 1 f o r 0 < No < 1. I f No 1 - 1,
s t a b i l i t y of sl ope cont r ol s ul t i mat e beari ng pressure.
I nt er pol at e quit between EQ @ and @) f o r water a t i nt ermedi at e l e ve l
b e t e e n ground sur f ace and do = B.
For water a t ground s ur f ace and sudden
drawdown: s ubs t i t ut e 0' f o r 0 i n EQ
-1 7s ub
0' = t a n (- t a n 0)
YT
Cohesive s o i l (0 = 0)
Subs t i t ut e i n EQ @ and @ D f or B/2 and Nyq = 1-
Rectangular, square o r c i r c ul a r foot i ng:
quit = kult
f or continuous f oot i ng
qul t f o r f i n i t e f oot i ng
a s gi ven above qul t f or continuous f oot i ng Fig. 1
IxC
CASE II : CONTINUOUS FOOTINGS ON SLOPE
1 fr-
Same c r i t e r i a a s f o r Case I except t ha t
--
Ncq and Nyq a r e obt ai ned from
diagrams f or Case I1
FIGURE 4a
Ul t i mat e Bearing Capacity For Shallow Footing Placed on o r Near a Slope
CASE I I CASE II I
SU)PE ANGLE ,P DEGREES
D/B :I -----
D/B =O
RATIO b/B FOR No=O
RATIO b/H FOR No) 0
FIGURE 4b
Bearing Capacity Factors f or Shallow Footing Placed on or Near a Slope
-
7.2-136
FIGURE 5
Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Two Layer Cohesive Soi l (@=(I)
L
A
STRENGTH PROFILE
Nc FOR LAYERS WITH CONSTANT
SHEAR STRENGTH
RATIO T/B
FIGURE 5 (continued)
Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Two Layer Cohesive Soi l (0=0)
STRENGTH PROFILE
EFFECT OF D
LEGEND
D = DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT OF FOOTING
NC = BEARING CAPACITY FACTOR FOR WNTINUOUS FOOTING WlTH D=O
-
FACTOR FORCONTINUOUS FOOTING WlTH D )O
N~~ '
NCR = FACTOR FOR RECTANGULAR FOOTING WlTH D=O
CONTIN WUS FOOTING RECTANGULAR FOOTING
quit =cl NCD+YD
NCR= NCO E+Q2(+(, qu,+ =cI N C R + y ~
NCD&c FROM TABLE ABOVE
4
qult = cNc+ y D y D = EFFECTIVE SURCHARGE
I
PRESSURE AT LEVEL OF BASE O F M I N
91,111 =2(as3)+[13(1)+(.13-.os25)(~.5q =I 1.4 KSF
FOR FACTOR OF%FETY, Fs= 3.0
C = 2.0 KSF 4 =O quit 11.4 -3.8 KSF
qal l = -=-
YT=130 PCF 3.0 3.0
NC(FROM FIGURE 1 ) = 5.53
DEAD LOADS TO INCLUDE EFFECTIVE WEIGHT OFFOOTING
WlTH ASSUMED GROUND WATER LEVEL.
I
@ CONTINUOUS FOOTING WlTH VERTICAL LOAD
I
YB
qult = cNcq +-Nyq=2(3.8)+0=1.6KSF
-$$p
Fs=3.0
2
-
3.5' 7 6
9 t
qal I= 3.0 =2.5 KSF
C = 2.0KSF #'o
YT= 130 PCF
D/B--= : 5 0.58
NCa (FROM FIGURE 3) =3.8,Nyq=O
I
I
@ CONTINUOUS FOOTING WlTH INCLINED LOAD
qult IS INTERPOLATED BETWEEN VALUES FORD/B=l AND m = O
FOR D/B=l,qult =cNcq +yD=2(6.75)+.13(35)=14.0 KSF
FORWB =O,qult = 2 (4.3) +.I3 (3.5) = 9.1 KSF
FORD/B =3.5/6 =O.58,qult = 9.1+0.!58(4.9)=11.9 KSF
b=3. 0
ll 9
qaM= 3 . 0 ~4 . 0 KSF
J' -
FOR D/B = I. Ncq = 6.75
FROMLlGURE 4
FOR D/B=0.Ncq=4.3
I
I
(c) CONTINUOUS FOOTING PLKED ON SLOPE
I
-6'-
7 v q
*
1 1 1 1
CI = 20 KSF
#,=o YT=IX)PCF
m~ r ~ l r r , , r l , , l l , , , l
C2= 4.0 KS F
#2= 0 6=130 PCF
C2/CI =4/2 = 2 T/B = 3/6=Q5
NC (FROM FIGURE 5) =5.8
FOR D/B =35/6Z O.~,NCD/NC (FROM FWRE5)=1.15
qult =cl Nco+yD =2 (5.8)(1.15) +[.I3 (1)+(.13-O~X2.5)3=136KSF
%= 30
136
qdl= 3.0=4.5 KSF
I
@ CONTINUOUS FOOTING ONTWO-LAYER FOUNDATION STRATA
FIGURE 6
Examples of Computation of Allowable Beari ng Capaci t y
Shallow Foot i ngs on Cohesive So i l s
FIGURE 7
Examples of Computation of Allowable Bearing Capaci t y
Shallow Foot i ngs on Gr anul ar So i l s
_I
FROM FIGURE 2 AND D$ 8:
qult =CNc+ [YSUB D+(yT-yfVB Id] Nq+O.Sysu~ BNy
=O+ L. x3. 5+(. 13-. 068)1. ~34+05~. 068~6~40
= 18.5 KSF
FS = 3.0
~6. 2 KSF
qa11= 3.0
DEAD LOAD TOINCLUDE EFFECTIVE WEIGHTOF FOOTING WITH
ASSUMED GROUND WATER LEVEL.
b
+
m- q
1'
@) CONTINUOUS FOOTING WlTH VERTICAL WAD
+ = 35" C =O
YT = I30 PCF
Nq ( FROM FIGURE 1 ) = 34
N y ( FROM FIGURE I ) = 40 ( APPROX.)
I
- 6 ' 4
11111-
*
+ = 35" C =O
yT=130 PCF
Nyq ( FROM flGURE 3 ) = 60
D/B = 3.5h = .58
3.s1
A
ASSUME GROUNDWATERTABLE IS LOCATEDAT GREAT
DEPTH BEWW BASE OF FOOTING.
quit = c N ~ ~ + Y g~~~ =o+.I~ox$- ~60.23.4 KSF
Fs = 3.0
@
INCLINED CONTINUOUS FOOTING WITH INCLINED LOAD
k 6 ' - 6' -
n
+ = 350
C = 6
YT=130 PCF
b=6= 1.0 %=*=.58
NrP (FROM FIGURE 4)
yq "
l0+40+38+120 =26
8
ASSUME GROUND WATERTABLE IS LOCATED AT GREAT
DEPTH BEUW BASE OF FOOTING.
B
qult =CNc q +y ~Ny q = 0 + . 1 3 ~ ~ ~ 2 6 = 1 0 . 2 KSF
Fs = 3.0
102
qall = 3 . 0 - 3 . 4 KSF
@ CONTINUOUS FOOTING PLACED BACK OF SLOPE
I
A
c. Soi l St r engt h Parameters.
( 1) Cohesive Soi l s. I n t he case of fi ne-grai ned s o i l s which have
low permeabi l i t y, t o t a l stress s t r engt h parameters a r e used. Value of cohe-
s i on may be determined from l abor at or y unconfined compression t e s t s , vane
shear tests, or undrained t r i a x i a l t e s t s . Shear s t r engt h cor r el at i ons wi t h
st andard penet r at i on t e s t s and cone penet r at i on t e s t s may a l s o be used. (See
DM-7.1, Chapter 1.)
( 2) Granular Soi l s. I n t he case of coarse-grained s o i l s which dr a i n
f r e e l y use t he e f f e c t i ve s t r e s s s t r engt h parameter ( 8 ' ) . Fi el d t e s t s (e.g.,
st andard penet r at i on t e s t s or cone penet r at i on) a r e almost always used t o
est i mat e t h i s st rengt h.
( 3)
I n t he case where p a r t i a l drai nage may occur duri ng cons t r uct i on
(e.g., newly compacted f i l l ) perform two anal yses, one assuming drai ned, t he
ot her assuming undrained condi t i ons, and desi gn f or t he most conser vat i ve
r es ul t s .
3. PRESUMPTIVE BEARING PRESSURES. For prel i mi nary est i mat es or when el abor -
a t e i nves t i gat i on of s o i l pr oper t i es i s not j us t i f i e d, use beari ng pr es s ur e
from Table 1.
a. Ut i l i zat i on. .These l oad i nt e ns i t i e s a r e i nt ended t o provide a r ea-
sonabl e s af et y f a c t or agai nst ul t i mat e f a i l ur e and t o avoid det r i ment al set-
t l ement s of i ndi vi dual foot i ngs. Where di f f e r e nt i a l set t l ement s cannot be
t ol er at ed, expl or at i on, t es t i ng and anal ys i s should be performed. Presump-
t i v e beari ng pr essur es must be used wi t h caut i on and ver i f i ed, i f pr act i ca-
bl e, by performance of nearby s t r uct ur es .
b. Modi fi cat i ons of Presumptive Bearing Pressures. See Table 2 f o r
var i at i ons i n al l owabl e beari ng pressure depending on f oot i ng s i z e and posi -
t i on. (See Reference 6, Foundation Anal ysi s and Design, by Bowles f o r more
det ai l ed anal yses of u p l i f t r es i s t ance t han shown i n Table 2). Nominal bear-
i ng pressures-may be unr el i abl e f or foundat i ons on very s o f t t o medium-stiff
fine-grained s o i l s or over a shal l ow groundwater t abl e and. should be checked
by an est i mat e of t heor et i cal beari ng capaci t y. Where beari ng s t r a t a are
underl ai n by weaker and more compressible mat er i al , or where compr es s i bi l i t y
of subsoi l s i s const ant wi t h depth, anal yze consol i dat i on set t l ement of t he
e nt i r e foundat i on ( see DM-7.1, Chapter 5).
4. EMPIRICAL ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURES. Allowable beari ng pr essur es f o r
foundat i on may be based upon t he r e s ul t s of f i e l d t e s t s such a s t he St andard
Penet r at i on Test (SPT) o r Cone Penet r at i on Test (CPT). These beari ng pres-
s ur es a r e based on maximum foundation set t l ement s but do not consi der settle-
ment e f f e c t s due t o t he adj acent foundations. I n t he case of cl os el y spaced
foundat i ons where t he pressure beneath a f oot i ng i s i nfl uenced by adj oi ni ng
foot i ngs a det ai l ed set t l ement anal ys i s must be made.
TABLE 1
Presumptive Values of Allowable Bearing Pressures f or Spread Foundat i ons
Type of Bearing Mat eri al
Massive c r ys t a l l i ne igneous and
metamorphic rock: gr ani t e, dio-
ri t e, basal t , gnei ss, thoroughly
cemented conglomerate (sound
condi t i on allows minor cracks).
Fol i at ed metamorphic rock:
s l a t e , s chi s t (sound condi t i on
allows minor cracks).
Sedimentary rock; hard cemented
shal es, s i l t s t one , sandstone,
limestone without cavi t i es.
Weathered or broken bed rock of
any kind except hi ghl y ar gi l -
l aceous rock (shal e). RQD l e s s
t han 25.
Compaction shal e or ot her hi ghl y
ar gi l l aceous rock i n sound
condition.
Well graded mixture of f i ne and
coarse-grained s oi l : gl a c i a l
till, hardpan, boulder cl ay
(GW-GC, GC, SC)
Gravel, gravel-sand mixtures,
boulder gravel mi xt ures (SW, SP,
SW, SP)
Coarse t o medium sand, sand with
l i t t l e gravel (SW, SP)
Fi ne t o medium sand, s i l t y or
cl ayey medium t o coarse sand
(SW, SM, SC)
Consistency
I n Pl ace
Hard, sound rock
Medium hard sound
rock
Medium hard sound
rock
Soft rock
Soft rock
Very compact
Very compact
Medium t o compact
Loose
Very compact
Medium t o compact
Loose
Very compact
Medium t o compact
Loose
Allowable Bearing
Pr essur e
Tons Per sq f t
Recommended
Value f o r
Range Use
60 t o 100 80.0
30 t o 40 35.0
15 t o 25 20.0
8 t o 12 10.0
8 t o 12 10.0
8 t o 12 10.0
6 t o 10 7.0
4 t o 7 5.0
2 t o 6 3.0
4 t o 6 4.0
2 t o 4 3.0
1 t o 3 1.5
3 t o 5 3.0
2 t o 4 2.5
1 t o 2 1.5
TABLE 1 (cont i nued)
Presumptive Values of Allowable Bearing Pressures f o r Spread Foundations
Notes :
1. Vari at i ons of al l owabl e bearing pressure f or s i z e , dept h and arrangement
of foot i ngs a r e given i n Table 2.
Allowable Bearing
Pressure
Tons Per sq f t .
Recommended
Value f or
Range U s e
3 t o 6 4.0
1 t o 3 2.0
05 t o 1 0.5
2 t o 4 3.0
1 t o 3 1.5
.5 t o 1 0.5
Type of Bearing Mat eri al
.
Homogeneous i norgani c cl ay,
sandy or s i l t y $cl ay (CL, CH)
Inorgani c si l t , sandy or clayey
si l t , varved si l t - cl ay- f i ne Sand
2. Compacted f i l l , placed with cont r ol of moisture, densi t y, and l i f t
t hi ckness, has allowable bearing pressure of equi val ent nat ur al s o i l .
Consistency
. I n Place
Very s t i f f t o hard
Medium t o s t i f f
Sof t
Very s t i f f t o hard
medium t o s t i f f
Sof t
3. Allowable bearing pr essur e on compressible f i ne grai ned s o i l s is
general l y l i mi t ed by consi derat i ons of over al l set t l ement of s t r uc t ur e .
4. Allowable beari ng pressure on organi c s o i l s or uncompacted f i l l s i s
determined by i nvest i gat i on of i ndi vi dual case.
5. I f t abul at ed recommended val ue f or rock exceeds unconfined compressive
st r engt h of i nt a c t specimen, allowable pressures equal s unconfined
compressive st rengt h.
TABLE 2
Sel ect i on of Allowable Bearing Pressures f o r Spread Foundations
-
\
1. For prel i mi nary anal ys i s or i n t he absence of s t r engt h tests of founda-
t i on s o i l , desi gn and proport i on shal l ow foundat i ons t o di s t r i but e t h e i r
l oads usi ng presumptive val ues of al l owabl e beari ng pr es s ur e gi ven i n
Table 1. Modify t he nominal val ue of al l owabl e beari ng pr essur e f o r
s peci al condi t i ons i n accordance wi t h t he fol l owi ng i t e ms .
2. The maximum beari ng pr essur e beneath t he f oot i ng produced by eccent r i c
l oads t ha t i ncl ude dead pl us normal l i v e l oad pl us permanent l a t e r a l
l oads, s ha l l not exceed t he nominal beari ng pr essur e of Table 1.
3. Bearing pressures up t o one-third i n excess of t he nominal beari ng
val ues a r e permi t t ed f or t r ans i ent l i v e l oad from wind o r earthquake.
I f overload from wind or earthquake exceeds one-third of nominal beari ng
pressures, i ncr ease al l owabl e beari ng pr essur es by one-t hi rd of nominal
value.
4. Extend f oot i ngs on s of t rock or on any s o i l t o a minimum dept h of 18
i nches below adj acent ground sur f ace o r s ur f ace of adj acent f l oor bear-
i ng on s o i l , whichever el evat i on i s t he lowest.
5. For f oot i ngs on s of t rock or on coarse-grained s o i l , i ncr eas e al l owabl e
beari ng pressures by 5 percent of t he nominal val ues f or each f oot of
depth below t he minimum depth s peci f i ed i n 4.
6. Apply t he nominal beari ng pr essur es of t he t hr ee cat egor i es of hard o r
medium hard rock shown on Table 1 where base of foundat i on l i e s on rock
surface. Where t he foundat i on ext ends below t he rock s ur f ace i ncr ease
t he al l owabl e beari ng pressure by 10 percent of t he nominal val ues f or
each addi t i onal f oot of depth extending below t he surface.
7. For f oot i ng smal l er t han 3 f e e t i n l e a s t l a t e r a l dimension, t he allowa-
bl e beari ng pr essur e s ha l l be one-third of t he nominal beari ng pr essur e
mul t i pl i ed by t he l e a s t l a t e r a l dimension i n f eet .
8. Where t he beari ng st rat um i s underl ai n by a weaker mat er i al determine
t he al l owabl e beari ng pressure a s follows:
TABLE 2 (cont i nued)
Sel ect i on of Allowable Bearing Pressures f o r Spread Foundations
r
a ONTINUED
7 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / f l t.'..A-. . . f / / / / / / f f / I / /
Q = appl i ed l oad, not i nc l udi ng
..
, p'.::.!
weight of foundat i on i t s e l f .
. ; ; < D :
D
L = l engt h of foundation.
4
(B + 1.16H) (L + 1.16H) = a r e a
s t r es s ed i n weaker l ayer .
Q
< nominal val ue of al l owabl e beari ng pressure.
(B + 1.16H)(L + 1.16H) -
Area s t r es s ed i n weaker l ayer s ha l l not extend beyond i nt er s ect i on of 30'
planes extending downward from adj acent foundations.
9.
Where t he foot i ng i s subj ect ed t o a sust ai ned u p l i f t f or ce, compute
ul t i mat e r es i s t ance t o upl i f t a s follows:
Q = appl i ed u p l i f t l oad.
W = t o t a l e f f e c t i ve wei ght of
s o i l and concret e l oc a t e d
wi t hi n prism bounded by
v e r t i c a l l i n e s a t bas e of
foundation. Use t o t a l uni t
weights above wat er t a b l e
and buoyant uni t wei ght s
below.
W
Safet y Fact or = - > 2
Q -
-- - -
(Thi s i s a conservat i ve procedure; s ee t e xt f or reference on more de t a i l e d
anal yses procedures. )
.
a. Standard Penet r at i on Test. Rel at i onshi ps a r e present ed i n Reference
7, Foundation Engineering, by Peck, Hanson and Thornburn, f or al l owabl e bear-
i ng val ues i n terms of st andard penet r at i on r es i s t ance and f o r l i mi t i ng s et -
tlement. When SPT t e s t s a r e avai l abl e, use t he c or r e l a t i on i n DM-7.1, Chapt er
2 t o determine r el at i ve densi t y and Fi gure 6, DM-7.1, Chapter 3 t o es t i mat e
0 values. Use Figure 1 t o compute ul t i mat e beari ng pressure.
b. Cone Penet rat i on Test. The r e s ul t s of CPT may be used di r e c t l y t o
compute allowable beari ng pr essur e f or coarse-grained s oi l s . See Fi gure 8
(Reference 8, Shallow ~oundat i ons , by t he Canadian Geot echni cal Soci et y).
c. Bearing Capacity Fr& pressuremeter. I f pressuremet er i s used t o
determine i n s i t u s o i l char act er i s t i cs , beari ng capaci t y can be computed from
t hese t e s t r es ul t s . (See Reference 8.)
Sect i on 3. SPREAD FOOTING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
1. FOUNDATION DEPTH. I n general foot i ngs should be c a r r i e d below:
( a) The depth of f r os t penet r at i on;
( b) Zones of hi gh volume change due t o moisture f l uct uat i ons ;
( c ) Organic mat er i al s;
(d) Disturbed upper s oi l s ;
( e ) Uncontrolled f i l l s ;
( f ) Scour dept hs i n r i ve r s and streams.
(g) Zones of col l apse-suscept i bl e s oi l s .
2. AT..TERNATIVE FOUNDATION METHODS - Li ght St ruct ures. Li ght s t r uc t ur e s may
be supported by ot her t ypes of shallow foundat i on t reat ment such as: ( a) deep
perimeter wal l f oot i ngs; (b) overexcavation and compaction i n f oot i ng l i ne s ;
(c) mat desi gn wi t h thickened edge; (d) prel oadi ng surcharge.
3. PROPORTIONING INDIVIDUAL FOOTINGS. Where s i gni f i c a nt compression w i l l
not occur i n s t r a t a below a depth equal t o t he di st ance between f oot i ngs,
i ndi vi dual f oot i ngs should be proportioned t o gi ve equal set t l ement s, usi ng
formulas from DM-7.1, Chapter 5. See Figure 9 f or an example.
4. CORROSION PROTECTION. Foundation desi gn should consi der pot e nt i a l l y
det ri ment al subst ances i n s oi l s , such a s chl or i des and sul phat es, wi t h appro-
pr i a t e pr ot ect i on f or reinforcement, concret e and metal pi pi ng. I f t he anal y-
sis i ndi cat es sul phat e concent rat i on t o be more than 0.5% i n t he s o i l or more
t han 1200 pa r t s per mi l l i on i n t he groundwater, t he use of a sul phat e resist-
i ng cement such a s Type V Port l and cement should be considered. I n addi t i ons ,
ot her pr ot ect i on such a s lower water-cement r a t i o , bituminous coat i ng, et c.
may be requi red depending upon t he sul phat e concent rat i on. See Reference 9,
Sul phat es i n Soi l s and Groundwaters, BRS Di gest , f or guidance.
\
0
u
B, FT
qa = ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE
%one =CONE RESISTANCE
Df = DEPTH OFSURCHARGE ABOVE M E BASE OFFOOTING
B = FOOTING WIDTH
FIGURE 8
Allowable Bearing Pressure f or Sand From St at i c Cone Penetration Test s
EXAMPLE
COL. A C0L.B
I
LOAD = 5 oT
f.
LOAD = 160T
tt-tt rrm-t
7
to- t
1 5'
SAND YT = 120 PCF
Y
N-AN. = I 5 BLOW/FT. N -AVG. = 18BLOWS/FT
- -
Column l oad A = 50 t ons , Avg . N = 15 bl ows/ ft .
Column l oad B = 160 t ons , Avg. N = 18 bl ows/ ft .
Soi l : w e l l graded sand (SW) , YT = 120 pcf
Column A
Assume square f oot i ng 5 f t . x 5 f t . , B = 5 f t .
Average overburden pr essur e a t 6.5 f t . (Df + B/2) below ground
l evel :
Po
= 120 x 6.5 = 780 psf = 0.39 t s f
From Figure 3, DM-7.1, Chapter 2, Dr = 80%
From Fi gure 7, DM-7.1, Chapter 3, 6 = 37.5'
a ) Determine Bearing Capacity
1
From Fi gure 1, qul t = El20 x 4 x 45 + 0.4 x 120 x 5 x 7072000 = 19.2 t s f
qul t (net) = 19.2 - 120 x 4 e 19 t s f
2000
Use Fs = 3, .'. Qa l l = 19 =6 . 3 t s f
-
3
Minimum requi red f oot i ng s i ze: I 50 3 f t . x 3 f t . which i s less t han
assumed s i z e 5f t . x 5 f t . 6. 3
b) Check f or set t l ement .
To l i m i t set t l ement , assume a 5 f t . x 5 f t . f oot i ng wi t h q = 5oT =:2 t s f .
From Figure 6, DM-7 . l, Chapter 5 q, = 255 t ons / f t 3 5 f t . x 5 f t .
A H E ~ X 2 X S2
x 12 = 0.26 i nches
255 x (5 + 1)
Column B
Assume 8 f t . x 8 f t . square f oot i ng
Average overburden pr essur e a t 8 f t . = (Df + ~ / 2 ) below ground l e ve l .
Po = 120 x 8 x 1 = 0.48 t s f
2000
From Figure 3, DM-7.1, Chapter 2, Dr = 87%
From Figure 7, DM-7.1, Chapter 3, t8 = 39'
a) Determine Bearing Capacity
From Figure 1, qul t = El20 x 4 x 58 + 0.4 x 120 x 8 x 961 1 - 32.3 t s f
2000
q u l t ( n e t ) = 32.3 - 120 x 4 %3 2 t s f
2Q00
U s e Fs = 3. 0. ' - q a l l = 32 = 10.7 t s f
3
.
FIGURE 9
Example of Proport i oni ng Footing Si ze t o Equal i ze Set t l ement s
7.2-148
Minimum required footi ng s i z e : 160 = 3.9 f t . x 3.9 f t .
10.7
b) Footing s i z e required f or settl ement equal t o that of
Column A.
From Figure 6, DM-7.1, Chapter 5, Kvl = 290 t ons / f t . 3
4 x 160 x 82
x 12
0' 26= 290 x B~ x (B + 1) 2
Or B = - 1 = 9.1 )) 3.9
0.26 x 290 Settlement Governs
Use 9.1 x 9.1 footi ng f or Column B
FIGURE 9 (continued)
Example of Proportioning Footing Si ze t o Equalize Settlements
El e c t r i c a l cor r os i ve pr oper t i es of s o i l a r e i mport ant where metal s t r uc -
t u r e s such as pi pe l i n e s , et c. a r e buri ed underground. A r e s i s t i v i t y s ur vey
of t he si t e may be necessary t o eval uat e t he need f o r cat hodi c pr ot ect i on.
Sect i on 4. MAT AND CONTINUOUS BEAM FOUNDATIONS
1. APPLICATIONS. Depending on economic cons i der at i ons m a t f oundat i ons a r e
gener al l y appr opr i at e i f t h e sum of i ndi vi dual f oot i ng base a r e a s exceeds
about one-half t he t o t a l foundat i on ar ea; i f t he subsur f ace s t r a t a cont ai n
c a v i t i e s o r compressi bl e l ens es ; i f shal l ow shear s t r a i n s et t l ement s predomi-
na t e and t he mat would equal i ze d i f f e r e n t i a l s et t l ement s ; o r i f r e s i s t a nc e t o
hydr os t at i c u p l i f t i s requi red.
2. STABILITY AND SETTLEMENT REQUIREMENTS. As wi t h ot her t ypes of founda-
t i ons , a-mat foundat i on must have an ample f a c t or of s a f e t y ( s e e Sect i on 2)
agai ns t ove r a l l s hear f a i l u r e and i t must not exhi bi t i n t o l e r a b l e s et t l ement
( s e e DM-7.1, Chapter 5).
Si nce mat f oot i ngs a r e simply l a r ge f oot i ngs , t he beari ng capaci t y pr i n-
c i pl e s out l i ned i n Sect i ons 2 and 3 of t h i s chapt er a r e appl i cabl e. The u l t i -
mate beari ng capaci t y of l a r ge mats on coarse-grai ned s o i l s is us ual l y ver y
hi gh and desi gn i s us ual l y cont r ol l ed by s et t l ement ( s e e DM-7.1, Chapt er 5).
For mats on cohesi ve s o i l s , shear s t r engt h paramet ers f o r s o i l s at dept h must
be determined f or t h e proper eval uat i on of f a c t or of s a f e t y agai ns t deep-
s eat ed f ai l ur e.
3. DESIGN PROCEDURES. A desi gn method based on t he t heor y f o r beams or
p l a t e s on di s c r e e t e l a s t i c foundat i ons (Reference 10, Beams on El a s t i c Foun-
dat i on, by Het enyi ) has been recommended by ACI Committee 436 (Reference 11,
Suggested Design Procedures f o r Combined Foot i ngs and Mats) f o r desi gn of m a t
foundat i ons. Thi s a na l ys i s i s s ui t a bl e f o r foundat i ons on coarse-grai ned
s oi l s .
a. Two-dimensional Problems. For wal l s o r cr ane t r a c k f oot i ngs o r mat
foundat i ons subj ect ed t o pl ane s t r a i n , such a s drydock wal l s and l i n e a r block-
i ng l oads, use t he procedures of Table 3 and Fi gures 10 and 11 (Reference 10).
Superpose shear , moment, and def l ect i on produced by s epar at e l oads t o obt ai n
t he e f f e c t of combined l oads.
b. Three-dimensional'Problems. For i ndi vi dual l oads appl i ed i n i r r egu-
l ar pa t t e r n t o a roughl y equi-dimensional mat, anal yze s t r e s s e s by methods of
p l a t e s on e l a s t i c foundat i ons. Use t he procedures of Tabl e 4 and Fi gure 12.
Superpose s hear , moment, o r def l ect i on produced by s epar at e l oads t o
o b t a i n k f f e c t of combined l oads.
TABLE 3 .
De f i ni t i ons and Pr ocedur es, Anal ys i s of Beams on E l a s t i c Foundat i on
).
--
De f i ni t i ons :
Kv,
= Modulus of subgr ade r e a c t i on f o r a 1 s q f t bear i ng pl a t e .
Kb = Modulus of subgr ade r e a c t i o n f o r beam of wi dt h b, Kb = (K,, ) / b
y = Def l ect i on of beam at a poi nt .
p = Pr es s ur e i n t e n s i t y on t h e subgr ade a t a p o i n t , p = y(Kb)
b = Width of beam a t c ont a c t s u r f a c e
I = Moment of i n e r t i a of beam
E = Modulus of e l a s t i c i t y of beam ma t e r i a l
, ! = Beam l e ngt h
A = Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e syst em of beam and s uppor t i ng s o i l =
; 4 j 3 E E I
Pr ocedur e f o r Anal ys i s :
1. Determine E and e s t a b l i s h K,, from Fi gur e 6 i n DM- 7 . 0 4 Chapt er 5 o r
from p l a t e bear i ng t e s t s .
. ,
2. Determine dept h of beam from s he a r r equi r ement s a t c r i t i c a l s e c t i o n
and wi dt h from al l owabl e bear i ng pr es s ur e. Compute c h a r a c t e r i s t i c X
of beam and s uppor t i ng s o i l .
3. Cl a s s i f y beams i n accor dance wi t h r e l a t i v e s t i f f n e s s i n t o t h e
f ol l owi ng t hr e e groups. Anal ysi s pr ocedur e d i f f e r s wi t h each group.
Group 1 - Shor t beams: 4 Beam i s consi der ed r i g i d . Assume
l i n e a r d i s t r i b u t i o n of f oundat i on c ont r a c t pr e s s ur e as f o r a r i g i d
f oot i ng. Compute s he a r and moment i n beam by si mpl e s t a t i c s .
TABLE 3 ( cont i nued)
Def i ni t i ons and Procedures, Anal ysi s of Beams on El a s t i c Foundation
.
Group 2 - Beams of medium l engt h: 7 1 4 <Xl<r. End condi t i ons i nf l u-
ence a l l s ect i ons of t he beam. Compute moments and s hear s t hroughout
t h e beam l engt h by t he i n f i n i t e beam formul as, t op panel of Fi gure 10.
Determine i n t h i s way t h e shear and moments a t t h e two ends of t h e
beam. By superposi ng on t he l oaded beam two p a i r s of concent r at ed
f or ces and moments a t t h e ends of t he beam, s ol ut i ons f o r t h e i n f i n i t e
beam a r e modified t o conform t o t he a c t ua l end condi t i ons. For
example, i f Q = 0 and M = 0 a t t he ends of a free-ended beam, appl y
redundant shear and moment a t t he ends equal and oppos i t e t o t ha t
detemined from t he i n f i n i t e beam formulas. See r ef er ence c i t e d i n
t e x t f o r formul as f o r moments and s hear s i n end l oaded beam of f i n i t e
l engt h.
Group 3 - Long beams: >r . End condi t i on a t d i s t a n t end has
negl i gi bl e i nf l uence on moment and shear i n t h e i n t e r i o r of t he beam.
Consider beam a s ext endi ng an i n f i n i t e di s t ance away from l oaded end.
Compute moment and shear caused by i n t e r i o r l oads by formul as f o r
i n f i n i t e beam, top panel of Fi gure 10. Compute moment and shear f o r
l oads appl i ed near t he beam ends by formulas f o r s emi - i nf i ni t e beam.
bottom panel of Fi gure 10. Superpose moment and shear obt ai ned from
t he two l oad systems.
4. Obtain f unct i ons
, B x ~ , C i X , D i X , f o r use i n formul as of Fi gur e
10 from Fi gure 11.
Si gn Convention:
Consider i n f i n i t e l y smal l element of beam between two v e r t i c a l cr os s
s ect i ons at a di s t ance dx apar t .
+Q = Upward act i ng shear f or ce t o l e f t of s ect i on.
+M = Clockwise movement act i ng from t he l e f t t o t he s ect i on.
+y = Downward del ect i on.
,
FIGURE 10
Computation of Shear, Moment, and Deflection,Beams on Elastic Foundation
APPLIED MOMENT
DEFLECTION : Y = -
MO
MOMENT :
M = 2 DXX
SHEAR :
.
CONCENTRATED LOAD
DEFLECTION: y = $ AXX
P
MOMENT : Mr -
4X C ~ x
SHEAR : Q =-f .AX
m
W
k
I
LL
g
I
4
k
z
LL g
V)
!
UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED LDID
POINT C IS UNDER LOAD
DEFLECTION : YC = ( ~ - D ~ ~ - D ~ ~ )
~AOMENT:
MC = $ ( BA.+BX~ )
SHEAR:
Qc = - (CXo -CXb )
4X
POINT C IS LEFT OF LOAD
q
DEFLECTION : YC = 2~ ( DXa - b )
MOMENT: MC - -
( Bh - BXb )
4x2
SHEAR:
q
Qc : - (CXa-CXb)
4X
POINT C IS RIGHT OF WAD
q
DEFLECTION : YC ' - ( Di g - DXb)
q
MOMENT: MC = (BXa-BXb )
SHEAR :
q
Qc = ( CXo- chb)
FREE END, CONCENTRATED WAD
2P X
DEFLECTION : = DAX
WE N T : M = - P'
BXx
SHEAR : Q = - PI CXx
FREE END, MOMENT
2 MI h2 cCx
DEFLECTION : Y = - -
K
MOMENT :
M = MI AXX
0
"b SHEAR : 0 = - ~ M I X B X ~
' FREE W BEAM,aWmYTRATED LDIDNEAREND
:Y=$ pXa+2~h)~Ax-2(~k+~Xa
B X ~ ~ ~ + ~
IF MATK)N (CXq+PDXg)=Q
AND (CXq+Dh ) =B IS USED
P
Y MOMENT: M= K @ c ~ ~ - ~ B D ~ ~ + c ~ ( ~ - ~ ) )
SHEAR : ~ = - f ( ~ D X X - B A X X ~ ~ & - ~ ) ]
A
- 0.2
- 0 . 1 .
Ckr
/
I
I
I / I
/+-
I
- .
/ -...
0 1
I
8
.
8 I
Z
.
.
I
8 I
e
0.1 * ;
e
I
8 . I
I
s - z z d
------I
-
~ 7 ,
/
1'
/
\
\
\
\
\
I I @
.
-
-
AAx = e-AX(c~sAx + smAx)
BRx 8 -AX s/n AX
CAX = e -'* (cos ax - sin ax)
x
-
DA, - c - ~ * cos AX
6
T
I
,' II I
2
0.4
I
2
I
CI
I
u
a I
S
b. I
0.5
0.7 I / /I
I
I
rl
I I
I
PARAMETER A x
I
FIGURE 11
Functions for Shear, Moment, and Deflection, Beams on El as t i c Foundations
7.2-154
I / 0
W
I
3 1 1 I I I
-1
b
I
I
I I
I
I
TABLE 4
Definitions and Procedures, Mats on Elastic Foundations
be finitions :
I
r = Distance of point under investigation from point column load along
radius
Mr,Mt = Radial and tangential moments (polar coordinates) for a unit
width of mat
I
Q = Shear per unit width of mat
Mx = Moment which causes a stress in the x-direction (rectangular
coordinates)
My = Moment which causes a stress in the y-direction (rectangular
coordinates)
u, = Stress due to &
uy = Stress due to My
I
y = Deflection of mat at a point
b = width of mat
Procedure for Analysis:
I
1. Determine modulus of subgrade reaction for foundation width "b" - as
follows :
For cohesive soils:
Kb = Kv,/b,
For granular soils:
2. Determine mat thickness h from shear requirements at critical
sections.
, 3 .
Determine values of E and Poisson's ratiop for mat.
~h~
4. Calculate flexural rigidity of mat, D =
12 ( 1-p2)
5. Calculate radius of effective stiffness: L = 4/z
6 . Radius of influence of individual column load equals approximately 4L.
TABLE 4 ( cont i nued)
Def i ni t i ons and Procedures, Mats on El a s t i c Foundat i ons
7. To det ermi ne r a d i a l and t a nge nt i a l moments and de f l e c t i ons a t any poi nt
from an i n t e r i o r column l oad use t he f ol l owi ng formul as:
Mr = -- ,P c z4(O-(1-p) - z ~ ' ( E ) ~ , E = - 0 . - .
&
L 4L z4' ( &)
P z;(E) P L ~
Mt = - - c ~ z ~ ( & ) + ( I - ~ ) -
4

, Y =-z3(&)
To conver t r a d i a l and t a nge nt i a l moments t o r e c t a ngul a r coor di nat es , us e
t h e f ol l owi ng r e l a t i ons hi ps :
M,=Mr c0s2$ +M+ SIN*$
y[ete3-Lq X M ~ = M ~ SIN^^ + M+ ~ 0 ~ 2 9
0
Determine f unct i ons Z3(&),
zt 3( &) , z4(&), and zt 4( &) from
Fi gur e 12.
8. To det ermi ne moments o r de f l e c t i ons from a combination of i n t e r i o r
column l oads, super pose t he e f f e c t s from i ndi vi dua l column l oads a t
poi nt s under consi der at i on.
9. When edge of mat i s l ocat ed wi t hi n t he r a di us of i nf l ue nc e of t h e
i ndi vi dua l column l oad, appl y t h e f ol l owi ng cor r ect i on:
a. Cal cul at e moments and s hear s t h a t occur per pendi cul ar t o t h e edge of
mat wi t hi n t he r a di us of i nf l uence of t he column l oad by anal yzi ng
t he l oc a t i on of t he edge i n i n f i n i t e mat formulas.
b. Apply redundant moments and s hear s of opposing s i gns a t t h e edge of
t he mat. Determine moments and s he a r s produced wi t hi n t h e mat by
t h e r edundant s by anal yzi ng a s e r i e s of beams on e l a s t i c f oundat i ons
posi t i oned per pendi cul ar t o t he edge, appl yi ng formul as of t h e
bottom panel of FigurelO. Ut i l i z e a s i mi l a r pr ocedur e f o r l a r ge
openings i n t h e i n t e r i o r of t he mat. Superpose t he s e moments t o
moments computed i n St ep 8.
10. When s upe r s t r uc t ur e l oads a r e di s t r i but e d t hrough deep f oundat i on wa l l s ,
use t he f ol l owi ng procedure:
a. Est i mat e an approximate d i s t r i b u t i o n of s upe r s t r uc t ur e l oads a s a
l i n e l oad al ong t he wal l .
b. Di vi de t h e mat i n t o a s e r i e s of s t r i p s 1 f oot wide per pendi cul ar t o
t he f oundat i on wal l wi t h t he l i n e l oad a c t i ng a t t h e end. Analyze
t h e s t r i p s a s beams on e l a s t i c f oundat i ons usi ng f or mul as of t h e t op
panel of Fi gur e I0 f or i n t e r i o r f oundat i on wal l s and f or mul as of t h e
bottom panel of FigurelO For f oundat i on wal l s a t edge of mat.
--
c. Superpose moments and s hear s determined from t h i s a n a l y s i s wi t h
t hos e obt ai ned f r a n i n t e r i o r column l oads on t h e mat.
- - -- - - - - - - - -
-
2
+ .s
+ .4
+ .3
T
E
G'
+ -2
-
Yr
L
-10
Y
9
v <+.I
3
u)
r
2
b
0
3
k
k
0
u)
u
%-. I
J
*
5
- .z
- .3
- .4
- .s
0 I 3 4 5 6
PARAMETER < - $
FIGURE 12
unctions for Shear, Moment, and Deflection, Mats on El ast i c Foundation
c. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction. The modulus of subgrade r eact i on (K)
is expressed as:
where : p = cont act pressure (stress uni t )
AH = s o i l deformation ( l engt h)
(1)
K var i es with t he width and shape of t he loaded area. Empiri-
c a l cor r ect i on f or s t r i p foot i ngs from Reference 12, Eval uat i on of Coeffic-
i e nt of Subgrade Reaction, by Terzaghi are:
( a) Cohesive s oi l .
where : Kb = coef f i ci ent of subgrade r eact i on f or foundat i on of width b
= coef f i ci ent of subgrade r eact i on f or a 1' x 1' pl a t e
I f t he loaded area i s of width, b, and l engt h, mb, kh assumes t he value:
I f act ual pl at e load tests on cohesive s o i l a r e not avai l abl e, estimates of
K, can be made i n general accordance wi t h t he recommendations i n Reference
12. I f act ual pl at e l oad t e s t s a r e not avai l abl e use cor r el at i on f or &, i n
Fi gure 6, DM-7.1, Chapter 5.
( b) Granular s oi l .
( c) Li mi t at i ons. Values of Kb as determined f r an ext rapol a-
t i on of pl at e bearing tests should be ut i l i z e d wi t h judgement and care. Un-
l i ke t he deformation i n f u l l s i z e mat t he deformation from pl at e l oad tests i s
not r ef l ect i ve of t he underlying deeper s t r a t a . Also r e s ul t s from pl a t e l oad
tests on sat ur at ed or pa r t i a l l y sat ur at ed cl ays may be unr el i abl e because time
may not permit complete consol i dat i on of loaded cl ay.
( 2)
An est i mat e of Kb may be obtained by back cal cul at i ng from a
set t l ement anal ysi s. The set t l ement of t he ma t can be cal cul at ed assuming a
uniform cont act pr essur e and ut i l i z i ng t he methods out l i ned i n DM-7.1, Chapter
5. The cont act pressure i s then di vi ded by t he average . set t l ement t o obt ai n
an est i mat e of Kb:
P
where Allavg = average computed set t l ement of t he ma t .
For a f l exi bl e c i r c ul a r m a t r es t i ng on a per f ect l y e l a s t i c mat er i al AHavg =
0.85 x set t l ement a t t he cent er . For ot her shapes s ee DM-7.1, Chapter 5 ,
Table 1.
d. Numerical Methods. Methods of anal yses of mat foundat i on which ac-
count f or t he s t i f f ne s s of t he s uper s t r uct ur e and t he foundatio;, i n which t he
s o i l i s modelled a s an e l a s t i c hal f space continuum u t i l i z i n g f i n i t e el ement
techniques ar e more accurat e. A var i et y of s o i l c ons t i t ut i ve r e l a t i ons hi ps
such a s l i near e l a s t i c , non-l i near e l a s t i c , el as t o- pl as t i c, et c. can be u t i l i -
zed. Fi ni t e element t echni ques a r e wel l s ui t ed t o t hes e problems. See Appen-
di x f or l i s t i n g of computer programs.
Sect i on 5. FOUNDATIONS 'ON ENGINEERED FILL
1. UTILIZATION. F i l l s placed wi t h cont r ol l ed compaction may be used beneat h
s t r uct ur es f or t he fol l owi ng purposes:
( a ) To r a i s e t he general grade of t he s t r uct ur e o r t o r epl ace uns ui t abl e
foundat i on s oi l s .
(b) To provide a r e l a t i ve l y s t i f f mat over s o f t s ubs oi l s i n or der t o
spread beari ng pressures from column l oads and decrease column s et t l ement s .
( c ) To bri dge over s ubs oi l s with e r r a t i c hard and s of t s pot s or smal l
cavi t i es .
( d) To accel er at e subsoi l consol i dat i on and t o el i mi nat e a l l or pa r t of
set t l ement of t he completed s t r uct ur e when used wi t h surcharge.
2. COMPACTION CONTROL. Ri gi di t y , s t r engt h, and homogeneity of many na t ur a l
s o i l s may be i ncreased by cont r ol l ed compaction wi t h appr opr i at e equipment. A
complete di scussi on of compaction requirements and cont r ol i s present ed i n
Chapter 2. Other methods of densi fyi ng in-place s o i l s a r e gi ven i n DM-7.3,
Chapter 2.
3. GEOMETRIC LIMITS OF COMPACTION. The limits of t he zone of compacted s o i l
beneath a f oot i ng should consi der t he ve r t i c a l s t r e s s e s imposed by t he f oot i ng
(st ress-bul b) on t he s oi l s beneath it. Recommended requirements f or compac-
t i on beneath a square and a continuous f oot i ng a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n Fi gure 13.
For l ar ge f oot i ngs, t he necessary depth of compacted f i l l should be determined
from a set t l ement anal ysi s.
Sect i on 6. FOUNDATIONS ON EXPANSIVE SOILS
1. POTENTIAL EXPANSION CONDITIONS. Soi l s which undergo volume changes upon
wet t i ng and dryi ng a r e termed expansive or swel l i ng s oi l s . I f s ur f ace cl ays
above t he water t abl e have a PI gr eat er than about 22 (CH cl ays ) and r el at i ve-
l y low na t ur a l water cont ent , pot ent i al expansion must be considered. These
s o i l s a r e most commonly found i n ar i d cl i mat es with a def i ci ency of r a i n f a l l ,
over-evaporation, and where t he groundwater t abl e i s low. Mottled, f r act ur ed,
CONTl NUOUS FOOT1 NG
d = DEPTH TO ADEQUATE BEARING MATERIAL
WHICHEVER IS LESS
d = L X b 1
SQUARE FOOTING
d = DEPTH TO ADEQUATE BEARING MATERIAL wHlcH~vER
ms
d = I - V2 X b 1
FIGURE 13
Limits of Compaction Beneath Square and Continuous Footings
o r sl i ckensi ded cl ays, showing evidence of pa s t desi ccat i on, a r e - p a r t i c u l a r l y
troublesome. For ot her causes of swel l i ng i n s o i l s and f or t he comput at i ons
of r es ul t i ng heave s ee DM-7.1, Chapter 5, and DM-7.3, Chapter 3 f o r f u r t h e r
guidance.
2. ELIMINATING SOIL EXPANSION POTENTIAL. Where economically f e a s i bl e , r e-
move pot ent i al l y expansive s o i l s from beneath f oot i ngs and repl ace wi t h com-
pact ed f i l l of granul ar s o i l s or nonexpansive mat eri al s. I f t h i s cannot be
done, consi der spread f oot i ngs or dr i l l e d and underreamed cai ssons founded
below t he zone of a c t i ve swelling. Design t he s ha f t s of such foundat i ons wi t h
s uf f i c i e nt r ei nf or ci ng t o r e s i s t t e ns i l e f or ces appl i ed t o s haf t by f r i c t i o n
or adhesion i n t he swel l i ng mat eri al s. Rei nforci ng must be car r i ed i n t o t he
bel l ed s ect i on t o a poi nt 4" above t he base. A t any dept h, t e ns i l e f or c e s
exert ed on a s haf t equal ci r cumf er ent i al ar ea of t he s ha f t times t he di f f e r -
ence between average swel l i ng pr essur e above and below t he poi nt under
consi derat i on.
Placing t he base of foundat i on near t he water t a bl e reduces heave damage
because of l i t t l e change i n moi st ure content. For const r uct i on t echni ques i n
such s o i l s ee Fi gure 14 (t op and cent er , Reference 13, Soi l Mechanics and
Foundation, by Parcher and Means), DM-7.3, Chapter 3, and Reference 14,
Design and Performance of Mat Foundation on Expansive Clay, by Lyt t on and
Woodburn.
Footing foundat i ons can be successful i f s uf f i c i e nt dead load is exer t ed
t o el i mi nat e heave completely o r reduce i t s i gni f i c a nt l y i n conj unct i on wi t h a
s t r uct ur e r i gi d enough t o wi t hst and s t r e s s due t o heaving. See DM-7.1, Chap-
t e r 5, and DM-7.3, Chapter 3 f or methods of est i mat i ng t he magnitude of s we l l .
3. MI NI MI ZI NG EXPANSION EFFECTS. Where i t i s not economically f e a s i bl e t o
remove expansive mat er i al s or t o support foundations below dept hs of pos s i bl e
expansion, t he e f f e c t s can be miminized a s follows:
( a) Where l ar ge seasonal changes i n s o i l moi st ure a r e r esponsi bl e f o r
swel l i ng, schedule const r uct i on during or immediately a f t e r a prolonged r ai ny
peri od when t her e w i l l be less pot ent i al volume change i n t he f ut ur e.
( b) For concret e f l oor s l abs pl aced di r e c t l y on pot ent i al l y expansi ve
cl ays , provide expansion j oi nt s so t he f l oor can move f r e e l y from t he s t r uc-
t u r a l frame.
( c) For foundat i ons on f i l l mat er i al s cont ai ni ng p l a s t i c f i ne s and sus-
cept i bl e t o swel l i ng, pl ace f i l l a t moisture cont ent above optimum wi t h den-
s i t y no hi gher t han requi red f or s t r engt h and r i gi di t y. Excessive compaction
w i l l r e s ul t i n gr eat er swelling.
( d) Grade beams should cont ai n s uf f i c i e nt s t e e l reinforcement t o r e s i s t
t he hor i zont al and ve r t i c a l t hr us t of swel l i ng s oi l s . I f pr act i cal , pl ace
compressi bl e, j oi nt f i l l e r or open blocks or boxes beneath grade beams t o
minimize swel l i ng pressures.
( e ) Provide impervious bl anket s and sur f ace gradi ng around t he founda-
t i ons t o prevent i n f i l t r a t i o n of sur f ace water.
GRADE W POURED ON CAR- FORMS
FIGURE 14
Construction Details for Swelling Soils
( f ) Locate wat er and drai nage l i ne s so t ha t i f any leakage occurs, wat er
w i l l not be r eadi l y acces s i bl e t o foundat i on s oi l s t hereby causi ng damage.
-
(g) Consider s t a bi l i z a t i on of t he foundation s o i l s and ba c kf i l l mate-
r i a l s by l i m e and ot her agents.
For f ur t he r guidance see Reference 15, Foundations on Expansive So i l s , by
Chen, and DM-7.3, Chapter 3.
4. COLLAPSING SOILS. Many col l apsi ng s oi l s w i l l s l ake upon immersion, but
t h i s i s not a de f i ni t i ve i ndi cat or . Def i ni t e i de nt i f i c a t i on r equi r es a pa i r
of consol i dat i on t e s t s with and without s at ur at i on, or by pl a t e l oad tests
where water is added with t he pl a t e under s t r es s . I n t he case of c ol l a ps i bl e
s oi l , t he e-log p curve f or t he specimen, which was allowed t o come i n cont act
wi t h water, is below t hat of t he dr y specimen. See DM-7.1, Chapter 3 f o r
t e s t i ng procedures.
( a ) I f pos i t i ve measures a r e pr a c t i c a l f or avoi di ng water foundat i on con-
t a c t , t he "dry" s t r engt h of s o i l can be used f o r desi gn purposes.
( b) Al t er nat el y, under some condi t i ons, prewet t i ng of t he s o i l is found
ef f ect i ve i n reducing set t l ement s. By t h i s process, t he s o i l s t r uc t ur e breaks
down r es ul t i ng i n i t s densi f i cat i on. This i ncr eases i t s s t r engt h and reduces
t he t o t a l and di f f e r e nt i a l set t l ement . This method i s not very s ucces s f ul
es peci al l y where l i t t l e addi t i onal load i s appl i ed duri ng wetting. For fur-
t her guidance see DM-7.3, Chapter 3, and Reference 7.
Sect i on 7. FOUNDATION WATERPROOFING
1. APPLICATIONS. See Table 5 f or general requirements f or wat erproofi ng,
dampproofing, and wat erst ops. See References 16, 17, and 18; Foundation
Design, by Teng, NAVFAC TS-07110, Membrane Waterproofing, and NAVFAC TS-07160,
- ~amppr oof i ng, r espect i vel y, f or guidance. For basements below
ground, two general schemes a r e employed a s follows:
( a ) Where t he permanent water t a bl e i s above t he t op of basement s l a b,
provi de pressure r e s i s t a nt s l ab (pressure s l ab) or r el i eve u p l i f t pr es s ur es by
underdrainage ( r el i eved sl ab).
( b) Where t he water t abl e is deep but i n f i l t r a t i o n of s ur f ace wat er damp-
ens ba c kf i l l surrounding basement, provide dampproof wal l s and s l abs ( s ee
Table 5, Damp proofing).
2. PRESSURE AND RELIEVED SLABS.
a. Pressure Slabs. In general , t he choice between pressure o r r el i eved
s l a b depends on over al l economy, maintenance, l ayout , and operat i on, and must
be eval uat ed i ndi vi dual l y f or each proj ect . For basements extending onl y a
smal l depth below groundwater, a pressure s l ab t o r e s i s t maximum probabl e
hydr ost at i c u p l i f t usual l y i s economical. Also, when t he s o i l below wat er
l evel i s very pervi ous, an ext ensi ve and consequently very c os t l y dr ai nage
system may be necessary. See Case A, Figure 15. Drainage mat er i al shoul d be
TABLE 5
Requirements f o r Foundation Waterproofing and Dampproofing
Wat erproofi ng
1. Membrane
Mat er i al s
Bitumen: 1) ASTM D449,
Type [A] [B] [C] Asphal t ,
ASTM D450, Type I1 Coal-
tar; 2) Bituminous pl as-
t i c cement; Feder al
Speci f i cat i ons SS-C-153,
Type I f o r as phal t , Type
I1 f o r coal - t ar ; 3) Fe l t
o r f a b r i c mat er i al i m-
pregnat ed wi t h as phal t o r
coal - t ar as s peci f i ed i n
r ef er ences c i t e d i n t ext ;
4)-for pri mer, pr ot ect i ve
coveri ng, pr ef abr i cat ed
l ami nat ed as phal t water-
proofi ng s ee references.
Before s t a r t i n g t he work
i ns pect a l l s ur f aces t o be
wat erproofed t o det ermi ne
t h a t t hey a r e i n s a t i s f a c -
t o r y condi t i on. Complete
condui t , pi pi ng, and ot her
r equi r ed rough-in. St a r t
a f t e r a l l def ect s and un-
s a t i s f a c t o r y condi t i ons
have been cor r ect ed. Sur-
f aces t o be t r e a t e d should
be cl ean and dry, smooth
and f r e e from del et er i ous
and excess mat er i al s and
pr oj ect i ons . Use priming
coat of cr eos ot e and
as phal t a t no l e s s t han
one gal l on per 100 sq f t
on sur f ace r ecei vi ng
coal - t ar membrane water-
proof i ng and as phal t
membrane watser pr oof i ng
r es pect i vel y. For membrane
appl i cat i on, use a t l e a s t
3- pl y f o r dampproofing and
5-ply f o r hydr os t at i c
pr essur e. Apply membrane
usi ng s hi ngl e method. For
de t a i l e d requi rement s s ee
r ef er ences.
Workmanship
Use on e x t e r i o r
wal l s ur f aces ,
over r oof s or
underground
s t r uc t ur e s , f o r
pat chi ng openings
t hrough walls
formed f o r u t i l i -
ties o r s t r uc-
t u r a l members.
Method i s f r e-
quent l y u t i l i z e d ,
but c a r e f ul i n-
s pect i on and con-
t r o l i s r equi r ed
t o obt ai n com-
p l e t e l y s a t i s -
f act or y appl i ca-
t i on.
Appl i cabi l i t y Remarks
Vul nerabl e t o
damage. Hard t o
l oc a t e and
r e p a i r damaged
area.
TABLE 5 (cont i nued)
Requirements f or Foundation Waterproofing and Dampproofing
J
2
Remarks
Can r e s i s t high
hydr os t at i c
pr essur es
without i nj ury.
Eas i l y i nspect -
ed f or imper-
f ect i ons and
can be e a s i l y
repai red.
Lower cost . I f
appearance of
i n t e r i o r
sur f aces i s
important,, use
cement pl a s t e r
waterproofing.
Appl i cabi l i t y
Used on exposed
i nt e r i or sur f aces
of wal l s, f l oor s
and occasi onal l y
on cei l i ngs where
t he c e i l i ng is
exposed on t he
out si de t o wa t e r
pressures. Ap-
pr opr i at e f or
hi ghest type of
basement occu-
pancy. Care is
requi red t o ob-
t a i n a s e a l sur-
rounding wal l
openings f or
u t i l i t i e s , et c.
Used on basement
wal l s below
ground a t damp or'
wet l ocat i ons ,
below temporary
groundwater
l e ve l s , o r under
hydr os t at i c heads
of only s ever al
feet .
Workmanship
A l l sur f aces i n cont act
wi t h form s ha l l be en-
t i r e l y chipped away. Floor
concret e s h a l l have rake
f i ni s h. A l l f aces s ha l l
be r i nsed thoroughly with
cl ean water. Wall and
cei l i ng coast s ha l l be
appl i ed i n 2 coat s t ha t
t oget her t o t a l betwen 518
t o 314 i nch i n t hi ckness.
Fl oors t o have one coat of
1 i nch t hi ckness. A l l
sur f aces a r e t o be f l oat ed
wi t h wood f l oa t and hand
f i ni s hed by s t e e l
troweling.
Surfaces t o be thoroughly
cl eaned and roughened.
Apply i n a t l e a s t four
brush coats.
Type
2. Cement
pl a s t e r
Dampproof i ng
1. I nt e r i or
f aces
Mat er i al s
One pa r t Port l and cement,
no more t han two pa r t s of
sand and no more t han two
pa r t s of water. Sand
should cont ai n no s i z e s
smal l er t han No. 200
s i eve and pr ef er abl y i s
wel l graded between No.
100 and No. 8 s i eve
si zes. Waterproofing
compounds a r e opt i onal ,
except t ha t no s a l t s o r
del i quescent mat er i al s
a r e permitted.
Coating cons i s t i ng of
f i ne l y di vi ded i r on mixed
wi t h sand, cement, and
oxi di zi ng agent.
TABLE 5 (cont i nued)
Requirements f or Foundation Waterproofing and Dampproofing
Type
2. Ext er i or
f aces
Mat er i al s
Hot coal tar, s t r a i ght
run, pi t ch, Type B
coat i ng, o r asphal t Type
B mopping. Bui l t -up i n
successi ve coat s t o a
minimum of 1/8 i nch
t hi ckness.
Workmanship
Concrete and masonry
sur f aces t o be dry and
f r e e from dust , d i r t ,
grease, o i l , or ot her
coat i ngs before appl i ca-
t i on. Use primary cos t of
creosot e and asphal t a t no
less t han one gal l on per
100 sq f t a s sur f ace
recei vi ng coal -t ar pi t c h
dampproofing and asphal t
or f i br ous as phal t damp-
proofi ng, respect i vel y.
Ei t her t he hot appl i cat i on
method using asphal t or
coal t a r bitumen o r t he
coal appl i cat i on method
usi ng f i br ous as phal t may
be used. For f ur t her
de t a i l s on appl i cat i on
method and pr ot ect i ve
covering see references.
Appl i cabi l i t y
Used on basement
wal l s below
ground a t damp
o r we t l ocat i ons,
below temporary
groundwater
l evel s , o r under
hydr os t at i c heads
of onl y s ever al
f eet .
.
Remarks
Lower cost . I f
appearance of
i nt e r i or sur-
f aces is impor-
t a nt , use ce-
ment pl a s t e r
water-proofing.
TYPE "A" SUMP
WATER PROOFING
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS :
I. SEE CHAPTER 6 DM-7.1 FOR REQUIREMENTS FOR FILTER IN DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
2. SEE TABLE 5 FOR REQUIREMENTS FOR CEMENT PLASTER WATERPROOFING (CWP) ,
AND DAMPPROOFING.
MATERIAL FOR UNDER -FLOOR DRAINAGE CWRSE SHALL CONSIST OF SOUND,CLEAN
GRAVEL OR CRUSHED ROCK, 3/4 IN. TO 2 IN. IN SUE.
I
@ RELIEVED SLAB
DAMPPROOFING FOR PRESSURE RELIEVED
SLAB, PROVIDE PERIPHERAL
DRAIN AT BASE OF FOUNMTION
USE TYPE "A"
WALL. REPLACE C W P ON
FILL "c" SUMP FOUNDATION WALL WITH
DAM PPROOFING.
FIGURE 15
Typical Foundation Drainage and Waterproofing
FIGURE 15 (continued)
Typical Foundation Drainage and Waterproofing
-
t
a SEALED SITE
NOTE : IMPERVIOUS STRATUM OF
SMALL THICKNESS MAY NOT BE ABLE
TO WITHSTAND PRESSURE DOE
WPPROORNG TO HIGH WATER TABLE OUTSIDE
THE FOUNWTION.
SOUND ROCK OR
THICK IMPERVIOUS STRATUM
IF SOUND ROCK OR IMPERVIOUS STRATUM
TYPE "c" SUMP
EXTENDING TO A GREAT DEPTH IS ENCOUNTERED
AT SHALUlW DEPTH B E W FOUNDATION,
CARRY OUTSIDE WALL AS CUTOFF. DISPENSE
WlTH WALL DRAIN AND REPLME CAP ON
ROOR SLAB WlTH WPPROOFING. ARRANGE
DISCHARGE FROM DRAINAGE SYSTEM lD
PREVENT AERATION OF DRAINAGE COURSE.
*
sound, cl ean gr avel or crushed st one graded between 314 and 2 i nches, com-
pacted by two o r t hr ee coverages of vi br at i ng base pl a t e compactor. Open
j oi nt dr ai n pi pe should be added beneath s l abs of l ar ge pl an dimensions.
Provide water- s t ops a t t he const uct i on j oi nt s between pressure s l a b and wal l .
b. Relieved Slabs. For basements a t consi derabl e dept h below ground-
water l evel , i t i s usual l y economical t o provide pr essur e r e l i e f beneat h t he
foundation sl ab. See Cases B and C, Fi gure 15. I f pervi ous mat er i al s of
gr eat depth under l i e t he foundat i on l e ve l , i ncl ude a wal l dr ai n and dr ai nage
course beneath t he sl ab. See DM-7.1, Chapter 6 f or f i l t e r requi rement s and
dr ai n spacing. I f foundat i on wal l s can be car r i ed economically t o underl yi ng
sound impervious rock or t hi ck impervious st rat um, omit wal l dr ai ns. Arrange
sumps f or drai nage di scharge t o avoid aer at i ng drai nage course.
3. WATERPROOFING REQUIREMENTS. In addi t i on t o l eakage under pr es s ur e
through j oi nt s and cracks, water may move through basement wal l s and f l oor s by
capi l l ar y act i on and a s water vapor. A drai nage course can be used t o i nt e r -
rupt capi l l ar y act i on, but it w i l l not prevent movement of water vapor t hrough
sl abs. Pl a s t i c vapor bar r i er s a r e us ef ul i n provi di ng an e f f e c t i ve vapor bar-
r i e r .
a. .Membrane Waterproofing and Dampproofing. Apply membrane ( s e e Fi gure
15B) f o r basements ut i l i z e d f o r r out i ne purposes where appearances are unim-
port ant and some dampness i s t ol er abl e.
b. Cement Pl a s t e r Waterproofing. Where i t i s important t o prevent damp-
ness or moisture i n a basement, speci f y cement pl a s t e r wat erproofi ng, cons i s t -
i ng of sand-cement mortar hand troweled on chipped and roughened concr et e s ur -
face. Properl y appl i ed, t h i s is a very e f f e c t i ve method agai ns t dampness and
moisture.
Sect i on 8. UPLIFT RESISTANCE
1. ROCK FOUNDATION. Resi st ance t o di r e c t u p l i f t of tower l egs , guys, and
ant ennas, where t he foundation i s r es t i ng di r e c t l y over rock, may be provided
by r ei nf or ci ng bars grouted i n rock. In t he absence of pul l out tests, det er -
mine u p l i f t r es i s t ance by empi ri cal formulas of Fi gures 16 and 18. These
formulas apply t o bars i n f r act ur ed rock near t he rock surface. Higher s hear
s t r engt h i s t o be expected i n sound, unweathered rock. To develop rock
s t r engt h, s uf f i c i e nt bond must be provided by grout surroundi ng t he bar. Bond
s t r engt hs may be i ncr ease by usi ng washers, rock bol t s , deformed bar s , o r
splayed bar ends.
Guidance f or desi gn r ul es is gi ven i n DM-7.3, Chapter 3 and qua l i t y cont r ol
associ at ed wi t h pre-st ressed, cement grouted rock anchors i s found i n
Reference 19, Rock Anchors - St a t e of t he A r t , by Li t t l ej ohn and Bruce.
2. SOIL FOUNDATION. For sust ai ned u p l i f t on a f oot i ng, see Table 2. Trans-
i e n t u p l i f t from l i v e l oads appl i ed t o f oot i ngs, pi e r s , post s o r anchors i s
SINGLE BAR ANCHORAGES
PA = ALLOWABLE ANCHOR PULL
D = EMBEDMENT DEPTH, MEASURED AS SHOWN
Call =ALLOWABLE ROCK SHEAR STRESS
f s = ALWWABLE BAR STRESS, 20 KSI
brqd =BOND STRESS ON BAR PERIMETER REQUIRED
TO DEVELOP Call
A = BAR CROSS -SECTION AREA
PA ' ( 2 . 1 ) ~ ~ ( ~ a l l ) AND PA= Af S
PA
brqd '
BAR PERIMETER x D
TESTS INDICATE THAT FOR BAR IN ORDINARY
FRACTURED ROCK NEAR THE SURFACE :
MINIMUM D(FT) =(1.25) fi (KIPS)
AT THlS DEPTH Call = 0.3 KSF AND SHOULD
NOT BE TAKEN GREATER THAN THlS VALUE
WITHOUT PULLOUT TESTS
SPACING OF BARS IN PLAN SHOULD EXCEED 1.20
EXAMPLE :
GIVEN : PA= 20K FOR I IN. SQUARE BAR
MINIMUM D = 1.25 -= 5.6 FT.
BAR SPKING = 1.2 (5.6 1 = 6.7 FT.
PLAN
IN SQUARE ARRANGEMENT
/
SECTION
BAR GROUP ANCHORAGE
PT = ALLOWABLE ANCHOR PULL FOR GROUP OF BARS.
N '= NUMBER OF BARS IN SQUARE ARRANGEMENT
PT = 4.6D(B+0.58D) Cal l AND
PT = N A f s
pr
brqd '
BAR PERIMETERX NO
TESlS INDICATE THAT FOR BAR GROUP IN ORDINARY
FRACTURED ROCK NEAR THE SURFACE :
MINIMUM D (FT)
AT THlS DEPTH CgI l = 0.3 KSF AND SHOULD NOT
BE TAKEN GREATER THAN THlS VALUE WITHOUT
PULLOUT TESTS
EXAMPLE :
GIVEN PT =BOK,USE 4 - 1 IN SQUARE BARS
B =4. 5FT f s = 2 0 K S l
MIN. D: WITHOUT TESTS:
FIGURE 16
Capaci t y of Anchor Rods i n Fr act ur ed Rock
WEDGE OF SOlL
ACTING r0 RESIST
ANGLE 8 = 30 FOR COHESIVE SOIL, 20FOR
GRANULAR SOIL.
WT = WEIGHT OF FOOTING P U S WEDGE OF SOlL
ACTING TO RESIST UPLIFT.
BE NO LESS THAN 1.5 WHERE TRANSIENT LOADS APPLY.
Ws = WEIGHT OF WEDGE OF SOILON SIDE OF FOOTING
TENDING TO MOVE UPWARD.
Wc = WEIGHT OF FOOTING.
ANALYSIS OF SIABlLlTY AND SOL PRESSURES
SAME AS IN FIGURE 15 CHAPI'ER 3.MAXIMUM SOlL
PRESSURE ON BASE OF RWTlNG IS OBTAINED
BY COMBINING WS,Wc . APPLIED m D AND
REQUIRED SAFETY FACTOR AGAINST OVERTURNING
1.5, WHERE TRANSIENT W ARE APPLIED.
MOMENT IS RESISTED BY EM PRESSURE ON
SIDES OF PIER OR ms.
FOR ANALYSIS OF STRESS OR DEFLECTION, SEE CASE I ,
FIGURE I I CHAPTER 5.
ALLOWABLE MOMENT ORDINARILY IS LIMITED BY
THE TOLERABLE MOVEMENT OF THE FOUNWTION.
GUY FORCES
IN SOlL
(SEE FIGURE 16) (SEE FIGURE I8 1
FIGURE 17
Resi st ance of Foot i ngs and Anchorages t o Combined Tr ansi ent Loads
FIGURE 18
P
PIRESULTANT OF MAXIMUM GUY FORCES
SURFACE3
Pv , PH = COMPONENTS OF P
7nmi~11 A
WT= WEiGHT OF BLOCK + SOIL ON BLOCK
Tower Guy Anchorage i n S o i l by Concr et e Deadman
H
V
we ws
X, y, L = BLOCK DIMENSIONS
Y- UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL, p c f
Ws= x - L . ~ - Y
Pp = TOTAL PASSIVE PRESSURE LBS/L.F.
+ =ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION
x
-
C = COHESION, p s f
L=DI M. I TO P
J\NT
I. RESISTANCE TO VERTICAL FORCE
SAFETY FACTORS IN VERTICAL DIRECTION :
USE TOTAL UNIT WEIGHTS ABOVE WATER TA:LE3[2' l 5
[ BUOYANT 11 " BELOW 18
--
WB t 1.0
pv
2. RESISTANCE .TO HORIZONTAL FORCE
SAFETY FACTOR. IN HORIZONTAL DIRECTION :
- 1.5
b. PASSIVE RESISTANCE CONSIDERED ON FACE OF
BLOCK (AREA y XL) ONLY.
NOTES: BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED AS SPECIFIED IN TABLE 4,CHAPTER 2
-
EXAMPLE :
VERT: WB (ABOVE ~ . ~ . ) ~ 6 ' ~ 8 ' ~ 3 ' ~ 1 5 0 p c f = 2 1 , 6 0 0 ~
+=30; (2x0 We (BELOW W.T.)=~' X 8 ' ~ 2 ' ~ 875 pcf = 8,400
WATER TABLE AT 5' DEPTH
WB = 30,000
~ ~ 4 0 ~ ; ~ , = 2 7 ~ ; pH= 3oK
w ~ = ~ ' x ~ ' x ~ ' x 1 1 0 ~ ~ t Ws = 10,500
F = l l O ~ c f , YB=60pcf WT ' 40,500*
TRY BLOCK x , y, L = 6: 5', 8' F~ w~ 4 0 . 5 ~ WB zK=
h = 2', Hz7
CHECK) F' -'Id %= 2 7
KEEP PHAT 112 TO 213 BLOCK
:.OK VERT.
DEPTH BY VARYING x AND y
P
HORIZ: FROM FIG.3,CHAPT.3 WITH $J -30:P=0:~p=3.0
=3. 0Xl l OX2= 6 6 0
nph=5=Kpyh' 3. 0Xl l OX5= 1650
Uphz7 - 1 6 5 0 + 3 . 0 ~ 6 0 ~ 2 = 2 0 1 0
Pp=1/ 2. 3( 660+1650) L + I / 2- 2( 1650+2010)L
P, ,
= 3 4 6 5 L + 3660 L = 7125 x 8 = 57,000 i P
. - - - pp - 57K - 1.9 >1.5 S.F.
PH 3oK-
:. OK HORIZ.
MAKE ADDITIONAL TRIALS VARYING h ,x,y, L
analyzed a s shown i n Fi gure 17. Tower guy anchorage i n s o i l i s anal yzed i n
Figbre 18. For a deadman i n weak s o i l , i t may be f e a s i bl e t o r epl ace a con-
s i der abl e volume of s o i l wi t h granul ar ba c kf i l l and const r uct t he bl ock with-
-
i n t he new backf i l l . I f t h i s i s done, t he passi ve wedge should be cont ai ned
e nt i r e l y wi t hi n t he granul ar f i l l , and t he s t r e s s e s on t he remaining weak
mat er i al should be i nvest i gat ed. See Reference 6 f or guidance.
3. CORROSION. For temporary anchors minimal pr ot ect i on i s needed u n l e s s t h e
environments a r e such t ha t rapi d det er i or at i on t akes pl ace. Permanent anchor
bars a r e covered wi t h grout. I n corrosi ve environments i t i s common p r a c t i c e
t o provide addi t i onal pr ot ect i on by coat i ng wi t h mat er i al (epoxy, pol ye s t e r
r es i n) with proven r es i s t ance t o exi s t i ng or ant i ci pat ed cor r osi ve agent s .
The coat i ng agent should not have any adverse e f f e c t on t he bond.
4. ROCK AND SOIL ANCHORS. When t he l oad t o be r e s i s t e d i s l ar ge, wi r e
tendons which can a l s o be pr est r essed t o reduce movements a r e employed.
Also, because of corrosi on s peci al precaut i ons may be necessary when permanent
anchors a r e provided i n marine environments. I n t he anal ys i s of anchor s, be-
cause of submergence, t he bouyant uni t weight of s o i l s should be used. The
buildup of excess pore pressure due t o r e pe t i t i ve l oads should al s o be eval ua-
t ed i n t he case of granul ar s oi l s . For a di scussi on of cycl i c mobi l i t y and
l i quef act i on see DM-7.3, Chapter 1. For t he desi gn of anchors s ee DM-7.3,
Chapter 3.
REFERENCES
1. Meyerhof, G.G., Influence of Roughness of Base and Ground Water Condi-
tion on the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations, Geotechnique,
1955.
2. Meyerhof, G.G., The Bearing Capacity of Foundations Under Eccentric and
Inclined Loads, Proceedings, Third International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundat ion Engineering, Zurich, 195 3.
3. Meyerhof, G.G., The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Slopes,
Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, London, 1957.
4. Button, S.F., The Bearing Capacity of Footings on a Two-Layer Cohesive
Subsoil, Proceedings, Third International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Zurich, 1953.
5. Vesic, A.S., Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations, Foundation Engi-
neering Handbook, Winterkorn and Fang, eds., Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company, New York, Chapter 3, 1975.
6. Bowles, J.E., Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw Hill Book Co., New
York, pp. 137-139, 1977
7. Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E. and Thornburn, T.H., Foundation Engineering,
2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1974.
8. Canadian Geotechnical Society, Shallow Foundations, Canadian Founda-
tion Engineering Manual, Montreal, Canada, Part 2, 1978.
9. CP2004, Sulphates in Soils and Groundwaters, Classification and
Recommendations, BRS Digest, No. 90, Second Series, London, England,
1972.
10. Hetenyi, M., Beams on Elastic Foundation, University of Michigan Press,
Ann Arbor, MI, 1946.
11. ACI Committee 436, Suggested Design Procedures for Combined Footings
and Mats, American Concrete Institute, 1966.
12. Terzaghi, K., Evaluation of Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction,
Geotechnique, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1955.
13. Parcher, J.V. and Means, R.E., Soil Mechanics and Foundations, Charles
E. Merril Publishing Company, Columbus, OH, 1968.
14. Lytton, R.L. and Woodburn, J.A., Design and Performance of Mat Founda-
tions on Expansive Clay, Proceedings ot the Third International Con-
ference on Expansive Soils, 1973.
15. Chen, F.H., Foundations on Expansive Soils, Footing Foundations,
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York, Chapter 5, 1975.
16. Teng, W.C., Foundation Drainage and Waterproofing, Foundation Design,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Chapter 5, 1962.
17. NAVFAC TS-07110, Membrane Waterproofing, Naval Facilities, Engineering
Command, Guide Specifications, 1979.
18. NAVFAC TS-07160, Bituminous Dampproofing, Naval Facilities, Engineering
Command, Guide Specifications, 1978.
19. Littlejohn, G.S. and Bruce, D.A., Rock Anchors-State of the Art, Foun-
dation Publications Ltd., England, 1977.
I Out of Datc '
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
CHAPTBR 5. DEEP FOUNDATIONS
Sect i on 1. INTRODUCTION
1. SCOPE. Thi s chapt er pr e s e nt s i nf or mat i on on t he common t ypes of deep
f oundat i ons, a na l ys i s and desi gn pr ocedur es, and i n s t a l l a t i o n pr ocedur es.
Deep f oundat i ons, a s used i n t h i s chapt er , r e f e r t o f oundat i ons which o b t a i n
suppor t a t some dept h below t he s t r u c t u r e , gener al l y wi t h a f oundat i on de pt h
t o width r a t i o (D/B) exceedi ng f i ve . These i ncl ude dr i ve n p i l e s , d r i l l e d
p i l e s , d r i l l e d pi e r s / c a i s s ons , and f oundat i ons i n s t a l l e d i n open o r br aced
excavat i ons wel l below t he gener al s t r uc t ur e . Diaphragm wa l l s a r e di s c us s e d
i n DM-7.3, Chapt er 3.
2. APPLICATION. Deep f oundat i ons a r e used i n a v a r i e t y of a ppl i c a t i ons
i ncl udi ng :
( a ) To t r ans mi t l oads t hrough an upper weak and/ or compr essi bl e s t r a t um
t o under l yi ng competent zone.
( b) To pr ovi de suppor t i n a r e a s where shal l ow f oundat i ons a r e i mpr act i -
c a l , such a s underwat er, i n c l os e pr oxi mi t y t o e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s , and o t h e r
condi t i ons.
( c ) To pr ovi de u p l i f t r e s i s t a nc e and/ or l a t e r a l l oad capaci t y.
3. RELATED CRITERIA. For a ddi t i ona l c r i t e r i a r el at i - ng t o t he desi gn of deep
f oundat i ons and t he s e l e c t i on of dr i vi ng equipment and appar at us , s e e t he f ol -
lowing sour ces:
Subj ect Source
Pi l e Dri vi ng Equipment................................... NAVFAC DM-38
General Cr i t e r i a f o r Pi l i ng i n Wat er f r ont Construction....NAVFAC DM-2!
4. LOCAL PRACTICE. The choi ce of t he t ype of deep f oundat i on such a s p i l e
t ype( s ) , p i l e desi gn capaci t y, and i n s t a l l a t i o n pr ocedur es i s hi ghl y dependent
on l oc a l exper i ence and pr a c t i c e . A des i gn engi neer unf ami l i ar wi t h t he s e
l o c a l pr a c t i c e s shoul d cont act l o c a l bui l di ngl engi neer i ng depar t ment s, l o c a l
f oundat i on c ont r a c t or s , and/ or l o c a l f oundat i on cons ul t ant s .
5. INVESTIGATION PROGRAM. Adequate subsur f ace expl or at i on must pr ecede t he
desi gn of p i l e foundat i ons. I nve s t i ga t i ons must i ncl ude t he f ol l owi ng:
( a ) Geol ogi cal s e c t i on showing pa t t e r n of major s t r a t a and pr esence of
pos s i bl e obs t r uc t i ons , such a s boul der s, bur i ed de br i s , e t c .
( b) Suf f i c i e nt t e s t da t a t o e s t i ma t e s t r e ngt h and compr es s i bi l i t y parame-
t e r s of major s t r a t a .
( c ) Det ermi nat i on of probabl e p i l e bear i ng st r at um.
For . f i e l d expl or at i ons and t e s t i n g r equi r ement s, s e e DM-7.1, Chapt er 2.
6. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION. The performance of a deep f oundat i on i s hi ghl y
dependent on t he i n s t a l l a t i o n procedures, q u a l i t y of workmanship, and i n s t a l - - d
l at i onl des i gn changes made i n t he f i e l d . Thus, i ns pect i on of t he deep foun-
dat i on i n s t a l l a t i o n by a geot echni cal engi neer normally shoul d be r equi r ed.
Sect i on 2. FOUNDATION TYPES AND DESIGN CRITERIA
1. COMMON TYPES. Tabl es 1 and 2 summarize t he t ypes of deep f oundat i ons,
f abr i cat ed from wood, s t e e l , o r concr et e, i n common usage i n t he Uni t ed
St at es . Table 1 pr es ent s p i l e t ypes and Tabl e 2 pr es ent s excavat ed f oundat i on
t ypes i ncl udi ng d r i l l e d pi er s / cai s s ons . General comments on a p p l i c a b i l i t y of
t he var i ous foundat i on t ypes a r e gi ven i n Tabl e 2, but l o c a l exper i ence and
pr a c t i c e s , comparative cos t s , and cons t r uct i on c ons t r a i nt s shoul d be reviewed
c a r e f ul l y f o r each s i t e .
a. Driven Pi l es . These a r e p i l e s which a r e dr i ven i n t o t h e ground and
i ncl ude bot h low di spl acement and hi gh di spl acement pi l e s . Low di spl acement
p i l e s i ncl ude H and I s ect i on s t e e l pi l es . Open end p i l e s which do not form a
pl ug, j e t t e d p i l e s , and pre-bored dr i ven p i l e s may f unct i on as low di s pl ace-
ment pi l e s . Sol i d s ect i on p i l e s , hollow s ect i on cl osed end p i l e s , and open
end p i l e s forming a s o i l pl ug f unct i on a s hi gh di spl acement p i l e s . A l l t he
p i l e t ypes i n Table 1 except auger-placed p i l e s a r e dr i ven p i l e s .
b. Excavated Foundations. These foundat i ons i ncl ude bot h d r i l l e d p i l e s
and pi e r s and foundat i ons const r uct ed i n open o r braced excavat i ons ( s e e
Reference 1, Foundation Design, by Teng). ' ~ r i l l e d p i l e s i ncl ude auger-pl aced
p i l e s and d r i l l e d pi er s / cai s s ons e i t h e r s t r a i g h t s h a f t or bel l ed.
2. OTHER DEEP FOUNDATION TYPES. Tabl es 1 and 2 i ncl ude onl y t he most com-
monly used p i l e t ypes and deep foundat i on cons t r uct i on procedures. New and
i nnovat i ve t ypes a r e being developed cons t ant l y, and each must be appr ai sed on
i t s own meri t s.
a. Dr i l l ed- i n Tubular Pi l es . These c ons i s t of heavy-gauge s t e e l t ubul ar
p i l e capabl e of being r ot at ed i n t o t he ground f o r s t r u c t u r e support . So i l s i n
t he t ube may be removed and r epl aced wi t h concret e. Used i n penet r at i on of
s o i l cont ai ni ng boul ders and obs t r uct i ons , o r d r i l l i n g of rock socket t o re-
si st u p l i f t and l a t e r a l forces. St e e l H-sections wi t hi n concr et e cor es a r e
used t o develop f u l l end beari ng f o r hi gh l oad capaci t y.
b. TPT (Tapered P i l e Ti p) Pi l es . These cons i s t of a mandrel dr i ve cor-
r ugat ed s h e l l wi t h an enl arged pr ecas t concr et e base. Thi s t ype of p i l e i s
us ual l y consi dered i n condi t i ons s u i t a b l e f o r pr es s ur e i nj e c t e d f oot i ngs. The
pr i nci pal claimed advantage i s t.he avoidance of punching t hrough a r e l a t i v e l y
t h i n beari ng st rat um.
c. I nt e r pi l e s . These cons i s t of an uncased concr et e p i l e , formed by a
mandrel dr i ven s t e e l pl at e. A s t e e l pi pe mandrel of smaller di amet er t han t h e
p l a t e i s used, and t he voi d cr eat ed by t he dr i ven p l a t e i s kept cont i nuousl y
f i l l e d wi t h concret e. It i s claimed t h a t t h i s p i l e devel ops gr e a t e r s i d e
f r i c t i o n i n a gr anul ar s o i l t han d r i l l e d p i e r s and convent i onal dr i ven pi l e s .
TABLE 1
Design Cr i t e r i a f o r Bearing P i l e s
L
PILE TYPE
CONSIDER FOR
LENGTH OF
APPLICABLE
MATERIAL SPEC-
I FICATIONS.
MAXIMUM
STRESSES.
CONSIDER FOR
DESIGN LOADS
OF.
DISADVANTAGES
ADVANTAGES
REMARKS
TYPICAL
ILLUSTRATIONS.
L
TIMBER
30 -60 FT
ASTM -025
MEASURED AT MOST CRITICAL PDINT, 1200 PSI
FOR SOUTHERN PINE AND DOUGLAS FIR. SEE
U.S.D.A. WOODHANDBOOK NO72 FOR STRESS
VALUES OF OTHER SPECIES.
10-50 TONS
DIFFICULT TO SPLICE.
VULNERABLE TO DAMAGE IN HARD DRIVING,
TIP MAY HAVE TO BE PROTECTED.
VULNERABLE TO DECAY UNLESS TREATED,
WHEN PILES ARE INTERMITTENTLY SUB-
MERGED.
COMPARATIVELY LOW INITIAL COST.
PERMANENTLY SUBMERGED PILES ARE
RESISTANT TO DECAY.
EASY TO HANDLE.
BEST SUITED FOR FRICTION PILE IN GRANULAR
MATERIAL.
BUTT DIA 12" TO 22" @
CROSS SECTION
TIF' D U 5" TO 9"
STEEL - H SECTIONS
40 -100 FT
ASTM -A36
12,000 PSI.
4 0 -120 TONS
VULNERABLE TO CORROSION WHERE EXPOSED
H P SECTION MAY BE DAMAGED OR DEFLECTED BY
MAJOR OBSTRUCTIONS.
EASY TO SPLICE.
AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS LENGTHS AND SIZES.
HIGH CAPACITY.
SMALL DISPLACEMENT.
ABLETOPENETRATETHROUGHLIGHT
OBSTRUCTIONS.
HARDER OBSTRUCTIONS MAY BE PENETRATED
WITH APPROPRIATE POINT PROTECTION
OR WHERE PENETRATIW OF SOFT ROCK IS
REQUIRED.
BEST SUITED FOR ENDBEARING ON ROCK.
REDUCE ALLOWABLE CAWCITY FOR CORROSIVE
LOCATIONS .
H
CROSS SECTION
#
TABLE 1 (cont i nued)
Design Cr i t e r i a f or Bearing Pi l es
- -
CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE (THIN SHELL
DRIVEN WIT H MANDREL )
10-120 FT BUT TYPICALLY IN THE
5 0 - 80 fl RANGE
ACI CODE 318 -FOR CONCRETE.
33Ol O OF 28-DAY STRENGTH OF CONCRETE,WITH
INCREASE TO 40/o OF 28 DAY !XRENGTH.
PROVI Dl NG:
(A) CASING IS A MINIMUM 14GAUGE THICKNESS
( BICASING IS SEAMLESS ORWITH WELDED SEAMS
(C) RATIO OFSTEELYIELD STRENGTH TO CON-
CRETE 28 DAY STRENGTH S NOT LESS THAN 6.
(D)PILE M E T E R IS NOT GREATER THAN 17 .
SPECIFICALLY DESGNED FOR A WIDE
RANGE OF U D S
Dl FFICULT RI SPLICE AFTER CONCRETING.
REDRIVING NOT RECOMMENDED.
THIN SHELL VULNERABLE DURING DRIVING TO
EXCESSIVE EARTH PRESSURE OR IMPACT,
CONSIDERABLE DISPLACEMENT.
INITIAL ECONOMY.
TAPERED SECTIONS PROVIDE HIGHER BEARING
RESISTANCE IN GRANULAR STRATUM CAN BE
INTERNALLY INSPECTED AFTER DRIVING
RELATIVLY LESS WASTE STEEL MATERIAL.
CAN BE DESIGNED AS END BEARING OR FRICTION
PILE,GENERALLY LOADED IN THE 40-IOOTON
RANGE.
BEST SUITED FOR MEDIUM UMD FRICTION PILES
IN GRANULAR MATERIALS.
-- - - - - -- -.
RADE
8" TO 18" DIA
t-3
0
CROSS
SECTION
CORRUGATED SHELL
THICKNESS 12 GA.
T O 2 0 GA.
SIDES STRAIGHT
OR TAPERED
PILE TYPE
CONSIDER FOR
LENGTH OF
APPLWLE
MATERAL SPEC-
IFICATIONS.
MAXIMUM
STRESSES.
MSADVANTmS
ADVANTAGES
REMARKS
I
TYPICAL
I U U S r n
PRECAST CONCRETE (INCLUDING PRESlESSED)
40-50 FT. FOR PRECAST
00 - I00 FT FORPRESTRESSED.
ACI 318 FORCONCRETE
ASfM AIS-FDR REINFORCING STEEL
FOR PRECAST-33% OF 28 DAY STRENGTH OF
CONCRETE.
FOR PRESTRESSED- Fc = 0.33 F;-0.27 F~
(WHERE: FplS THE EFFECTIVE PRESTRESS
STRESS ON THE GROSS SIXTION 1.
SPEC1 FICALLY DESIGNED FOR A WIDE
RANGE OF W.
UNLESS PRESTRESSED,WLNERABLE TO HANDLING
RELATIVEW HIGH BREAK= RATE ESPOClAUY
WHEN PILES ARE TO BE SPLICED.
HIGH INITIAL COST.
CONSIDERABLE DISPLACEMENT
PRESTRESSED DIFFICULT TO SPLICE.
HIGH LOAD CARIICITIES.
CORROSION RESISTANCE CAN BE ATTAINED.
HARD DRIVING POSSIBLE.
CYLINDER PILES IN WRTICULAR ARE SUITED FOR
BENDING RESISTANCE.
GNRAL W I N G RAWE IS 40-400 TONS.
12" TO 24" DIA
12" TO 24" DIA.
NOTE REINFORCING
MAY BE PRE-STRESSED
12" TO 54" DIA.
BE OMITTED
TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS
TABLE 1 (continued)
Design Cri teri a f or Bearing Pi l e s
i
PRESSURE INJECTED FOOTINGS
10TO 60 FT
ACI CODE 318
3S0/o OF 28-DAY STRENGTH OF CONCRETE.
91000 PSI FORPIPE SHELL IF THICKNESS GREATER
THAN 1/8 INCH
6 0 -120 lDNS.
BASE OF FOOTING CANNOT BE MADE IN CLAY OR
WHEN HARD SPOTS (E.G.ROCK LEDGES) ARE
PRESENT IN SOIL PENETRATED. WHEN CLAY
LAYERS MUST BE PENETRATED TO REACH
SUITABLE MATERAL, SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS
ARE REQUIRED FOR SHAFTS I F IN GROUPS.
PROVIDES MEANS OF PLACING HIGH CAPACITY
FOOTINGS ON BEARING STRATUM WITHOUT
NECESSITY FOR EX-@VATION OR DEWAERIEI- -
HlGH BLOW ENERGY AVAILABLE FOR OVERCOMING
OBSTRUCTIONS.
GREAT UPLIFT RESISTANCE IF SUITABLY REINFORCED
BEST SUITED FOR GRANULAR SOILS WHERE
BEARING IS ACHIEVED THROUGH COMMTION
AROUND BASE.
MINIMUM SPACING 4'-6"ON CENTER.
17" TO 12" TO
UNCASED CASED
SHAFT SHAFT
.
PILE TYPE
CONSIDER FOR
LENGTH OF
APPLICABLE
MATERIAL SPEC-
IFICATION.
MAXIMUM
STRESSES
CONSIDER FOR
DESIGN LQllDS
OF
DISADVANT#iES
ADVANTXES
REMARKS
IYPICAL
I L W W r n S
CAST-IN -PLACE CONCRETE PILES (SHELLS
DRIVEN WITHOUT MANDREL)
30- 80 FT
AC I CODE 318
33 % OF 28 -DAY STRENGTH OF CONCRETE.
SIOOO PSI IN SHELL,MORE THAN 1/6 INCHTHICK.
5 0 -70 TONS.
HARD lD SPLICE AFTER CONCRETING.
CONS1 DERABLE DISPLACEMENT.
CAN BE REDRIVEN .
SHELL NOT EASl LY DAMAGED.
BEST SUITED FORFRICTION PILES OF MEDIUM
LENGTH.
12" TO 18" DIA.
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION_
(FLUTED SHELL)
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
(SPIRAL WELDnD SHELL)
TABLE 1 (continued)
Design Cri teri a f or Bearing Pi l e s
PILE TYPE
CONSIDER FOR
LENGTH OF
APPLICABLE
MATERIAL SPEC-
IFICATIONS.
MAXIMUM
STRESSES.
CONSlDER FOR
DESIGN LOAD
OF
DISADVANTAGES
ADVANTAGES
REMARKS
TYPICAL
ILLUSTRATlONS
CONCRETE FILLED STEEL PIPE PILES
40-120FT OR MORE
ASTM A36 - FOR CORE.
ASTM A252- FOR PIPE.
ACI CODE 318- FOR CONCRETE.
9,000 PSI FOR PIPE SHELL
33% OF 28-DAY STRENGTH OFCONCRETE.
12,000 PSI ON STEEL CORES OF
STRUCTURAL REINFORCING STEEL.
80 - 120 TONS WITHOUT CORES.
500-1,500 TONS WITH CORES.
HIGH INITIAL COST
DISPLACEMENT FOR CLOSED END PIPE.
BEST CONTROL DURING INSTALLATION.
NO DISPLACEMENT FOR OPEN END INSTALLATION.
OPEN END PIPE BEST AGAINST OBSTRUCTIONS.
CAN BECLEANED OUT AND DRIVEN FURTHER.
HIGH LOAD CAWITIES.
EASY TO SPLICE.
PROVIDES HIGH BENDING RESISTANCE WHERE
UNSUPPORTED LENGTH IS LOADED LATERALLY.
--
8" TO 36" DIA.
OF PIPE PILE
WITH CORE
SOCKET REQ'D
FOR VERTICAL
E m CLOSURE
MAY BE OMITTED
COMPOSITE PILES
60 - 200 FT
ACI CODE 318- FOR CONCRETE.
ASTM A36 - FOR STRUCTURAL SECTION.
ASTM A252-FOR STEEL RE .
ASTM D25 -FOR TIMBER.
33% OF 26-DAY STRENGTH OF WKRETE.
9,000 PSI FOR STRUCTURAL AND PIPE SECTlONS.
SAME AS TIMBER PILES FOR WOOD WMPOSITE .
30- 100TONS.
DIFFICULT TO ATTAIN GOOD JOINT BETWEEN tWO
MATERIALS EXCEPT FOR PIPE COMPOSITE PILE
COFtSlDERABLE LENGTH CAN BE PROVIDED AT
COMPARATIVELY UM COST. FOR W000 00kl#)6m
PILES. HlGH CAPACITY FORPlPE AND HP
COMPOSITE PIUS. INTERNAL INSPECTION FOR
PIPE COMPOSITE PILES.
THE WEAKEST OF ANY MATERIAL USED SHALL
GWERN ALLOWABLE STRESSES AND CAMCITY.
. . .. .-. . - - - .
TYPICAL COMBINATIONS
-
+
TABLE 1 (cont i nued)
Design Cr i t e r i a f o r Bearing Pi l e s
GENERAL NOTES
I. STRESSES GIVEN FORSTEEL PILES ARE FOR
NONCORROSIVE LOCATIONS. FOR CORROSIVE
WTIONS,ESTIMATE POSSIBLE REDUCTION
IN STEEL CROSS SECTION OR PROVIDE
PROTECTION FROM CORROSION.
2. LENGTHS AND LOADS INDICATED ARE FOR
FEASl Bl LlTY GUIDANCE WY.THEY
GENERALLY REPRESENT TYPICAL CURRENT
PRACTICE,GREATER LENGTHS ARE OFTEN
USED.
3. OESlGN LOAD CAPACITY SHOULD BE DETER -
MINED BY SOIL MECHANICS PRINCIPLES,
LIMITING STRESSES IN PILES,AND TYPE AND
NNCTlON OF STRUCTURE.SEE TEXT
PILE TYPE
CONSIDER FOR
LENGTH OF
APPLICABLE
MATERIAL SPEC-
IFICATIONS.
MAXIMUM
!TRESSES.
CONSIDER FOR
DESlGN LQLID
OF
~ ~ A M Z K Z S
AMIANTAGES
REMARKS
TYPICAL
I LLUSTRPITIONS
AUGER -PLACED, PRESSURE-
INJECTED CONCRETE PILES
30- 60 FT
AC I - 318
33% OF 28-DAY STRENGTH OF CONCRETE.
35 -70 TONS
MORE THAN AVERSE DEPENDENCE ONQUALITY
WOAKMANSH I P.
NOT SUITABLE THRU PEAT OR SIMILAR HIGHLY
COMPRESSIBLE MATERIAL.
REWIRES RELATIVELY MORE EXTENSIVE
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION.
ECONOMY.
COMPLETE NONDISPLACEMENT.
MINIMAL DRIVING VIBRATION TOENDANGER
ADJACENT STRUCTURES.
HIGH SKIN FRICTION.
0000 CONTAM ON ROCK FOR END BEARING.
CONVENIENT FOR U)W-HEADROOM UNDER-
PINNING WORK.
VISUAL INSPECTION OFAUGERED MATERIAL.
NO SPLICING REWIRED.
BEST SUITED AS A FRICTION PILE.
TYPI CAL CROSS SECTI ON
+*y:; ;;*.
F LUI D CONCRETE
CAUSES EXPANSI ON
OF P I L E D I A 3 T E H
I F h%AK S O I L ZONES.
S O I L IS COldPACTED
AND CONSOLIDATJD.
DRILLED PILES CAN BE PROPERLY
SEATED F ~ RM SUBSTRATA
TABLE 2
Char act er i s t i cs of Common Excavat edIDri l l ed Foundations
-
1. PIERS ( al s o cal l ed Shaf t s)
a. Descri pt i on and Procedures - Formed by d r i l l i n g or excavat i ng a
hol e, removing t he s o i l , and f i l l i n g with concret e. Casing may be
necessary f o r s t a bi l i z a t i on, and/ or t o al l ow f or i ns pect i on and may
or may not be pul l ed a s t he concr et e i s poured. *Types i ncl ude
s t r a i ght s haf t pi e r s and bel l ed o r underreamed pi er s. Dr i l l ed
s ha f t diameters a r e t ypi cal l y 18 t o 36 i nches but can exceed 84
i nches; bel l ed diameters vary but a r e gener al l y not l a r ge r t han 3
t i m e s t he diameter of t he shaf t . Excavated pi e r s can be l a r ge r
( s haf t di amet ers exceeding 12 f e e t wi t h bel l ed di amet ers exceeding
30 f e e t have been const ruct ed). Lengths can exceed 200 f eet .
Pi er s i z e depends on desi gn l oad and al l owabl e s o i l l oads.
b. Advantages
b
Completely non-displacement.
Excavated mat er i al can be examined and beari ng s ur f ace can be
vi s ual l y i nspect ed i n cased pi e r s exceeding 30 i nches i n di amet er
( or smal l er using TV cameras).
Appl i cabl e f o r a wide va r i e t y of s o i l condi t i ons.
Pi l e caps usual l y not needed s i nce most l oads can be car r i ed on a
s i ngl e pi er .
No dr i vi ng vi brat i on.
With bel l i ng, l ar ge u p l i f t capaci t i es possi bl e.
Design pi e r depths and di amet ers r eadi l y modified based on f i e l d
condi t i ons.
Can be dr i l l e d i nt o bedrock t o car r y very hi gh l oads.
c. Disadvantages
More than average dependence on qual i t y of workmanship; i ns pect i on
requi red.
Danger of l i f t i n g concret e when pul l i ng casi ng can r e s u l t i n voi ds
o r i ncl usi ons of s o i l i n concret e.
Loose granuLar s oi l s below t he water t a bl e can cause const r uct i on
problems.
TABLE 2 (cont i nued)
Cha r a c t e r i s t i c s of Common ~xc a va t e d/ Dr i l l e d Foundat i ons
O Bel l us ual l y cannot be formed i n gr anul ar s o i l s below t h e wa t e r
t abl e.
O Smal l di amet er pi e r s ( l e s s t han 30 i nches ) cannot be e a s i l y
i ns pect ed t o confirm beari ng and a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o
necki ng problems.
d. Typi cal I l l u s t r a t i o n
CASING PULLED WRING
2. INTERNALLY-BRACED COFFERDAM I N OPEN WATER
a. Des cr i pt i on and Procedures - General l y onl y appl i cabl e i f s t r u c t u r e
ext ends below mudline.
(1)
Cofferdam const ruct ed and dewatered bef or e pouri ng of
foundat i on.
( a ) I n s t a l l cofferdam and i n i t i a l br aci ng below water i n
e xi s t i ng r i ver / s ea bottom. Cofferdam s heet i ng dr i ven i n t o
beari ng s t r a t a t o cont r ol underseepage.
( b)
Pump down water i ns i de cofferdam.
( c ) Excavate t o beari ng st r at um compl et i ng br aci ng syst em
dur i ng excavat i on.
( d) Const ruct foundat i on wi t hi n completed and dewatered
cofferdam.
( e )
Guide p i l e s o r t empl at e r equi r ed f or dr i vi ng cofferdams.
( f ) Cofferdam designed f o r hi gh wat er, i c e f or ces , o r l oad of
f l oa t i ng debri s.
( g)
Cel l ul ar wal l o r double-wall cofferdams w i l l el i mi nat e o r
reduce r equi r ed braci ng system.
TABLE 2 ( cont i nued)
Cha r a c t e r i s t i c s of Common ~x c a v a t e d / Dr i l l e d Foundat i ons
( 2) Cofferdam excavated mder wat er
( a ) I n s t a l l cofferdam and i n i t i a l t r a c i n g below water+ t o
e x i s t i n g r i ve r / s e a bottom.
( b) Excavat e underwat er and pl a c e a ddi t i ona l br aci ng t o
subgrade i n bear i ng st r at um.
( c ) Seal bottom wi t h t r emi e mat of s u f f i c i e n t weight t o
bal ance expected hydr os t a t i c u p l i f t .
( d) Pump out cofferdam and e r e c t remainder of f oundat i on
s t r uc t ur e .
( e ) , ( f ) and ( g) same a s dewatered cofferdam.
( h) Rel i ef of wat er pr e s s ur e s below t r emi e s l a b may be used t o
decr ease weight of tremie s l ab.
b. Advantages - Gener al l y more economical t han cai s s ons i f f oundat i on
i s i n l e s s t han 40 f e e t of water.
c. Di sadvant ages - Requi res complete dewat eri ng o r t r emi e mqt.
d. Typi cal I l l u s t r a t i o n
COFFERDAM EXCAVATED IN DRY
P
COFFERDAM EXCAVATED UNDER WATER
TABLE 2 ( cont i nued)
Cha r a c t e r i s t i c s of Common Excavat edl Dr i l l ed Foundat i ons
3. OPEN CAISSON
I
a. Des cr i pt i on and Procedure - An open box o r c i r c u l a r s e c t i o n wi t h a
c u t t i n g shoe on i t s lower edge. The c a i s s on i s sunk i n t o p l a c e
under i t s own weight by removal of t he s o i l i n s i d e t h e c a i s s on,
j e t t i n g on t he out s i de wa l l i s o f t e n used t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e pr oces s .
(1) Cai ssons shoul d be consi der ed when one o r more of t h e f ol l owi ng
condi t i ons e x i s t :
( a ) A s ubs t r uc t ur e i s r equi r ed t o ext end t o o r below t h e
r i v e r / sea bed.
( b) The s o i l cont ai ns l a r g e boul der s which obs t r uc t
penet r at i on of p i l e s o r d r i l l e d pi e r s .
( c ) The f oundat i on i s s ubj e c t t o ver y l a r ge l a t e r a l f or c e s .
I
I f t he s e condi t i ons do not e x i s t t h e use of a cai s s on i s n o t
war r ant ed because i t i s gener al l y more expensi ve t han ot he r t ype s of
deep f oundat i ons. I n open wat er , i f t he bear i ng s t r at um i s l ess
t han about 40 f e e t below t h e wat er s ur f a c e , a spr ead f oot i ng
f oundat i on const r uct ed wi t hi n cofferdams i s ge ne r a l l y l e s s
expensi ve.
( 2) General method of cons t r uct i on i ncl udes:
I
( a ) Fl oa t cai s s on s h e l l i n t o pos i t i on.
I
( b ) Bui l d up s h e l l i n v e r t i c a l l i f t s and pl ace f i l l wi t h i n
s h e l l u n t i l i t s e t t l e s t o sea bottom.
( c ) Continue bui l dup and excavat e by dr edgi ng wi t hi n c a i s s on
s o a s t o s i nk i t through uns ui t a bl e upper, s t r a t a .
( d) Upon r eachi ng f i n a l e l e va t i on i n bear i ng st r at um, pour
t r emi e base.
( e) Provi de anchorage or gui des f or cai s s on s h e l l dur i ng
si nki ng.
( f ) Fl oat i ng and s i nki ng oper at i ons can be f a c i l i t a t e d by t h e
use of f a l s e bottoms o r temporary domes.
( g) Dredging oper at i ons may be a s s i s t e d by t h e us e of jets o r
a i r l i f t s .
I
TABLE 2 ( cont i nued)
Char act er i st Jcs of Common ~ x c a v a t e d l ~ r i l l e d Foundat i ons
.*
General l y appr opr i at e f or dept hs exceeding 50 t o 60 f e e t and
when f i n a l subgrade i n t he beari ng st r at um i s not t hr eat ened by
u p l i f t from underl yi ng pervi ous s t r a t a .
b. Advantages - Fe a s i b i l i t y of ext endi ng t o gr eat dept hs.
c. Di sadvant ages
Bottom of t h e cai s s on cannot be t horoughl y cl eaned and i nspect ed.
Concrete s e a l placed i n water i s not as s a t i s f a c t o r y a s pl aced i n
t he dry.
So i l d i r e c t l y under t he haunched por t i on near t h e c u t t i n g edges
may r equi r e hand excavat i on by di ver.
Const ruct i on i s slowed down i f obs t r uct i on of boul der s o r l ogs i s
encountered.
d. Typi cal I l l u s t r a t i o n
WATER LEVEL
TREMIE
SHAFTS FOR
ANDCONSTRU
BOX TYPE
E 0
CIRCULAR TYPE
CROSS - SECTIOP
4. PNEUMATIC CAISSON
a. Descr i pt i on and Procedure - Si mi l ar t o an open cai s s on but t he box
i s cl osed and compressed a i r i s used t o keep water and mud from
fl owi ng i n t o t he box. Because of hi gh cos t s , i t i s gener al l y onl y
used on l ar ge pr oj ect s where an accept abl e beari ng st r at um cannot be
reached by open cai sson methods because of excessi ve dept h of water.
(1) General l y requi red f o r si nki ng t o gr eat dept hs where i nf l ow of
mat er i al duri ng excavat i on can be damaging t o surroundi ng a r e a s
and/ or where u p l i f t i s a t h r e a t from underl yi ng per vi ous
s t r a t a .
TABLE 2 (cont i nued)
Char act er i s t i cs of Common Excavat edIDri l l ed foundation^
(2)
General method of const r uct i on i ncl udes :
( a ) Fl oat cai sson i n t o posi t i on.
( b) Build up on t op of cai sson i n v e r t i c a l l i f t s u n t i l t h e
s t r uct ur e s e t t l e s t o sea bottom.
( c ) Continue buildup and excavate beneath t he cai sson, us i ng
compressed a i r when passing through unst abl e s t r a t a .
(d) Pour concret e base i n t he dry upon reachi ng f i n a l p o s i t i o ~
i n t he bearing stratum.
( e ) Provide anchorage or gui des f o r cai sson duri ng si nki ng.
For excavation i n t he dry, a i r pressure i s gener al l y made
equal t o t o t a l head of wat er above bottom of cai sson.
b. Advantages
A l l work is done i n t he dry; t her ef or e, cont r ol s over t he
foundat i on preparat i on and mat er i al s a r e bet t er .
Plumbness of t he cai sson i s e a s i e r t o cont r ol a s compared wi t h thc
open cai sson.
Obst ruct i on from boulders or l ogs can be r eadi l y removed.
Excavation by bl as t i ng may be done i f necessary.
c. Disadvantages
The const r uct i on cos t i s hi gh due t o t he use of compressed a i r .
The dept h of penet r at i on below water i s l i mi t ed t o about 120 f e e t
(50 ps i ) . Higher pressures a r e beyond t he endurance of t he human
body.
Use of compressed a i r r e s t r i c t s al l owabl e working hours per man
and r equi r es s t r i c t s af et y precaut i ons.
d. Typi cal I l l us t r a t i on
nAI R SHAFTS
WATER LEVEL? y A l R LOCK
SEA BOT
BEARING
I N WORKING
CHAMBER UP TO
,COMPRESSED AIR
TABLE 2 ( cont i nued)
Cha r a c t e r i s t i c s of Common ~x c a v a t e d / Dr i l l e d Foundat i ons
5. BOX CATSSON ( Fl oat i ng Cai sson)
a. Des cr i pt i on and Procedure - Es s e nt i a l l y a cast-on-land f l o a t i n g
f oundat i on sunk i n t o pos i t i on by ba c kf i l l i ng.
(1) Used pr i mar i l y f o r whar f s, p i e r s , bul kheads, and br eakwat er s i n
wat er not more t han 40 f e e t deep.
( 2) General c ons t r uc t i on method i ncl udes :
( a ) Pr epar e subgrade a t s ea bottom by dr edgi ng, f i l l i n g , o r
combination of dredgi ng and f i l l i n g .
( b) Fl oa t cai s s on i n t o pos i t i on.
( c ) Si nk cai s s on t o prepared f oundat i on a t t he s e a bottom by
use of ba l l a s t .
( d ) Provi de anchorage o r gui des t o pr ot e c t f l o a t i n g c a i s s on
a ga i ns t wat er cur r ent s .
( e ) Ba c kf i l l f o r s u i t a b l e f oundat i on shoul d be c l e a n gr a nul a r
ma t e r i a l and may r e qui r e compaction i n pl ace under water.
b. Advantages -
The c ons t r uc t i on c os t i s r e l a t i v e l y low.
Benef i t from pr ecas t i ng cons t r uct i on.
No dewat eri ng necessary.
c. Di sadvant ages
The ground must be l e v e l o r excavat ed t o a l e v e l s ur f ace.
Use i s l i mi t e d t o onl y t hose condi t i ons where bear i ng s t r at um i s
c l o s e t o ground sur f ace.
Pr ovi si ons must be made t o pr ot e c t a ga i ns t undermining by scour.
The bear i ng st r at um must be adequat el y compacted t o avoi d adver se
s et t l ement s .
d. Typi cal I l l u s t r a t i o n
d. Ear t h St a b i l i z a t i o n Columns. Many methods a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r formi ng
- . - compression rei nforcement el ement s ( s ee DM-7.3, Chapt er 2) i ncl udi ng:
( 1) Mixed-In-Place Pi l es . A mixed-in-place soi l -cement o r s o i l -
l i me pi l e .
( 2) Vibro-Replacement St one Columns. A v i b r o f l o t o r ot her devi ce i s
used t o make a c y l i n d r i c a l , v e r t i c a l hol e which i s f i l l e d wi t h compacted
gr avel or crushed rock.
( 3) Grouted St one Columns. Thi s i s s i mi l a r t o t he above but i n-
cl udes f i l l i n g voi ds wi t h bentonite-cement or wat er-sand-bent oni t e cement
mi xt ures.
( 4) Concret e Vibro Columns. Si mi l ar t o st one columns but concr et e
i nt roduced i ns t ead of gravel .
Sect i on 3. BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT
1. DESIGN PROCEDURES. The desi gn of a deep foundat i on syst em shoul d i n-
cl ude t he fol l owi ng s t eps :
( 1) Eval uat e t he subsurface condi t i ons.
( 2 ) Review t he foundat i on requi rement s i ncl udi ng des i gn l oads and
al l owabl e set t l ement o r def l ect i on.
( 3) valuate t he ant i ci pat ed cons t r uct i on condi t i ons and procedures.
( 4) I ncor por at e l o c a l experi ence and pr act i ces .
(5) Sel ect appr opr i at e foundat i on t ype( s ) based on t he above i t ems ,
c os t s , and comments on Tabl es 1 and 2.
( 6 ) Determine t he al l owabl e a x i a l foundat i on desi gn l oads based on an
eval uat i on of ul t i mat e foundat i on capaci t y i ncl udi ng r educt i ons f o r group
a c t i on or downdrag i f appl i cabl e, ant i ci pat ed s et t l ement and l o c a l r equi r e-
ments and pr act i ces .
The a x i a l l oad capaci t y of deep foundat i ons is a f unct i on of t h e
s t r u c t u r a l capaci t y of t he l oad car r yi ng member ( wi t h appr opr i at e r educt i on
f or column a c t i on) and t he s o i l l oad car r yi ng capaci t y. Usual l y, t he l at t er
cons i der at i on cont r ol s design. The methods avai l abl e f o r eval uat i ng t he u l t i -
mate a x i a l l oad capaci t y a r e l i s t e d below. Some o r a l l of t hes e shoul d be
consi dered by t he desi gn engi neer a s appr opr i at e.
( a ) S t a t i c anal ys i s u t i l i z i n g s o i l s t r engt h.
( b) Empi ri cal anal ys i s u t i l i z i n g st andard f i e l d s o i l t e s t s .
( c ) Bui l di ng code requi rement s and l oc a l experi ence.
( d) Ful l - s cal e l oad t e s t s .
( e ) Dynamic dr i vi ng r es i s t ance.
( 7 ) Determine desi gn and cons t r uct i on requi rement s, and i ncor por at e t he
requi rement s i n t o cons t r uct i on s peci f i cat i ons .
I nspect i on of foundat i on cons t r uct i on shoul d be consi der ed an i n t e g r a l
p a r t of t he desi gn procedures. Perform a p i l e t e s t program as r equi r ed. The
p i l e t e s t can a l s o be used a s a desi gn t ool i n i t em ( 6 ) .
2. BEARING CAPACITY OF SINGLE PILE
a. Allowable St r esses. See Table 1 f o r al l owabl e s t r e s s e s wi t hi n t h e
p i l e and qua l i t y requi rement s f o r p i l e mat er i al s . Allowable s t r e s s e s shoul d
be reduced f or column a c t i on where- t he p i l e ext ends above f i r m ground, i.e.
through wat er and ver y s o f t bottom sediments.
b. So i l Support. The s o i l must be capabl e of suppor t i ng t he element
when i t i s i n compression, t ensi on, and s ubj ect t o l a t e r a l f or ces . The s o i l
support can be computed from s o i l s t r engt h dat a, det ermi ned by l oad t e s t s ,
and/ or est i mat ed from dr i vi ng r es i s t ance. These det er mi nat i ons shoul d i ncl ude
t h e fol l owi ng s t ages :
( 1 ) Design Stage. Compute r equi r ed p i l e l engt hs from s o i l s t r e ngt h
dat a t o det ermi ne bi ddi ng l engt h and p i l e type.
( 2) Ear l y i n Const ruct i on Stage. Drive test p i l e s a t s el ect ed l oca-
t i ons . For s m a l l pr oj e c t s where performance of nearby p i l e f oundat i ons i s
known, base desi gn l engt h and l oad capaci t y on knowledge of t he s o i l p r o f i l e ,
nearby p i l e performance, and dr i vi ng r e s i s t a nc e of t e s t p i l e s . On l a r ge pro-
j ect s where l i t t l e experi ence i s avai l abl e, perform l oad t e s t s on s e l e c t e d
p i l e s and i n t e r p r e t t he r e s u l t s a s shown i n Fi gure 7.
( 3 ) Throughout Const ruct i on St age. Record dr i vi ng r e s i s t a nc e of a l l
p i l e s f o r comparison wi t h t e s t p i l e s and t o i ns ur e agai ns t l o c a l weak subsur-
f a c e format i ons. Record a l s o t he t ype and condi t i on of cushi oni ng mat er i al
used i n t he p i l e hammer.
c. Theor et i cal Load Capacity. See Fi gure 1 f o r a na l ys i s of ul t i mat e
l oad car r yi ng capaci t y of s i ngl e p i l e s i n homogeneous gr anul ar s o i l s ; f o r p i l e
i n homogeneous cohesi ve s o i l s ee Fi gure 2 (upper panel r i g h t , Reference 2,
The Bearing Capaci t y of Cl ays, by Skempton; remainder of f i gur e , Reference 3,
The Adhesion of Pi l e s Driven i n Clay Soi l s , by Tomlinson).
( 1) Compression Load Capacity. Compression l oad capaci t y equal s
end-bearing capaci t y, pl us f r i c t i o n a l capaci t y on per i met er sur f ace.
( 2) Pul l out Capacity. Pul l out capaci t y equal s t he f r i c t i o n a l f or ce
on t he peri met er s ur f ace of t he p i l e or pi er .
"'.
' \ \
Y3 BEARING STRATUM
I ,
C
7 P B PRESSURE DIAGRAM
KHc P~ AND K H ~ P o
( A) ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY IN COMPRESSION
H=HotD
Quit = PT Nq AT +C (KHcXP~TAN 8 ) ( ~ )
H = HO
WHERE Quit 'ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY IN COMPRESSDN
PT = EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS AT PlLE TIP (SEE NOTE I )
Nq = BEARING CAPACITY FKTOR (SEE TABLE, FIGURE I CONTINUED )
AT = AREA OF PlLE TIP
KHC = RATIO OF HORIZNTAL TOVERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS ONSIDE OF ELEMENT WHEN
ELEMENT IS IN COMPRESSION.
Po = EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS OVER LENGTH OF EMBEDMENT, D (SEE NOTE I )
8 = FRICTION ANGLE BETWEEN PILE AND SOIL (SEE TABLE, FIGURE I CONTINUED)
S = SURFACE AREA OF PlLE PER UNIT LENGTH
FOR CALCULATING Qall , USE FS OF 2 FORTEMPORARY LOADS, 3 FOR PERMANENT WDS.(SEE NOTE 2)
(8) ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY IN TENSION
H=Ho+D
Tul t' C (KH~)(P0)(TAN 8) (s)(H)
H=Ho
WHERE: Tult = ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY IN TENSION, PULLOUT
KHT = RATIO OF HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS ON SlDE OF ELEMENT WHEN ELEMENT
IS IN TENSION
FOR CALCULATING Tall I USE FS = 3 ONTul+ PLUS THE WEIGHT OFTHE PIG(Wp),THUS Tall = V + w p
(SEE NOTE 2
NOTE-I : EXPERIMENTAL AND FIEU) EVIDENCE INDICATE THAT BEARING PRESSURE AND SKIN FRICTION INCREASE
WITH VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS Po UPTO A LIMITING DEPTH WEMBEDMENT, DEPENDING ON
THE RELATIVE DENSITY OFTHE GRANULAR SOIL AND POSITION OF THE WATER TABLE. BEYOND THIS
LIMITING DEPTH ( IOB k TO 408 * ) THERE IS VERY LITTLE INCREASE IN END BEARING, AND INCREASE
IN SlDE FRICTION IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONALTO M E SURFACE AREAOF THE PILE. THEREFORE,IF
D IS GREATER THAN 20 9, Ll MlT Po AT THE PlLE TIP TOTHAT VALUE CORRESPONDING TO D = 209.
NOTE.2: IF BUILDING LOADS AND SUBSURFACE CONDITION ARE WELL DOCUMENTED IN THE OPINION OFTHE ENGINEER, A
LESSER FACTOR OFSAFETY CAN BE USEDBUT NOT LESS THAN 2.0 PROVIDED PlLE CAPACITY IS MRlFlED BY
LOAD TEST AND SETTLEMENTS ARE ACCEPTABLE.
FIGURE 1
Load Carrying Capacity of Si ngl e Pi l e i n Granular Soi l s
. . -
FIGURE 1 (continued)
Load Carrying Capacity of Single Pi l e i n Granular Soi l s
BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS - Nq
J
K HT
0.3 - 0.5
0.6 - 1.0
1.0 - 1.3
0.3 - 0.6
I
0.4
.
PILE TYPE
DRIVEN SINGLE H -PILE
DRIVEN SINGLE DISPLACEMENT
PlLE
DRIVEN SINGLE DISPLACEMENT
TAPERED PlLE
DRIVEN JETTED PILE
w
DRILLED PILE (LESS THAN
24" DIAMETER)
KHC
0.5 - 1.0
1.0 - 1.5
1.5 - 2.0
0.4 - 0.9
0.7
40
146
72
A
b
di*
Nq
(DRIVENP~~E
DISPLKE-
MENT)
Nq **
(DRILLED
PIERS)
33
35
17
>
EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS KHC AND KHT
FRICTION ANGLE - 8
26
10
5
.
PILE TYPE
STEEL
CONCRETE
TIMBER
b
34
42
21
2
>
8
20
3wj
v4 +
* UMlT 4 TO 28' I F JETTING IS USED
** (A) IN CASE A BAILER OR GRAB BUCKET IS USED BELOW GROUNDWATERTABLE,CALCULATE END
BEARING BASED ON # NOT EXCEEDING 28'.
(0) FOR PIERS GREATER THAN 24-INCH DIAMETER,SETTLEMENT RATHER THAN BEARING CAPACITY
USUALLY CONTROLS THE DESIGN. FORESTIMATING SETTLEMENT, TAKE 50% OF THE SETTLEMENT
FOR AN EQUIVALENT FOOTING RESTING ON THE SURFACE OF COMPARABLE GRANULAR SOILS.
(CHAPTER 5 , DM -7. I).
.
35
50
25
.
32
29
14
31
a
I2
I
28
15
8
30
21
I0
36
62
30
.
37
n
38
38
as
43
39
I
60
BEARING STRATUM
DENSE SAND , 165 PCF
EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS, Po, FOR
PILE DESIGN
FOR A DIAMETER CLOSED END, DRIVEN PI E PILE, CONCRETE FILLED, FIND Qdl ANDTall FOR
A =FOOT LONG PILE.
Po MAX OCCURS AT 208, OR 20' INTO BEARING STRATUM.
+= 30, Nq = 21
KHC =1.5,8 = 20
KHT = 1. 0
AT = r X 0.5?=0.78 SF
CIRCUM. AREA/If =I X r =3.14SF/If
Quit '1.535 ~ 2 1 x0.78+ ( 1.5 X(0'235;1.535 ) x TAN 20 ~20x314) t (1.5 xL535xTAN 20 x 5~3.14)
1
-
~68.64 K
FOR Fs =3,0qll =- 68 64 = 22.9 K
3
TUlt = 1.0 x ( 0'235
) x TAN 20x20~314 + 1.0x 1.535 xTAN 20x 5 x 3.14
2
FIGURE 1 (cont i nued)
Load Carryi ng Capaci t y of Si ngl e Pi l e i n Granul ar So i l s
1.25
Y .n
4
.SO
s
.25
0
0 500 1000 I500 2000 2500 JOOO
COHESION C, PSF
I POSITION OF GROUND-
WNER HAS NO EFFECT
ON ULTIMATE WAD
CAPACITY UNLESS
COHESION IS CHANGED.
QuH IS APPLIED LO*D
ONLY. PILE WEIGHT IS
BALANCED BY WEIGHT
OF OVERBURDEN AND
IS NOT CONSIDERED.
ULTIMATE LMD CAPACITY IN COMPRESSION
Quit =c ( N s ) T R ~ + Q 2 r R ~
WITH WIDTH, &AND LENGTH, L,THE
BEARING CAPACIM FACTOR IS
NCR = NCC ( 1+0.2 B/L)
I 1 I I I I 1 I 1
0 I 2 3 4
RATIO OF DEPTH TO WIDTH FOUNMTION
Z/ B OR Z/2R
RECOMMENDED VALUES OF ADHESON
I PILE ~~ONSI S~YCT ,C I ADHESI ON~
TYPE OF SOIL PS F
I
I
VERY SOFT 0 - 250 0 - 250 I
1 TIMBER 1 SOFT 1 250 - 500 1 250 - 480 1
ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY IN TENSION
Tult = CA 2 r Rz
STEEL
Tu(t UNDER SUSTAINED LOAD MAY BE
(Nee) LIMITED BY OTHER FACTORS, SEE TEXT.
vTS1JPF 2
Ul t i mat e Load Canacity of Si ngl e Pi l e or Pi er i n Cohesi ve Soils
VERY SOFT
SOFT
MED. STIFF
STIFF
VEmm
0 - 250
250- 500
500-1000
DOO-2000
2 0 0 0 - 4 0 0 0
0 - 250
2 5 0 - 4 6 0
4 6 0 - 7 0 0
7 0 0 - 7 2 0
720-750
( 3) Dr i l l ed Pi er s . For d r i l l e d p i e r s gr e a t e r t han 24 i nches i n
di amet er s et t l ement r a t he r t han beari ng capaci t y may cont r ol . A reduced end
beari ng r es i s t ance may r e s u l t from entrapment of bent oni t e s l u r r y i f used t o
mai nt ai n an open excavat i on t o t he p i e r ' s t i p. Bel l s , o r enl arged bases, a r e
us ual l y not s t a b l e i n gr anul ar s oi l s .
( 4 ) Pi l e s and Dr i l l ed Pi e r s i n Cohesive Soi l s . See Fi gure 2 and
Table 3. Experience demonst rat es t h a t p i l e dr i vi ng permanently alters s ur -
f a c e adhesi on of cl ays having a shear s t r engt h gr e a t e r t han 500 psf ( s e e
Fi gure 2). In s o f t e r cl ays t he remolded mat er i al cons ol i dat es wi t h t i m e ,
r egai ni ng adhesi on approxi mat el y equal t o or i gi na l s t r engt h. Shear s t r e n g t h
f or poi nt -beari ng r e s i s t a nc e i s e s s e n t i a l l y unchanged by p i l e dr i vi ng. For
d r i l l e d pi e r s , use Table 3 from Reference 4, So i l s and Geology, Procedures
f o r Foundation Design of Bui l di ngs and Other St r uct ur es , by t h e Departments of
Army and A i r Force, f o r det ermi ni ng s i de f r i c t i on. Ul t i mat e r e s i s t a nc e t o
pul l out cannot exceed t he t o t a l r e s i s t a nc e of reduced adhesi on act i ng over t h e
p i l e s ur f ace or t he e f f e c t i ve weight of t he s o i l mass which i s a va i l a bl e t o
r eact agai ns t pul l out . The al l owabl e s us t ai ned pul l out l oad us ual l y i s l i mi t e d
by t he tendency f o r t he p i l e t o move upward gr adual l y whi l e mobi l i zi ng an
adhesi on l e s s t han t he f a i l u r e value.
Adhesion f a c t or s i n Fi gure 2 may be very conser vat i ve f o r eval u-
a t i n g p i l e s dr i ven i n t o s t i f f but normally consol i dat ed cl ays. Avai l abl e dat a
suggest s t h a t f o r p i l e s dr i ven i n t o normally t o s l i g h t l y over consol i dat ed
cl ays , t he s i de f r i c t i o n i s about 0.25 t o 0.4 t i mes t he e f f e c t i v e overburden.
( 5) Pi l e s Penet r at i ng Mul t i -l ayered So i l Pr of i l e. Where p i l e s
penet r at e s ever al di f f e r e nt s t r a t a , a si mpl e approach i s t o add suppor t i ng
capaci t y of t he i ndi vi dual l ayer s , except where a s o f t l ayer may cons ol i dat e
and r e l i e ve l oad o r cause drag on t he pi l e . For f u r t h e r gui dance on bear i ng
capaci t y when a p i l e penet r at es l ayered s o i l and t er mi nat es i n gr anul ar s t r a t a
s e e Reference 5, Ul t i mat e Bearing Capaci t y of Foundations on Layered So i l s
Under I ncl i ned Loads, by Meyerhoff and Hanna, which consi der s t he ul t i mat e
beari ng capaci t y of a deep member i n sand underl yi ng a c l a y l a ye r and f o r t h e
case of a sand beari ng st r at um overl yi ng a weak cl ay l ayer .
( 6) P i l e Buckling. For f u l l y embedded p i l e s , buckl i ng us ual l y i s
not a problem. For a f u l l y embedded, f r e e headed p i l e wi t h l engt h equal t o o r
gr e a t e r t han 4T, t he c r i t i c a l l oad f o r buckl i ng i s a s fol l ows ( a f t e r Reference
6 , Design of Pi l e Foundations, by Vesic):
Pcrit = 0.78 ~~f f o r L> - 4T
where : Pcrit = c r i t i c a l l oad f o r buckl i ng
f = c oe f f i c i e nt of va r i a t i on of l a t e r a l subgrade
r eact i on ( s e e Fi gure 10)
T = r e l a t i v e s t i f f n e s s f a c t o r ( s ee Fi gure 10)
L = l engt h of pi l e .
TABLE 3
Design Paramet ers f o r Si de Fr i c t i on f o r Dr i l l ed Pi e r s i n Cohesive So i l s
L
Design Category
A. St r ai ght - si ded s h a f t s i n e i t h e r
homogeneous o r l ayered s o i l wi t h
no s o i l of except i onal s t i f f n e s s
below t he base
1. Shaf t s i n s t a l l e d dry o r by t he
s l u r r y di spl acement met hod
2. Shaf t s i n s t a l l e d wi t h d r i l l i n g
mud al ong some por t i on of t he
hol e wi t h pos s i bl e mud ent rap-
ment
B. Bel l ed s h a f t s i n e i t h e r
homogeneous o r l ayer ed cl ays wi t h
no s o i l of except i onal s t i f f n e s s
below t he base
1. Shaf t s i n s t a l l e d dry o r by t he
s l u r r y di spl acement methods
2. Shaf t s i n s t a l l e d wi t h d r i l l -
i ng mud al ong some por t i on of
t h e hol e wi t h pos s i bl e mud
entrapment
Remarks
( a ) CA/ C may be
i ncr eased t o 0.6 and s i d e
s hear i ncr eased t o 2.0
t s f f o r segments d r i l l e d
dry
( b) CA/c may be
i ncr eased t o 0.3 and s i d e
s hear i ncr eased t o 0.5
t s f f o r segments d r i l l e d
dr y
c A / ~
0.6
0.3(a)
0.3
0. 15(b)
Si de Resi st ance
Limit on s i d e s hear - t s f
TABLE 3 (cont i nued)
Design Paramet ers f o r Si de Fr i c t i o n f o r Dr i l l ed Pi e r s i n Cohesive So i l s
Remarks
Design Category
C. St r ai ght - si ded s h a f t s wi t h base
r e s t i n g on s o i l s i g n i f i c a n t l y
s t i f f e r t han s o i l around s t em
D. Bel l ed s h a f t s wi t h base r es t i ng
on s o i l s i g n i f i c a n t l y s t i f f e r t ha n
s o i l around stem
Note: I n cal cul at i ng l oad capaci t y, excl ude: (1) t op 5 f e e t of d r i l l e d s ha f t : ( 2 ) per i pher y of be l l : and
( 3 ) bottom 5 f e e t of s t r a i g h t s h a f t and bottom 5 f e e t of stem of s ha f t above bel l .
Si de Resi st ance
C A / ~
0
0
Li mi t on s i d e s hear - t s f
0
i ncr ease
t r a ns l a t
For p i l e s wi t h t he head f i xed agai ns t r ot a t i on and t r ans l at i on,
Pcrit by 13%.
I f t he p i l e head is pinned (i.e. prevent ed from
i on but f r ee t o r ot a t e ) , i ncr ease Pcrit by 62%.
For a pa r t i a l l y embedded pi l e , assume a f r e e st andi ng column
f i xed at dept h 1.8T below t he s o i l surface. Compute t he c r i t i c a l buckling
l oad by methods of s t r uc t ur a l anal ysi s. For such p i l e s compute al l owabl e p i l e
s t r e s s e s t o avoid buckling. For t he case where t he coef f i ci ent of l a t e r a l
subgrade r eact i on (Kh) of t he embe merit s o i l is const ant wi t h dept h, calcu-
l a t e t he depth of f i x i t y a s 1 . 4 ~ 4 , h e r t i E I is t he f l e xur a l r i gi di t y of
t he pi l e , B is p i l e width (di amet er) and Kh i s defi ned i n t he uni t s of
~ o r c e ~ ~ e n g t h ~ . Buckling f or a f u l l y embedded l engt h of ot her p i l e t ypes
does not cont r ol p i l e s t r es s . For f ur t her guidance see Reference 6.
d. Empirical Bearing Capacity. Resul t s from t he Standard Penet r at i on
Test , St a t i c Cone penetrometer (Dutch Cone wi t h f r i c t i o n sl eeve) , and Pres-
suremeter have been cor r el at ed wi t h model and f u l l s c a l e f i e l d tests on p i l e s
and deep foundations so t ha t empi ri cal expressi ons a r e avai l abl e t o estimate
foundat i on capaci t i es.
(1) Standard Penet rat i on. Use of t he Standard Penet r at i on Test t o
pr edi ct capaci t i es of deep foundations should be l i mi t ed t o gr anul ar s oi l s and
must be considered a crude est i mat e.
Tip Resi st ance of dri ven p i l e s ( a f t e r Reference 7, Bearing
Capacity and Set t l ement of Pi l e Foundations, by Meyerhof):
where :
q ult
N = st andard penet r at i on r es i s t ance ( bl owl f t )
near p i l e t i p
20
CN = 0.77 l ogl o - ( f or p> 0.25 TSF)
P
-
p = ef f ect i ve overburden stress a t p i l e t i p (TSF)
quit = ul t i mat e poi nt r es i s t ance of dri ven p i l e (TSF)
-
N = average cor r ect ed Standard Penet rat i on Resi st ance
near p i l e t i p ( bl owsl f t )
D = depth dri ven i nt o granul ar beari ng st rat um ( f t )
B = width or diameter of p i l e t i p ( f e e t )
q1 = l i mi t i ng poi nt r es i s t ance (TSF),
equal t o
4N f or sand and 3N f or non-pl ast i c silt.
For dr i l l e d pi e r s , use 113 times quit computed from t he above
expression.
- . - Use a f a c t or of s af et y of 3 t o compute al l owabl e t i p resis-
t ance ..
Skin Fr i ct i on of dri ven pi l es :
where : N = average st andard penet r at i on along p i l e s ha f t
f s = ul t i mat e s ki n f r i c t i on f or dri ven p i l e (TSF)
f l = l i mi t i ng s ki n f r i c t i on ( f or dri ven p i l e ,
f l = 1 TSF)
Use f act or of s af et y of 3 f or allowable s ki n f r i c t i on.
For dri ven pi l e s t apered more t han 1 percent , use 1.5 t i m e s
above expression.
For dr i l l e d pi e r s , use 50 percent of above expressi on
( 2) The Cone Penetrometer. The Cone Penetrometer provi des us ef ul
i nformat i on a s a "model pi l e" and i s best s ui t ed f or l oos e t o dense sands and
silts. Penetrometer r e s ul t s a r e not considered accur at e f or very dense sands
or deposi t s with gravel .
Poi nt Resi st ance:
quit = qc
where : quit = ul t i mat e t i p r es i s t ance f or dri ven p i l e
qc = cone penet rat i on r es i s t ance
Depth of penet r at i on t o granul ar beari ng st rat um i s a t l e a s t 10
times t he p i l e t i p width.
Shaft Resi st ance :
fult = f C
where: f u l t = ul t i mat e s haf t f r i c t i o n of dri ven cyl i ndr i cal p i l e
f c = uni t r es i s t ance of l ocal f r i c t i o n sl eeve of s t a t i c
penetrometer
Use f act or of s af et y of 3 f or al l owabl e s ki n f r i c t i on.
For dr i l l e d pi e r s i n cohesi onl ess s o i l , use 1/ 2 of ,I+ or quit.
based on t he above expressi ons f o r dri ven pi l es .
(3) Pressuremeter. Resul t s from pressuremet er t e s t s can be used t o
est i mat e d e s i m cavaci t v of deep foundation elements. See Reference 8. The
-
= -
Pressuremeter and Foundation Engineering, by Baguelin, e t al . , o r Reference 9,
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, by t he Canadian Geot echni cal Soci et y,
4
f or de t a i l s of desi gn cor r el at i on.
The pressuremet er method i s us ef ul i n s of t rock, weathered o r
cl os el y j oi nt ed rock, granul ar s oi l s , and very s t i f f cohesi ve s oi l s . Res ul t s
a r e general l y not s ui t a bl e i n s o f t cl ays because of t he di st urbance duri ng
dr i l l i ng. The sel f-bori ng pressuremeter i s designed t o reduce t h i s problem.
e. Bearing Capacity from Dynamic Driving Resi st ance.
(1) General. The ul t i mat e capaci t y of a p i l e may be est i mat ed on
t he bas i s of dri vi ng r es i s t ance during i ns t a l l a t i on' of t he pi l e. The r e s u l t s
a r e not always r e l i a bl e , and may over-predict or gr ossl y under-predict p i l e
capaci t i es , and t her ef or e should be used with caut i on. Use must be supported
by l ocal experience o r t est i ng. Dynamic r es i s t ance based on t he wave equat i on
anal ys i s i s a more r at i onal approach t o cal cul at i ng p i l e capaci t i es .
( 2) Pi l e Driving Formulas:
( a) General. Because of t he uncer t ai nt i es of t he dynamics of
p i l e dri vi ng, t he use of formulas more el abor at e t han t hose i n Table 4 i s not
warranted. A minimum of t hr ee test p i l e s should be dri ven f or each i ns t a l l a -
t i on, with more t e s t s i f subsurface condi t i ons a r e e r r a t i c .
( b) Cont rol During Construction. The embedment of p i l e s shoul d
be cont r ol l ed by speci fyi ng a minimum t i p el evat i on on t he bas i s of t he sub-
sur f ace pr of i l e and dr i vi ng t e s t s or l oad t e s t s , i f avai l abl e, and al s o by
r equi r i ng t ha t t he pi l e s be dri ven beyond t he s peci f i ed el evat i on u n t i l t he
dr i vi ng r es i s t ance equal s or exceeds t he value est abl i shed a s necessary from
t he r e s ul t s of t he t e s t pi l es . However, i f t he p i l e penet r at i on cons i s t ent l y
overruns t he ant i ci pat ed depth, t he bas i s f or t he s peci f i ed depth and dr i vi ng
r es i s t ance should be reviewed.
( c) Formulas. Dynamic p i l e dr i vi ng formulas should not be used
a s c r i t e r i a f or es t abl i s hi ng l oad capaci t y without cor r el at i on with t he re-
s u l t s of an adequate program of s o i l expl orat i on. For c r i t i c a l s t r uct ur es and
where l ocal experi ence i s l i mi t ed, or where unfami l i ar p i l e t ypes or equipment
a r e being used, l oad t e s t s should be performed.
( 3) Wave Equation Analysis. The wave equat i on anal ys i s i s based on
t he theory of one dimensional wave propagation. For t he anal ys i s t he p i l e i s
di vi ded i nt o a s e r i e s of masses connected by spr i ngs which char act er i ze t he
p i l e s t i f f ne s s , and dashpots which si mul at e t he damping below t he p i l e t i p and
along p i l e embedded length.
Thi s method was f i r s t put i nt o pr a c t i c a l form i n 1962 (Reference
10, Pi l e Driving by t he Wave ~ ~ u a t i o h , by ~mi i h) . The wave equat i on anal ys i s
provi des a means of eval uat i ng t he s u i t a b i l i t y of t he p i l e s t i f f ne s s t o t rans-
m i t dri vi ng energy t o t he t i p- t o achieve pi l e- penet r at i on, a s wel l a s t he
a b i l i t y of p i l e s ect i on t o withstand dri vi ng s t r e s s e s without damage. The
r e s ul t s of t he anal ys i s can be t nt er pr et ed t o gi ve t he following:
TABLE 4
Application of Pi l e Driving Resistance Formulas
I
BASIC PlLE DRIVING FORMULAS (SEE COMMENT IN SECTION 2)
FOR DROP HAMMER
2 WH
Qa11' s+l
Qall = ALLOWABLE PlLE LOAD IN POUNDS.
W = WEIGHT OF STRIKING PARTS OF HAMMER IN POUNDS.
H = THE EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF FALL IN FEET.
E = THE ACTUAL ENERGY DELIVERED BY HAMMER PER BLOW IN FOOT- POUNDS.
S = AVERAGE NET PENETRATION IN INCHES PER BLOW FOR THE LAST 6 IN. OF DRIVING.
WD = DRIVEN WEIGHTS
1
NOTE: RATIO OF DRIVEN WEIGHTS TO STRIKING WEIGHTS SHOULD NOT
WS = WEIGHTS OF STRIKING BWS EXCEED 3.
MODIFICATONS OF BASIC PlLE DRIVING FORMULAS
A. FOR PILES DRIVEN TO AND SEATED IN ROCK AS HIGH CAPACITY END-BEARING PILES:
DRIVE TO REFUSAL (APPROXIMATELY 4 TO 5 BLOWS FOR THE LAST QUARTER INCH OF DRIVING).
REDRIVE OPEN END PIPE PILES REPEATEDLY UNTIL RESISTANCE FOR REFUSAL IS REACHED
WITH IN I IN. OF ADDITIONAL PENETRATION.
8. PILES DRIVEN THROUGH STIFF COMPRESSIBLE MATERIALS UNSUITABLE FORPlLE BEARING TO AN
UNDERLY lNG BEARING STRATUM :
ADD BLOWS ATTAINED BEFORE REACHING BEARING STRATUM TO REQUIRED BU)WS ATTAINED IN
BEARING STRATUM (SEE EXAMPLE).
fi
PILE
EXAMPLE: REQUIRED LOAD W I T Y OF PlLE Qall =25 TONS
HAMMER ENERGY
- ////Ip E = 15,000 FT.-LB.
COMPRESS1 BLE
v/"/"/>;
-
wd (I
ws
i....
..- . ... -::. :.: .:::
-
PENETRAm (S) AS PER BASlC FORMULA = 1/2" OR 2 BUWS PER
:.'BEARING .
::.STRATUM ~ 4 2 BU)WS/FT: INCH (24 BUIWS/FT).
... ::...::::.::.. .
....
. . . . ...;...:.;.-;
- REQUIRED BLOWS FORPILE 24 + I8 = 42 BUIWS/FT.
I
C. PILES DRIVEN INTO LIMITED THIN BEARING STRATUM, DRIVE TO PREDETERMINED TIP ELEVATION.
DETERMINE ALIDWABLE IDAD BY U)AD TEST.
STRATUM
LBUJ UNSUITABLE FWZ POW BEARING
FOR SINGLE - ACTING HAMMER
2WH {USE WHEN DRMN W E m
Qall= S+O.I
ARE SMALLER THAN
STRIKING WEIGHTS.
QaW WH { USE WHEN DRIVEN WEIGHTS
S+O.I- WD ARE LARGER THAN
Ws STRIKING WEIGHTS.
FORDOUBLE -ACTING DlFFEREHllAL HAMMER
Pall = *{USE WHEN DRIVEN
WEIGHTS AR SMALLER
THEN STRIKING WEIGHTS.
all=
2E
{USE WHEN DRIVEN WEIGHTS
S+O.l- ARE LARGER THAN
Ws STRIKING WEIGHTS.
( a) Equipment compatibility:,appropriate hammer s i z e and
cushion.
(b) Driving s t r es s es : pl ot s of stress vs. set can be made t o
-
eval uat e t he pot ent i al f or p i l e over st r ess.
( c) Pi l e capaci t y: pl ot of ul t i mat e p i l e capaci t y vs. set can
be developed.
The s o i l i s modeled by approximating t he s t a t i c r es i s t ance
(quake), t he vi scous r es i s t ance (damping), and t he di s t r i but i on of t he s o i l
r es i s t ance along t he pi l e. The assi gned parameter f or spr i ngs and dashpot s
cannot be r el at ed t o r out i nel y measured s o i l parameters which cons t i t ut es t he
major draw back of t he wave equat i on anal ysi s. The i nput f or t he dr i vi ng
system is provided by t he ant i ci pat ed hammer performance, c oe f f i c i e nt of
r e s t i t ut i on of t he cushion, and s t i f f ne s s of t he pi l e. Computer programs a r e
avai l abl e t o perform t he l engt hy cal cul at i ons.
( 4 ) Case Method. The wave equat i on anal ys i s can be used i n conjunc-
t i on with f i e l d measurements by using t he Case Method (Reference 11, Soi l
-
Resi st ance Pr edi ct i ons from Pi l e Dynamics, by Rausche, et al . ). This proce-
dure el ect r oni cal l y measures t he accel er at i on and s t r a i n near t he top of . t he
p i l e , and by usingv t he wave equat i on anal ys i s est i mat es t he s t a t i c s b i l r es i s -
t ance f or each blow of t he hammer. Energy t r ans f er r ed t o t he p i l e i s computed
by i nt egr at i ng t he product of f or ce and vel oci t y. A di s t r i but i on of t he s o i l
r es i s t ance along t he p i l e l engt h i s assumed and t he wave equat i on anal ys i s i s
performed. The assumed s o i l s t r engt h parameters a r e checked agai ns t t he mea-
sured force a t t he p i l e top and t hese a r e t hen adj ust ed t o r e s u l t i n an i m-
proved match between t he anal yt i cal and measured p i l e f or ce a t t he top.
3. BEARING CAPACITY OF PILE GROUPS.
a. General. The beari ng capaci t y of p i l e groups i n s o i l s i s normally
l e s s t han t he sum of i ndi vi dual pi l e s i n t he group and must be consi dered i n
design. Group ef f i ci ency is a term used f or t he r a t i o of t he capaci t y of a
p i l e group t o t he sum of t he capaci t i es of s i ngl e p i l e s a t t he same depth i n
t he same s o i l deposi t . I n eval uat i ng t he performance of p i l e groups i n com-
pressi on, set t l ement i s a major consi derat i on. Expressions f or est i mat i ng
u p l i f t r es i s t ance of p i l e groups a r e included i n t h i s sect i on.
b. Group Capacity i n Rock. The group capaci t y of p i l e s i ns t a l l e d t o
rock is t he number of members times t he i ndi vi dual capaci t y of each member.
Block f a i l ur e i s a consi derat i on only i f foundat i ons a r e on a sl opi ng rock
formation, and s l i di ng may occur along unfavorable dipping, weak planes. The
pos s i bi l i t y of such an occurrence must be eval uat ed from t he s i t e geology and
f i e l d expl orat i on.
c. Group Capaci t y i n Granular Soi l . Pi l es dri ven i nt o cohesi onl ess s o i l
i n a group conf i gur at i on a c t a s i ndi vi dual pi l e s i f t he spacing i s gr eat er
t han 7 times t he average p i l e diameter. They a c t a s a group a t cl os e spac-
ings. Center t o cent er spacing of adj acent pi l e s i n a group should be a t
l e a s t two times t he but t diameter.
Block f a i l u r e of a p i l e group i n gr anul ar s o i l s i s not a des i gn con-
s i de r a t i on provided each i ndi vi dual p i l e has an adequat e f a c t o r of s a f e t y
agai ns t beari ng f a i l u r e and t he cohesi onl ess s o i l i s not under l ai n by a weaker
deposi t . I n l oos e sand and/ or gr avel depos i t s , t he l oad car r yi ng capaci t y of
a n i ndi vi dual p i l e may be gr e a t e r i n t he group t han s i n g l e because of dens i f i -
c a t i on duri ng dr i vi ng. Thi s i ncr eased ef f i ci ency shoul d be i ncl uded i n des i gn
wi t h caut i on, and onl y where demonstrated by f i e l d exper i ence or t e s t s .
The ul t i mat e capaci t y of a p i l e group founded i n dense cohes i onl es s
s o i l of l i mi t ed t hi ckness under l ai n by a weak depos i t i s t he smal l er of :
( 1)
sum of t he s i ngl e p i l e c a pa c i t i e s
( 2)
bl ock f a i l u r e of a p i e r equi val ent i n s i z e t o t he p i l e s and
encl osed s o i l mass, punching through t he dense depos i t i n t o t he under l yi ng
weak depos i t (Reference 12, Ul t i mat e Bearing Capaci t y of Foot i ngs on Sand
Layer Overlying Clay, by Meyerhof).
d. Group Capaci t y i n Cohesive Soi l . Est i mat e t he group capaci t y usi ng
he method i n Fi gur e 3 (upper panel , Reference 13, Experiments wi t h Model
Pi l e s i n Groups, by Whitaker).
e. U ~ l i f t Resi st ance of G~ OUDS.
( 1 ) Granul ar Soi l . Ul t i mat e u p l i f t r e s i s t a nc e of p i l e group i s
l e s s e r of:
( a )
Sum of s ki n f r i c t i o n on t he p i l e s i n t he group (no reduc-
t i o n f o r t apered p i l e s ) , use a f a c t o r of s af et y of 3.0.
( b)
Ef f ect i ve weight of block of s o i l wi t hi n t he group and
wi t hi n a 4 v e r t i c a l on 1 hor i zont al wedge ext endi ng up from p i l e t i p s - wei ght
of pi l es ' assumeil equal t o volume of s o i l t hey di spl ace. Fact or of s a f e t y
should be uni t y.
( 2) Cohesive Soi l . Ul t i mat e u p l i f t r e s i s t a nc e of p i l e group i s t h e
l e s s e r of :
( a )
Sum of s ki n f r i c t i o n on t he p i l e s i n t he group
where:
Tu = ul t i mat e u p l i f t r es i s t ance of p i l e group
A = l engt h of group
B = wi dt h of group
L = dept h of s o i l block below p i l e cap
C = average undrained s t r engt h of s o i l around t he s i de s of t he group
Wp = weight of p i l e s , p i l e cap, and block of s o i l encl osed by t he
pi l e s .
FIGURE 3
Beari ng Capaci t y of Pi l e Groups i n Cohesive So i l s
3 x 3 PILE GROUP
3 x 3 PlLE GRWP
9 x 9 PlLE GROUP
PlLE GROUP EFFICIENCY
FOR COHESIVE SOILS
1.5 2 . O 2.5 3 .O 3.5 4.0 4.5
SPACING IN PILE DIAMETERS
PERIMETER
a pO""l DEFlN ITIONS
PlLE
QG = ULTIMATE LOAD CAMI TY OF PlLE IN GROUP
SPACING
Quit = ULTIMATE LOAD W I T Y OF ISOLATED PILE
n = NUMBER OF PILES IN GROUP
G OG FOR COHESIVE SOILS
= Qul t
2R = PILE DIAMETER
QG AND Quit ARE APPLIED LOADS ONLY. WEIGHT OF
PILES AND ENCLOSED SOIL IS BALANCED BY WEIGHT
OF OVERBURDEN AND IS NOT CONSIDERED.
BEARING CAWl TY
B
BEARING CAPACITY OF PILE GROUP
Quit = (cNc) W R ~ + CA 2 TRL (OBTAIN CA AND Nc FROM FIGURE 2 )
ULTIMATE LOAD OF GROUP = n QG = Ge n Quit
d
Fact or s of Safet y: 2 f o r short -t erm l oads , 3 f o r s us t ai ned
u p l i f t i n g l oadi ng.
-
4. SETTLEMENTS OF PILE FOUNDATIONS
a. Si ngl e Pi l e. The s et t l ement a t t he t op of p i l e can be broken down
i n t o t hr ee components ( a f t e r Reference 6 ) .
(1) Set t l ement due t o a x i a l deformat i on of p i l e s ha f t ; W s
where: Q = poi nt l oad t r ans mi t t ed t o t he p i l e t i p i n t he working stress
P
range.
Qs = s h a f t f r i c t i o n l oad t r ans mi t t ed by t he p i l e i n t he working
s t r e s s r ange( i n f or ce uni t s )
= 0.5 f o r par abol i c o r uniform d i s t r i b u t i o n of s h a f t f r i c t i o n
0.67 f o r t r i angul ar d i s t r i b u t i o n of s h a f t f r i c t i o n s t a r t i n g
from zer o f r i c t i o n a t p i l e head t o a maximum val ue a t p i l e
poi nt
0.33 f o r t r i angul ar d i s t r i b u t i o n of s h a f t f r i c t i o n
s t a r t i n g from a maximum a t p i l e head t o- zero at t he
p i l e poi nt .
L = p i l e l engt h
A = p i l e cr os s s e c t i ona l a r e a
Ep = modulus of e l a s t i c i t y of t he p i l e
( 2)
Set t l ement of p i l e poi nt caused by l oad t r ans mi t t ed a t t he poi nt
W ~ ~ :
where : Cp = empi ri cal c oe f f i c i e nt depending on s o i l t ype and
method of cons t r uct i on, s ee Tabl e 5
B = p i l e di amet er
q0 = ul t i mat e end beari ng capaci t y
( 3 )
Set t l ement of p i l e poi nt s caused by l oad t r ans mi t t ed al ong t he
p i l e s h a f t , Wps;
TABLE 5
Typical* Values of Coef f i ci ent C
f or Est i mat i ng
P Set t l ement of a Sing e Pi l e
I
Bored Pi l e s
0.09 t o 0.18
0.03 t o 0.06
0.09 t o 0.12
L
Soi l Type
Sand (dense t o l oose)
Clay ( s t i f f t o s of t )
S i l t (dense t o l oose)
* Bearing st r at um under p i l e t i p assumed t o extend a t l e a s t 10 p i l e
di amet ers below t i p and s o i l below t i p i s of comparable or hi gher
s t i f f nes s .
Driven Pi l e s
0.02 t o 0.04
0.02 t o 0.03
0.03 t o 0.05
D = embedded l engt h
( 4)
Tot al set t l ement of a s i ngl e pi l e , Wo:
b. Set t l ement of Pi l e Group i n Granular Soi l s. Compute group s et t l ement
Wg based on ( a f t e r Reference 6):
-
where : B = t he smal l est dimension of p i l e group
B = diameter of i ndi vi dual p i l e
Wo = Set t l ement of a s i ngl e p i l e est i mat ed or determined
from l oad t e s t s
c. Set t l ement of Pi l e Groups i n Sat urat ed Cohesive Soi l s. Compute t he
group set t l ement a s shown i n Figure 4.
d. Li mi t at i ons. The above anal yses may be used t o est i mat e s et t l ement ,
however, set t l ement est i mat ed from t he r e s ul t s of l oad t e s t s a r e gener al l y
considered more accur at e and r el i abl e.
5. NEGATIVE SKIN FRICTION.
a. General. Deep foundation elements i ns t a l l e d through compressi bl e
mat er i al s can experi ence "downdrag" f or ces or negat i ve s ki n f r i c t i o n along t he
s haf t which r e s ul t s from downward movement of adj acent s o i l r e l a t i ve t o t he
pi l e. Negative s ki n f r i c t i o n r e s ul t s pri mari l y from consol i dat i on of a s o f t
deposi t caused by dewatering or t he placement of f i l l .
Negative s ki n f r i c t i o n i s par t i cul ar l y severe on ba t t e r p i l e i ns t a l -
l a t i ons because t he f or ce of subsi di ng s o i l i s l ar ge on t he out er s i de of t he
bat t er p i l e and s o i l s e t t l e s away from t he i nner s i de of t he pi l e. Thi s can
r e s ul t i n bending of t he pi l e. Bat t er p i l e i ns t a l l a t i ons should be avoided
where negat i ve s ki n f r i c t i on i s expected t o develop.
b. Di s t r i but i on of Negative Skin Fr i ct i on on Si ngl e Pi l e. The di s t r i bu-
t i on and magnitude of negat i ve s ki n f r i c t i on along a p i l e s haf t depends on:
(1) r e l a t i ve movement between compressible s o i l and p i l e s haf t ;
( 2)
r e l a t i ve movement between upper f i l l and p i l e s haf t ;
( 3)
e l a s t i c compression of p i l e under working load;
( 4)
r a t e of consol i dat i on of compressible s oi l s .
--
I
SETTLEMENT OF PILE GROUP = COMPRESSION OF
I
OD = DRAG PER PlLE FOR LENGTH = L3
LAYER H UNDER PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION SHOWN.
1 FRICTION PILES IN CLAY 1
n Qall
I
SOFT
CLAY
L
n Qall
-
V , +
........... . I
. . . . . . .
.:....... ...!
SAND
. . * . '
..... . . . .:( :;:.-. ...:...:. ......\
... ..... . . . : : ..... : .: :: ...:
~ ~ S F T C L A Y w. .. . - I -
..
. .
:. .........
...... ..:;.:. ::.: -.=.sspfl :: : . . . : . . . . .
I
(
L3 = DEPTH TO TOP OF BEARING STRATUM OR I
FRICTION PILES IN SAND UNDERLAIN BY CLAY 1
L, Y
/
\
/ \
/
\
\
' n ~ a l l +rLl, n e
\\
q = i m T (B) (A)
1
4. COMPUTE SETTLEMENTS BY METHODS OF DM 7.1 CHAPTER 5.
1
FIGURE 4
Settlement of Pile Groups
1
POINT BEARING PILES IN SAND UNDERLAIN BY CLAY
2/3 (L2 FOR FRICTION PILES.
FRICTION PILES IN a A y WITH RECENT FILL
NUfES: I. PLAN AREA TO OUTSIDE OF PlLE GROUP = B x A.
2FOR RELATlVEW RIGID PlLE CAP, PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION IS ASUMED TD VARY WITH DEPTH AS SHOWN.
3FOR FLEXIBLE SLAB OR GROUP OF SMALL SEPARATE CAPS,COMWTE PRESSURES BY ELASTIC SOUJTONS
(DM-?. 1 CHAPTER 4) FORLOAD APPLIED N LEVEL SHOWN.
Negative s ki n f r i c t i o n develops along t ha t por t i on of t he p i l e s ha f t
where set t l ement of t he adj acent s o i l exceeds t he downward displacement of t he
. - s haf t . The "neut r al poi nt " i s t hat poi nt of no r e l a t i ve movement between t he
p i l e and adj acent s oi l . Below t h i s poi nt , s ki n f r i c t i o n a c t s t o support p i l e
loads. The r a t i o of t he depth of t he neut r al poi nt t o t he l engt h of t he p i l e
i n compressible s t r a t a may be roughly approximated a s 0.75. The pos i t i on of
t he neut r al poi nt can be est i mat ed by a t r i a l and e r r or procedure which com-
pares t he s et t l ement , of t he s o i l t o t he displacement of adj acent s ect i ons of ,
t he pi l e. (For f ur t her guidance see Reference 14, Pi l e Design and Construc-
.
t i on Pr act i ce, by Tomlinson. )
Observations i ndi cat e t ha t a r e l a t i ve downward movement of 0.6 i nch
i s expected t o be s uf f i c i e nt t o mobilize f u l l negat i ve s ki n f r i c t i on (Refer-
ence 6 ) .
c. Magnitude of Negative Skin Fr i ct i on on Si ngl e Pi l e. The peak nega-
t i v e s ki n f r i c t i on i n granul ar s o i l s and cohesive s o i l s i s determined as f o r
pos i t i ve s ki n f r i ct i on.
The peak uni t negat i ve s ki n f r i c t i on can al s o be est i mat ed from
( a f t e r Reference 15, Pr edi ct i on of Downdrag Load a t t he Cut l er Ci r cl e Bridge,
by Garlanger):
where : f n = uni t negat i ve s ki n f r i c t i on ( t o be mul t i pl i ed by
ar ea of s haf t i n zone of subsi di ng s o i l r e l a t i ve t o p i l e )
Po = e f f e c t i ve ve r t i c a l stress
p = empi ri cal f act or from f u l l s cal e t e s t s
Soi l
-
Clay
S i l t
Sand
d. Saf et y Fact or f or Negative Skin Fr i ct i on. Since negat i ve s ki n f r i c-
t i on i s usual l y est i mat ed on t he s a f e s i de, t he f act or of s af et y as s oci at ed
wi t h t h i s load i s usual l y uni t y. Thus:
where :
Qa l l = allowable p i l e l oad
Qult = ul t i mat e p i l e l oad
F, = f act or of s af et y
P, = ul t i mat e negat i ve s ki n f r i c t i o n l oad
For f ur t he r di scussi on of f a c t o r of s a f e t y i n desi gn i ncl udi ng
t r a ns i e nt l oads, s ee Reference 16, Downdrag on Pi l e s Due t o - ~ e ~ a t i v e s k i n
Fr i c t i on, by Fel l eni us.
e. Negative Ski n Fr i c t i on on P i l e Groups. The negat i ve s ki n f r i c t i o n on
a p i l e group does not us ual l y exceed t he t o t a l weight of f i l l and/ or com-
pr e s s i bl e s o i l encl osed by t he p i l e s i n t he group. For t he case of r ecent
f i l l under l ai n by a compressi bl e depos i t over t he beari ng st r at um:
where : l' total = t o t a l l oad on p i l e group
W = working l oad on p i l e group
B = width of p i l e group
L = l engt h of p i l e group
3 , y2 = e f f e c t i ve uni t weight of f i l l and underl yi ng
compressi bl e s o i l r es pect i vel y
D l , D2 = dept h over which f i l l and compressi bl e s o i l
i s moving downward r e l a t i v e t o t he p i l e s
f . Reduction of Negative Ski n Fr i ct i on. Sever al methods have been
developed t o reduce t he expected negat i ve s ki n f r i c t i o n on deep foundat i ons.
These i ncl ude:
( a ) Use of sl ender p i l e s , such as H-sections, t o reduce s h a f t a r e a
s ubj ect t o drag.
( b) Pr e dr i l l e d oversi zed hol e t hrough compressi bl e mat er i al p r i o r t o
i ns e r t i on of p i l e ( r e s ul t i ng annul ar space f i l l e d wi t h bent oni t e s l u r r y o r
ver mi cul i t e)
( c ) Provi de casi ng or s l eeve around p i l e t o prevent d i r e c t cont act
wi t h s e t t l i n g s oi l .
( d) Coat p i l e s ha f t with bitumen t o al l ow sl i ppage.
Bitumen compounds which can be sprayed o r poured on cl ean p i l e s a r e
avai l abl e t o reduce negat i ve s ki n f r i c t i on. Coat i ngs should be appl i ed onl y
t o t hose por t i ons of t he p i l e ant i ci pat ed t o be wi t hi n a zone of BLbsidence
and t he lower por t i on of t he p i l e ( a t l e a s t t en times t he di amet er) shoul d
remain uncoated so t h a t t he f; l l ldwer s ha f t and poi nt r e s i s t a nc e may be
mobilized. Reductions of negat i ve f r i c t i o n of 50% o r gr e a t e r have been mea-
sured f or bituminous coat i ngs on concr et e and s t e e l p i l i n g ( s e e Reference 17,
Reducing Negative Ski n Fr i c t i on wi t h Bitumen Layers, by Cl aessen and Horvat,
and Reference 18, Reduction of Negative Ski n Fr i c t i on on St e e l Pi l e s t o Rock,
by Bjerrum, e t al . ) .
Sect i on 4. PILE INSTALLATION AND LOAD TESTS
1. PILE INSTALLATION.
a. General Cr i t er i a. See Table 6.
b. I ns t a l l a t i on Techniques. Table 7 summarizes t he more common suppl e-
mentary procedures and appurtenances used i n dri ven p i l e i ns t a l l a t i ons .
c. Pi l e Driving Hammers. Table 8 (Reference 6) summarizes t he
char act er i s t i cs of t he more common types of hammers i n use i n t he U.S. Fi gur e
5 shows pr i nci pal operat i on of p i l e dr i ver s (modified from Reference 6) :
( 1) Drop Hammer. General l y, it i s only appr opr i at e on smal l ,
r e l a t i ve l y i nacces s i bl e jobs due t o t he i r slow r a t e of blows.
( 2)
Si ngl e Action Steam o r Air Hammers. Blow r a t e i s hi gher t han
drop hammer wi t h maximum speeds gener al l y ranging from about 35 t o 60 blows
per minute. Si ngl e act i ng hammers have an advantage over double a c t i ng
hammers when dr i vi ng pi . l es i n fi rm cohesive s o i l s s i nce t he slower r a t e al l ows
t he s o i l and p i l e t o r el ax before s t r i ki ng t he next blow; t hereby , gi vi ng
gr eat er penet r at i on per blow. In dri vi ng ba t t e r pi l e s , s i ngl e act i ng hammers
can l os e consi derabl e energy due t o t he short eni ng f a l l and i ncr eases i n
f r i c t i on.
( 3)
Double Acting Steam or A i r Hammers. They provi de a blow r a t e
near l y double t ha t of t he s i ngl e act i ng hammers and l os e less energy dr i vi ng
ba t t e r pi l es . They a r e gener al l y bes t sui t ed f o r dr i vi ng p i l e s i n gr anul ar
s oi l s o r i n s of t cl ays. The energy per blow del i vered by a doubl e-act i ng
hammer decreases r api dl y a s i t s speed of operat i on drops below t he r a t e d
speed.
( 4) Di esel Hammers. They have a r e l a t i ve l y low f ue l consumption,
oper at e without auxi l i ar y equipment, and can operat e a t low t emperat ures and
a r e more e f f i c i e nt f or dr i vi ng ba t t e r pi l es . Maximum blow r a t e s a r e about 35
t o 60 blows per minute f or s i ngl e act i ng and about 80 t o 100 blows per minute
f or double act i ng. Diesel hammers operat e best i n medium t o hard ground; i n
s o f t ground t he r es i s t ance and r es ul t i ng compression may be t oo low t o i g n i t e
t he fuel .
(5) Vi brat ory Hammers. They a r e best s ui t ed t o we t s oi l s and low
displacement pi l e s but occasi onal l y have been used s ucces s f ul l y i n cohesi ve
s oi l s and 'with hi gh displacement pi l es . They can a l s o be e f f e c t i ve i n ex-
t r act i ng pi l es . When condi t i ons a r e s ui t abl e, vi br at or y hammers have s ever al
advantages over impact hammers i ncl udi ng lower dr i vi ng vi br at i ons , reduced
noi se, gr eat er speed of penet r at i on and vi r t ua l l y complete el i mi nat i on of
p i l e damage. However, t her e i s t he pos s i bi l i t y t ha t t he. p i l e may not be e f f i-
c i e nt l y advanced, obst r uct i ons gener al l y can not be penet rat ed, and t her e i s
no general l y accepted method of determining ul t i mat e p i l e capaci t y based on
t he r a t e of penet rat i on.
TABLE 6
General Cri teri a for I ns t al l at i on of Pi l e Foundations
8-
- --
GEOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS
PW
OVER BURDEN
d SKETCH A
-
LMINIMUM AREA 2 SUM OF PILE LOPDS
5
A WA B L E BEARING CAPAClTY
AT LEAST 2 INTERIOR ANGLES 60'
REQUIRED MIN. PlLE SPACING
SKETCH B
ITEM
WNERAL REPUIRFMENTS
MINIMUM SWING
(CENTER TO CENTER) -
MINIMUM NUMBER OF
PILES IN GROUP -
CRITERIA AND LIMITATIONS
(I) PlLES TO ROCK : TWICE THE AVERAGE PlLE DIAMETER OR 1.75 TIMES THE
DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF PI E CROSS SECTION, BUT NO LESS THAN 24':
(2) ALL OTHER PILES: TWICE THE AVERAGE MAMETER OFTHE PlLE OR 1.75 VMES
THE DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF PlLE CROSS SECTION, BUT NO LESS THAN 30: IN
ADDITION ,THE MINIMUM SPACING SHALL BE LIMITED BY THE REQUIREMENT
THAT THE PlLE LOAD DISTRIBUTED INTO THE BEARING STRATUM SHALL NOf
EXCEED THE NOMINAL BEARING CAWITY OF THE STRATUM (TABLE I,
CHAPTER 4. ).PILES OR PlLE GROUPS SHALL BE ASSUMED TO TRANSFER THEIR
LOADS TO THE UNDERLYING MATERIALS BY SPREADING THE LDAD UNIFORMLY AT
AN ANGLE OF 6j1 WITH THE HORIZONTAL, STARTING AT A POLYGON
CIRCUMSCRIBING THE PILES AT THE TOP OF THE BEARING !7RATUM IN WHICH
THEY ARE EMBEDDED. THE AREA CONSIDERED AS SUPPORTING THE LOAD SHALL
NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE INTERSECTION OF THE 60' PLANES OF ADJACENT
PlLES OR PlLE GROUPS. (SEE SKETCH A)
PlLE GROUPS SUPPORTING SUPERSTRUCTURE UMS NORMALLY CONSIST OF AT
LEAST 3 PlLES (FOR ARRANGEMENT SEE SKETCH B),EXCEPT FOR INDIVIDUAL PILES
SUPPORTING THE FLOOR SLAB OR IN CASES WHERE LATERALTIES ARE PRUUIDED.
TA.BLE 6 (cont i nued)
General Cr i t e r i a f or I ns t a l l a t i on of Pi l e Foundations
Item
Embedment i n p i l e cap.
Pi l e l engt h ...........
Tolerances i n p i l e
l ocat i on and alinement
Driving Order.........
Allowable l oads:
Allowable overload of
pi l es - . .... 0. ..
Cr i t e r i a and Li mi t at i ons
Si ngl e p i l e support s may be used i f t he p i l e has a but t diameter of 12" or
gr eat er , i f t he upper s oi l s a r e not of a weak nat ur e, and i f proper
consi der at i on i s gi ven t o reinforcement of column and p i l e t o accommodate
pot ent i al eccent r i ci t i es .
Tops of pi l e s s h a l l extend a t l e a s t 4" i nt o t he p i l e cap.
No p i l e s h a l l be s hor t er t han 10 f eet .
(1) Ver t i cal pi l e s s h a l l not vary more t han 2 percent from t he plumb posi t i on.
( 2) No p i l e s h a l l be dri ven more t han 4" i n hor i zont al dimension from i t s desi gn
l ocat i on, unl ess t he ef f ect of t h i s devi at i on i s analyzed and found accept abl e
(3) Eccent r i ci t y of r eact i on of t he p i l e group with r espect t o t he l oad
r e s ul t a nt s h a l l not exceed a dimension t hat would produce overl oads of
more t han 10 percent i n any pi l e.
Pi l e groups s h a l l be dri ven from t he i nt e r i or outward t o precl ude dens i f i cat i on
and excessi vel y hard dr i vi ng condi t i ons on t he i nt e r i or .
(1) Up t o 10 percent overload i s permi t t ed due t o eccent r i ci t y of r eact i on
of t he p i l e group.
( 2)
Overload due t o wind i s permi t t ed i f i t does not exceed 33 percent of
allowable capaci t y of pi l e under dead pl us l i v e loads.
TABLE 6 (cont i nued)
General Cr i t e r i a f or I ns t a l l a t i on of Pi l e Foundations
Item
Lat er al l oads on
ve r t i c a l piles........
Rel at i ve l oad capaci t y
of p i l e s i n a group...
Maximum al l owabl e p i l e
load..................
St a t i c and dynamic
pick-up loads.......
Splices.............,.
Load t e s t s :
Conditions r equi r i ng
t est s. . o........... ...
Cr i t e r i a and Li mi t at i ons
Maximum 1 t on per p i l e , i f p i l e i s embedded i n s o i l f o r i t s e nt i r e l engt h,
except t ha t no l a t e r a l l oad i s permi t t ed on ve r t i c a l p i l e s i n very s of t f i ne-
grai ned s o i l s or very l oose coarse-grained s oi l s . For p i l e s wi t h unsupported
l engt h or f or l ar ger hor i zont al l oads, use ba t t e r p i l e s or use anal ys i s of
Fi gure 10 t o determine l a t e r a l load capaci t y of v e r t i c a l pi l es .
A l l beari ng p i l e s wi t hi n a group s ha l l be of t he same type and be of equal
load capaci t y.
Shal l be l i mi t ed by both al l owabl e stress i n p i l e a s given i n Table 1 and
support i ng capaci t y of s oi l .
Induced f l exur al s t r e s s e s i ncurred duri ng pick-up and placement of l ong con-
c r e t e p i l e s s ha l l not exceed t he al l owabl e bending s t r e s s e s prescri bed f or
t ha t p i l e length.
Shal l be abl e t o t ransmi t t he r es ul t ant v e r t i c a l and l a t e r a l f or ces ade-
quat el y.
Load t e s t s t o be performed f or any of t he fol l owi ng condi t i on:
( 1) To ver i f y or modify est i mat e of p i l e l oad capaci t y determined by ot her
means.
TABLE 6 (continued)
General Cr i t e r i a f or I ns t a l l a t i on of Pi l e Foundations
I t e m
Number of l oad t est s. .
Supervision:
Inspection............
Records...............
General items t o be
checked..............,
Cr i t e r i a and Li mi t at i ons
( 2) Where s i z e of pr oj ect and s o i l condi t i ons i ndi cat e a s i gni f i cant savi ngs
i s possi bl e.
(3) Where unique or unfami l i ar t ypes a r e t o be used.
( 4)
Where bearing st rat um i s underl ai n by a more compressible or ques-
t i onabl e stratum.
A minimum of 3 test pi l e s s ha l l be dri ven per i ns t a l l a t i on with uniform sub-
s o i l condi t i ons. Two of t hese p i l e s s ha l l be test loaded, but no l e s s than 1
l oad t e s t f or each 15,000 square f e e t of bui l di ng area.
A l l p i l e dr i vi ng pr oj ect s s ha l l have on t he s i t e i nspect i on by a person who
has experience i n such work, pr ef er abl y a Regi st ered Professi onal Engineer.
Records s ha l l be kept f or t he dr i vi ng of each pi l e. The record s ha l l i ncl ude:
dat e of dri vi ng, type, s i z e , l engt h, devi at i on from desi gn l ocat i on and al i gn-
ment, p i l e hammer used, hammer speed, type and condi t i on of cushion, and blows
per foot f or each foot of penet r at i on f or t he f u l l l engt h of t he pi l e , blows
per i nch f or t he f i n a l 6 i nches of dr i vi ng, except where an abrupt high
i ncrease i n r esi st ance i s encountered, t he f i n a l count s may be reduced t o
penet r at i on f or t he l a s t 5 blows.
Mat eri al , qual i t y of t he p i l e st r ai ght ness, appl i cat i on of pr eser vat i ves,
radi ographi c i nspect i on of marine pi l i ng welds. For l i ght weight mandrel
dri ven s he l l pi l e s , check i nt e r i or f or damage pr i or t o concret i ng, check
dr i vi ng equipment f or operat i onal capabi l i t i es.
TABLE 7
Supplementary Pr ocedur es and Appurt enances Used i n P i l e Dr i vi ng
Method
Means of reducing driving
resistance above bearing
stratum:
Temporary casing.. . . . . .
Precoring.. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Spudding . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
then driven to bearing below the
jets are sometimes
driven with large butt downward.
timber or st eel pipes.
a. To be used instead of pile hammer where
jacks are used to advance pile. access is difficult.
Equipment and procedure utilized
Open end pipe casing driven and
cleaned out. May be pulled later.
By continuous flight auger or churn
drill, a hole is formed into which
the pile is lowered. Pi l e is then
driven t o bearing below the cored
hole.
Heavy structural sections or closed
end pipes are alternately raised
and dropped t o form a hole into
which pile is lowered. Pi l e is
Applicability
a. To drive through minor obstructions.
b. To minimize displacement.
c. To prevent caving or squeezing of holes.
d. To permit concretingof pile before excavation
to subgrade of foundation.
a. To drive through thick stratum of stiff to
hard cloy.
b. To avoid displacement and heave of surround-
ing soil.
c. To avoid injury to timber and thin shel l pipes.
d. To eliminate driving resistance in strata un-
suitable for bearing.
a. To drive past individual obstruction
b. To drive through strata of fill with large
boulders or rock fragments.
TABLE 8
Impact ana Vi br at or y Pi l e- Dr i ver Data
'\
I
1. IMPACT PILE HAMMER
**
Weight
Rated Stroke St r i ki r g Total
Energy
Kip - f t .
180.0
130.0
120.0
113.5
97.5
79.6
60.0
60.0
56.5
50.2
48.7
48.7
44.5
42.0
40.6
39.8
37.5
36.0
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.0
30.2
26.3
26.0
26.0
26.0
24.4
24.4
24.3
24.0
22.6
22.4
24.4
19.8
19.8
19.5
19.2
18.2
Make of
Hammer*
Vulcan
MKT
Vulcan
S-Vulcan
rn
KO be
Vulcan
MKT
Kobe
S-Vulcan
Vulcan
Raymond
Kobe
Vulcan
R v n d
Delmag
rn
S-Vulcan
MKT
Vulcan
Raymond
MKT
Vulcan
Link-Belt
MKT
Vulcan
MKT
S-Vulcan
Vulcan
Vulcan
MKT
D e h g
MKT
Kobe
Union
MKT
Vulcan
S-Vulcan
Link-Belt
Model No.
S-A
S-A
S-A
Diff.
S-A
Di e s .
S-A
S-A
Dies.
Mf f .
S-A
S-A
Dies.
S-A
S-A
Dies.
S-A
Diff.
S-A
S-A
S-A
Dies.
S-A
Mes.
D-A
S-A
S-A
Diff.
Mff.
S-A
D-A
Dies.
Dies.
Dies.
D-A
D-A
S-A
Mff.
Mes.
Bl ows
per min
62
55
60
100
60
52
60
60
52
98
60
46
5 2
60
50
52
60
103
5 5
50
50
48
50,
82
81
50
55
111
111
50
90
5 1
48
52
110
95
60
117
88
a t Rated Par t s
Energy Kips
36 60.0
39 40.0
3 6 40.0
16.5 40.0
39 30.0
98 9.2
36 20.0
36 20.0
98 7.0
15.5 20.0
36 16.2
39 15.0
98 4.8
36 14.0
39 12.5
N/A 4.8
32 14.0
15.5 14.0
39 10.0
39 10.0
39 10.0
96 4.0
39 9.3
43.2 5.0
20 8.0
39 8.0
39 8.0
16.2 8.0
N/A 8.0
39 7.5
18 8.0
N/A 2.7
96 2.8
98 2.8
24 3.0
19 5.0
36 6.5
15.5 6.5
36.9 4.0
Weigh
Kips
121.0
96.0
87.5
83.0
- 86.0
22.0
39.0
38.6
15.4
39.0
30.2
23.0
10.6
27.5
21.0
10.0
31.6
27.9
22.2
18.7
18.5
11.2
16.7
12.5
18.7
16.7
18.1
17.8
18.4
16.2
17.7
5.4
9.0
6.4
14.5
14.5
11.2
14.8
10.3
TABLE 8 ( cont i nued)
Impact and Vi br at or y Pi l e- Dr i ver Data
Weight
Rated** Stroke St ri ki ng Total
Energy Make of Blows a t Ra t e d Par t s Weight
Kip-f t Hammer* Model No. Types* per min Energy Kips Kips
16.2 MKT S5 S-A 60 39 5.0 12.3
16.0 Mm. DE-20 Dies. 48 96 2 .O 6.3
16.0 MKT C5 Comp. 110 18 5.0 11.8
15.1 S-Vulcan 50C Dif f. 120 15.5 5 .O 11.7
15.1 Vulcan 5M Diff. 120 15.5 5.0 12.9
15.0 Vulcan 1 S-A 60 36 5.0 10.1
15.0 Link-Belt 312 Dies. 100 30.9 3.8 10.3
13.1 Ma.' 10B3 D-A 105 19 3.0 10.6
12.7 Union 1 D-A 125 2 1 1.6 10.0
9.0 De I= D5 Dies. 5 1 N/A 1.1 2.4
9.0 MKT C-3 P A 130 16 3.0 8.5
9 .O MKT S3 S-A 65 36 3.0 8.8
8.8 MKT DE- 1 0 Di e s . 48 96 11.0 3.5
8.7 MKT 9B3 D-A 145 17 1.6 7.0
8.2 Union 1. 5A D-A 135 18 1.5 9.2
8.1 Link-Belt 180 Dies. 92 37.6 1.7 4.5
7.2 Vulcan 2 S-A 70 29.7 3.0 7.1
7.2 S-Vulcan 30C Diff. 133 12.5 3.0 7.0
7.2 Vulcan 3M Diff. 133 N/ A 3.0 8.4
6.5 Link-Belt 105 Dies. 94 35.2 1.4 3.8
4.9 Vulcan DGH900 Diff. 238 10 .9 5.0
3.6 Union 3 D-A 160 14 .7 4.7
3.6 MKT 7 D-A 225 9.5 .8 5.0
.4 Union 6 D-A 340 7 .1 - 9
.4 Vulcan DGHl OOA D i f f . 303 6 .1 .8
.4 MKT 3 D-A 400 5.7 .06 -7
.3 Union 7A D-A 400 6 -08 -5
* Codes
MKT - McKiernan-Terry D-A - Double-Acting
S-Vulcan - Su'per-Vulcan Diff. - Di f f er ent i al
S-A - Single-Acting Dies. - Diesel
Comp. - Compound
** In cal cul at i ons of pi l e capaci t i es by dynamic formula, ef f ect i ve energy delivered by
hammr should be used. Hammer energy i s affect ed by pressures used t o operate t he
hammer, st roke r at e, et c. Double-acting, di f f er ent i al , and di esel hammers may
operate a t less than rat ed energies; double-acting hammrs del i ver si gni f i cant l y less
than rated energy when operated a t l e s s than rated speed. Consult manufacturers.
2
TABLE 8 (cont i nued)
Impact and Vi brat ory Pile-Driver Data
2. VIBRATORY DRNWS
Frequency Force Kips***,
Total Weight Available Range Frequency
Make hodel Kips HP cps cp s
Foster 2-17 6.2 34 18-2 1
(France) 2-35 9.1 70 14-19 62/19
2-50 11.2 100 11-17 101117
Men& M\r 622-30 4.8 50 481
(Germany) MVB65-30 2.0 7.5 141
IWB44-30 8.6 100 971
Muller MS-26 9.6 72
(Germany) MS-26D 16.1 145
Uraga VHW1 8.4 40 16-20 43/20
(Japan) VHD-2 11.9 80 16-20 86/20
VHD-3 15.4 120 16-20 129120
Bodine B 22 1000 0-1% 631100 - 175/100
(USA)
(Russia) BT-5 2.9 37 42 48/42
WP-2 4.9 54 25 49/25
100 4.0 37 13 44/13
VP 11.0 80 6.7 3517
VP-4 25.9 208 1981
*** Forces gi wn ar e present maximums. These can usually be raised or lor~ered by
changing wi ght s i n the oscillator.
AIR OR STEAM
WEIGHT
(A) DROP (6) SINGLE-ACTING (C) DIFFERENTIAL (D) DIESEL (E) VIBRATORY
HAMMER HAMMERS AND HAMMERS MilVER
DOUBLE-ACTING
HAMMERS
FIGURE 5
Principles of Operation of Pi l e Drivers
d. Inspect i on Guidelines. See Table 6 f o r gener al guidance and Refer-
ence 19, Inspect ors' Manual f o r Pi l e Foundations, by t he Deep Foundation
I ns t i t ut e .
- .
( 1) Driven Pi l es. The i nspect or should normally as s es s t he perform-
ance of t he dri vi ng equipment, record t he dri vi ng r es i s t ances , pa r t i c ul a r l y
t he f i n a l s e t ( net penet r at i on per blow), record t he dr i ven dept h and t i p
el evat i on, and cont i nual l y observe t he p i l e f or evidence of damage o r e r r a t i c
dri vi ng. The c r i t e r i a f o r t ermi nat i on of p i l e dr i vi ng i s normally a penet ra-
t i on r es i s t ance c r i t e r i a o r a requi red depth of penet rat i on. Normally, a set
c r i t e r i a would be used f or end beari ng pi l e s or p i l e s where s o i l f r eeze i s not
a major f act or while penet r at i on c r i t e r i a would be more appr opr i at e f o r f r i c -
t i on pi l e s , p i l e s i n t o cl ay, and/ or when s o i l f r eeze i s a major f act or .
( a ) Timber Pi l es. (Reference 20, AWPI Techni cal Gui del i nes
f o r Pressure-Treated Wood, Timber Pi l i ng, and ASRl Standard D25, Round Timber
Pi l es. ) Si t e Engi neerl Inspect or should check t he fol l owi ng items:
- Overst ressi ng a t t he top of pi l e , usual l y v i s i b l e
brooming.
- Properly f i t t e d dr i vi ng cap.
- St rai ght ness.
- Sound wood f r e e of decay and i ns e c t at t ack.
- Pressure t reat ment .
- Low frequency of knots.
( b) Concrete Pi l es. (Reference 21, Recommendations f o r
Design, Manufacture, and I ns t a l l a t i on of Concrete Pi l e s , by t he American
Concrete I ns t i t ut e. ) Si t e Engi neer/ Inspect or should check t he fol l owi ng
items:
- That p i l e l engt h, geometry, t hi ckness, and s t r ai ght nes s
conforms t o speci f i cat i ons.
- Note ext ent , amount, and l ocat i on of s pal l i ng o r crack-
i ng i n t he p i l e during dri vi ng and pi ck up, and set.
- Thickness and type of cushion - should comply wi t h
speci f i cat i on.
( c ) St eel Pi l es. S i t e Engi neer/ Inspect or should check t h e
fol l owi ng items:
- Compliance wi t h appl i cabl e codes and s peci f i cat i ons .
- St r uct ur al damage t o p i l e due t o over-driving/
overst ressi ng.
- Pi l e or i ent at i on conforms t o t he pl ans.
(2) Dr i l l ed Pi ers. Minimum requirements f or proper i nspect i on of
dr i l l e d s haf t const r uct i on a r e a s follows:
( a )
For Dry o r Casing Method of Const ruct i on;
- A qual i f i ed i nspect or should record t he mat er i al t ypes
being removed from t he hol e a s excavat i on proceeds.
- When t he bearing s o i l has been encountered and
i dent i f i ed and/or t he desi gnat ed t i p el evat i on has been
reached, t he s haf t wal l s and base should be observed f o r
anomalies, unexpected s of t s o i l condi t i ons, obs t r uct i ons
o r caving.
- Concrete placed f r e e f a l l should not be allowed t o h i t
t he si dewal l s of t he excavation.
- St r uct ur al s t a b i l i t y of t he rebar cage should be main-
t ai ned during t he concret e pour t o prevent buckling.
- The volume of concret e should be checked t o ensure voi ds
di d not r e s ul t during ext r act i on of t he casing.
- Concrete must be tremied i nt o pl ace with an adequate
head t o di spl ace water or s l ur r y i f groundwater has
ent ered t he bore hole.
- Pul l i ng casi ng with i ns uf f i ci ent concret e i ns i de shoul d
be r es t r i ct ed.
- Bottom of hol e should be cleaned.
( b)
For Sl ur r y Displacement Method of Construction.
- A check on t he concret e volume and recordi ng t he mate-
r i a l types and depth of s haf t apply t he same a s above.
- The tremie pi pe should be wat er t i ght and should be
f i t t e d with some form of valve a t t he lower end.
( 3 ) Caissons on Rock. Inspect i on of cai sson bottom i s usual l y
accomplished by ei t her :
( a )
Probing with a 2-112" diameter probe hol e t o a minimum of 8
f e e t or 1.5 times t he cai sson s haf t diameter (whichever i s l ar ger ) .
( b)
Vi sual i nspect i on by a qual i f i ed geol ogi st a t cai sson bot-
tom with proper s af et y precaut i ons or from t he sur f ace ut i l i z i ng a borehol e
camera. The purpose of t he i nspect i on is t o determine t he ext ent of seams,
c a vi t i e s and f r act ur es . The allowable cumulative seam t hi ckness wi t hi n t he
probe depth var i es depending on performance c r i t e r i a . Values a s low a s 114"
of cumulative t hi ckness can be s peci f i ed f or t he top 112 diameter.
e. I ns t a l l a t i on Guidelines.
( 1) Driven Pi l es .
( a) For p i l e groups, dr i ve i nt e r i or p i l e s f i r s t t o avoi d hard
dri vi ng condi t i ons, over st r essi ng, and t o minimize heave.
(b)
Make s ur e p i l e dr i vi ng caps and/ or cushi ons are appropri -
at e.
( c) Check f or compression bands around t he t op of concr et e and
timber pi l e s t o avoid overst ressi ng.
(d) Check f or proper alignment of t he dr i vi ng head.
( e ) I f t he p i l e suddenly changes di r ect i ons or a s ubs t a nt i a l l y
reduced dri vi ng r es i s t ance is noted, t he p i l e i s probably broken.
Table 9 summarizes some of t he common i n s t a l l a t i o n problems and
recommended procedures. Table 10 (Reference 22, Dr i l l ed Shaft s: Design and
Const ruct i on Gui del i ne Manual. Vol 1: Const ruct i on Procedures and Desien f o r
-
Axial Load, by Reese and Wright) summarizes some of t he more common i n s t a l l a -
t i on problems and procedures f o r dr i l l e d pi er s.
( 2) Performance Tolerance. It i s normal pr act i ce t o t a i l o r t he
s peci f i cat i ons t o par t i cul ar s i t e condi t i ons and t o s t r uc t ur a l performance
c r i t e r i a . In many appl i cat i ons t he following c r i t e r i a may apply:
( a ) Allowable Devi at i on, from Speci fi ed Location. I n t he
absence of anot her over-riding pr oj ect s peci f i cat i on c r i t e r i a , use 4 i nches.
Consider t he t echni cal f e a s i b i l i t y of i ncreasi ng t o more t han 4 i nches f o r
caps with 4 p i l e s o r less.
( b) Allowable out -of-vert i cal . I n t he absence of t he over-
r i di ng pr oj ect s peci f i cat i on c r i t e r i a , use 2% provided t ha t t he al l owabl e
devi at i on is not exceeded. Values of 4%, 2% and 1/ 4 i nch out of plumb have
been used.
( c) Allowable Heave Before Redriving. Require r edr i vi ng of
pi l e s i f heave exceeds 0.01 f e e t f or es s ent i al l y f r i c t i on pi l e s , or any
det ect abl e heave i f pi l e s a r e known t o be e s s e nt i a l l y end-bearing.
( d)
Minimum Distance of Pi l e Being Driven from Fresh Concrete.
I n t he absence of over-riding pr oj ect s peci f i cat i on c r i t e r i a , use 15 f eet .
Values of 10 f e e t t o 50 f e e t have been used i n pr act i ce.
Category:
Obstructions: Old foundations, boulders, rubble
fill, cemented lenses, and similar obstacles to
driving.
TABLE 9
Treat ment of Fi e l d Problems Encount ered Duri ng P i l e Dr i vi np
I
General problems:
Vibration in Driving: May compact loose granular
materials causing settlement of existing struc-
Description of problem
Excavate or break up shallow obstruction if practical. For
deeper obstructions use spudding, jetting, or temporary cas-
ings, or use drive shoes and reinforced t i ps where pile is
strong enough to be driven through obstructions.
Procedures to be applied
Select pile type with minimum disp!acement, and/or precore or
jet with temporary casing or substitute jacking for pile driv-
I
-
( tures near piles. Effect most pronounced i n 1 ing. I
driving displacement piles.
Damage to Thin Shells: Driven shel l s may have
been crimped, buckled, or torn, or be leaking at
joints a s the results of driving difficulties or
presence of obstructions.
Each pile is inspected with light beam. If diameter a t any lo-
cation varies more than 15% from original diameter or if other
damage t o shel l cannot be repaired, pile is abandoned, fi l l ed
with sand and a replacement is driven. Concrete shall be
vlaced in dry shel l only.
Inappropriate Use of Pi l e Driving Formula: Pi l es Unsuitable bearing strata should be determined by exploration
driven t o a penetration determined solely by I - program. Pi l es should not be permitted to st op in t hese
I
I - -
driving resistance may be bearing i n a compres- strata, regardless of driving resistance. For bearing i n stiff
si bl e stratum. Thi s may occur i n thick strata of and brittle cohesive soi l s and i n soft rock. load t est s are
silty fine sarid, varved silts and clays, or me-
dium stiff cohesive soils.
Difficulties a t pile tip:
Fracturing of Bearing Materials: Fracturing of ma-
terial immediately below tips of piles driven t o
required resistance a s a result of driving adja-
cent piles. Brittle weathered rock, clay-shale,
shale, siltstone, and sandstone are vulnerable
materials. Swelling of stiff fissured clays or
shal es at pile tip may complicate this problem.
Steeply Sloping Rock Surface: Ti ps of high capac-
ity end bearing pi l es may sl i de or move laterally
on a steeply sloping surface of sound hard rock
which has little or no overlying weathered ma-
terial.
particularly important.
For pi l es bearing in t hese materials specify driving resi st ance
t est on selected pi l es after completion of driving adjacent
piles. If damage .to t he bearing stratum is evidenced, require
redriving until specified resistance is met.
Provide speci al shoes or pointed t i ps or use open end pipe
pile socketed into sound rock.
ferential head, causing settlement i n surrounding
areas or l oss of ground beneath tips of adjacent
piles.
Movement of pi l es subsequent to driving:
Heave: Completed pi l es ri se vertically a s the re-
sul t of driving adjacent piles. Particularly com-
mon for displacement pi l es i n soft clays and me-
dium compact granular soils. Heave becomes
serious i n soft cl ays when volume displaced by
pi l es exceeds 2%% of volume of soi l enclosed
within the limits of the pile foundation.
Loss of Ground: May occur during installation of
open end pipe piles. Materials vulnerable t o
piping, particularly fine sands or si l t s, may flow
into pipe under the influence of an outside dif-
Lateral Movement of Piles: Completed piles move
horizontally a s the result of driving adjacent
Avoid cleaning i n advance of pile cutting edge, and/or retain
sufficient material within pipe t o prevent inflow of soi l from
below.
piles.
For pi l es of solid cross sections (timber, st eel , precast con-
crete), survey top elevations during driving of adjacent pi l es
t o determine possible heave. For pi l es that have risen more
than 0.01 ft, redrive to at l east the former tip elevation, and
beyond that a s necessary to reach required driving resistance.
Heave is minimized by driving temporary open-end casing,
precoring, or jetting s o that total volume displaced by pile
driving is l e s s than 2 or 3% of total volume enclosed within
limits of pile foundation.
Survey horizontal position of completed pi l es during the driving
of adjacent piles. Movement is controlled by procedures used
to minimize heave.
TABLE 10
Dr i l l ed Pi ers: Const ruct i on Problems
Problem
Pouring concret e through wqter
Segregat i on of concret e during
pl aci ng
Rest r i ct ed flow of concret e
through or arouna r ebar cage
Torsi onal buckling of r ebar
cage during concret e placement
with casing method
Pul l i ng casi ng wi t h
i ns uf f i ci ent concret e i ns i de
Weak s o i l or undetected cavi t y
beneath base of foundation
Deformation or col l aps e of s o i l
Sol ut i on
Removal of water by bai l i ng o r use o f
t remi e
I f f r ee- f al l i s employed, exer ci si ng c a r e
t o see t ha t concret e f a l l s t o f i n a l
l ocat i on without s t r i ki ng anyt hi ng, o r use
of tr emie
Designing of r ebar cage with adequat e
spacing f or normal concret e ( a l l c l e a r
spaces a t l e a s t t hr ee t i mes t he s i z e of
l a r ge s t aggregat e) o r use of s peci al mix
with small-sized coarse aggregat e
St rengt heni ng r ebar cage by use of
ci r cumf er ent i al bands welded t o lower
port i on of cage, use of concr et e wi t h
improved flow c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s , use of
r et ar der i n concret e allowing casi ng t o be
pul l ed very slowly
Always having casi ng extending above
ground sur f ace and always having cas i ng
f i l l e d wi t h a s uf f i c i e nt head of concr et e
with good flow c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s bef or e
casi ng i s pul l ed
Requiring expl or at i on t o a depth of a few
diameters below t he bottom of t he
excavat i on
Such problems a r e r eadi l y det ect ed by
even t he minimums of i nspect i on
2. PILE LOAD TEST.
a. ~ e n e r a l . The r e s u l t s of p i l e l oad t e s t s a r e t he most r e l i a b l e means
of eval uat i ng t he l oad capaci t y of a deep foundat i on. Load tests can be per -
formed duri ng t he desi gn phase as a desi gn t o o l and/ or duri ng cons t r uct i on t o
ve r i f y desi gn l oads. Pi l e l oad tests shoul d be consi dered f o r l a r ge and/ o r
c r i t i c a l pr oj e c t s , f o r p i l e t ypes and s o i l condi t i ons f o r which t her e is
l i mi t ed previ ous l oc a l experi ence, when proposed desi gn l oads exceed t hos e
normally used, and f o r ot her de s i gn/ s i t e condi t i ons such a s t he need t o use
lower t han s peci f i ed f a c t or of s a f e t y i n t he design.
The t ypes of p i l e l oad t e s t s normally performed i ncl ude:
( 1 )
St andard Loading Procedures o r Slow Maintained-Load Test Method.
For procedure, r e f e r t o ASTM St andard D3689, I ndi vi dual Pi l e s under S t a t i c
Axi al Tens i l e Load. It i s t he most common l oad t e s t cur r ent l y used. It i s a
l ong dur at i on t e s t ( t y p i c a l l y 70 hours or l onger ) l oaded t o 200 per cent of t he
desi gn l oad, o r t o f a i l ur e . To det ermi ne curve of p l a s t i c deformat i on, t h e
t e s t procedure shoul d be a l t e r e d t o i ncl ude a t l e a s t t hr ee unload-reload
cycl es. Thi s procedure i s descri bed i n ASTM St andard D1143, P i l e Under Axi al
Compressive Load.
( 2) Quick Maintained-Load Test Method. For procedure, r e f e r t o ASTM
St andard D1143. Thi s i s a s hor t dur at i on t e s t , t ypi c a l l y 1 t o 4 hours, gen-
e r a l l y l oaded t o 300 per cent of t he desi gn l oad or f a i l ur e . It i s s u i t a b l e
f or desi gn l oad t e s t and can be e f f e c t i ve l y used f o r l oad proof t e s t i n g dur i ng
cons t r uct ion.
( 3)
Const ant Rate of Penet r at i on ( o r Upl i f t ) Test Method. A di s -
pl acement -cont rol l ed method. For procedure, r e f e r t o ASTM St andard Dl143 o r
ASTM St andard D3689. It i s a s hor t dur at i on t e s t , t ypi c a l l y 2 t o 3 hours, and
may r equi r e s pe c i a l l oadi ng equipment a s descri bed i n Reference 23, A Device
f o r t he Const ant Rat e of Penet r at i on Test f o r Pi l e s , by Garneau and Samson.
Thi s method i s recommended f o r t e s t i n g p i l e s i n cohesi ve s o i l s and f o r a l l
t e s t s where onl y t he ul t i mat e capaci t y i s t o be measured. The method can
provi de i nformat i on regardi ng behavi or of f r i c t i o n p i l e s and i s w e l l s u i t e d
f o r l oad t e s t s duri ng desi gn.
b. I nt e r pr e t a t i on of Resul t s. There a r e numerous procedures f o r i nt e r -
pr et at i on of p i l e l oad t e s t r e s u l t s i ncl udi ng t hose s peci f i ed by l o c a l bui l d-
i ng codes. A de f l e c t i on c r i t e r i a i s normally used t o def i ne f a i l u r e . I n t he
absence of an over-ri di ng pr oj ect s pe c i f i c a t i on c r i t e r i a , use 314 i nch n e t
s et t l ement at t wi ce t he desi gn load. Values of 114 and 1 i nch at t wi ce t he
desi gn l oad and 1/ 4 i nch at t hr ee t i m e s t he desi gn l oad have been used. Fig-
ur e 6 pr es ent s a procedure f o r det ermi ni ng t he f a i l u r e l oad based on a perma-
nent s e t of 0.15 + D/120 i nches (where D is t he p i l e di amet er i n i nches). Thi s
procedure can be used f o r e i t h e r of t he t hr ee t e s t methods pr esent ed above.
Where negat i ve s ki n f r i c t i o n (downdrag) may a c t on t he p i l e , onl y
l oad c a r r i e d by t he p i l e below t he compressi bl e zone should be consi dered.
Thi s may be determined by minimizing s ha f t r es i s t ance duri ng t he l oad t e s t
(e.g., p r e d r i l l i n g oversi zed hol e, case and cl ean, usi ng bent oni t e s l ur r y,
et c. ) o r by measuring movement of t i p d i r e c t l y by ext ensi on rods at t ached t o
t he p i l e t i p and anal yzi ng t e s t r e s u l t s i n accordance wi t h Fi gur e 7.
I
APPLIED LOAD (TONS)
I
TYPICAL TEST PLOT
I
column by: "
Q = t e s t l oad, l b s
a = %L
Lp = p i l e l engt h, i n . ( f o r end-bearing p i l e )
E AE
A = cr oss- sect i onal a r e a of p i l e ma t e r i a l ,
sq i n
E = Young's Modulus f o r p i l e ma t e r i a l , p s i
2. Determine s c a l e s of p l o t such t h a t s l ope of p i l e e l a s t i c compressi on
l i n e i s approxi mat el y 20'.
3. Pl ot p i l e head t o t a l di spl acment vs. appl i ed l oad.
I
4. Fa i l ur e l oad i s def i ned a s t h a t l oad which produces a di spl acement of
t h e p i l e head equal t o:
D
sf. =SEt (.15+-)
S f = di spl acement a t f a i l u r e , i n.
120 D = p i l e di amet er , i n.
5. Pl ot f a i l u r e c r i t e r i o n a s descr i bed i n ( 4 ) , r epr es ent ed a s a s t r a i g h t
l i n e , p a r a l l e l t o l i n e of p i l e e l a s t i c compression. I n t e r s e c t i o n of
f a i l u r e c r i t e r i o n wi t h observed l oad de f l e c t i on curve def i nes f a i l u r e
l oa d, Qf .
' 6 . Where observed l oad di spl acement curve does not i n t e r s e c t f a i l u r e
c r i t e r i o n , t h e maximum t e s t l oad shoul d be t aken a s t he f a i l u r e l oad.
7. Apply f a c t o r of s a f e t y of a t l e a s t 2.0 t o f a i l u r e l oad t o det er mi ne
al l owabl e l oad.
FIGURE 6
I nt e r pr e t a t i on of P i l e Load Test
c. Pul l out Test s. Methods or a e ~ e m ~ l ~ i n g f a i l ur e l oad f o r t ensi on l oad
t e s t s vary depending on t he t ol er abl e movement of t he s t r uct ur e. In gener al ,
f a i l u r e l oad i s more e a s i l y defi ned t han f o r compression l oad tests s i nce
avai l abl e r es i s t ance general l y de r eases more di s t i nc t l y a f t e r reachi ng f a i l -
ure. Fai l ur e load may be taken t ha t val ue a t which upward movement sudden-
l y i ncr eases di spr opor t i onat el y t o l oad appl i ed, i.e. t he poi nt of s har pes t
curvat ure on t he load-displacement curve.
d. Lat er al Load Test s. Lat er al l oad t e s t s a r e usual l y performed by
j acki ng apar t two adj acent p i l e and recordi ng def l ect i ons of t he pi l e s f o r
each l oad increment. See Reference 24, Model Study of Lat er al l y Loaded Pi l e ,
by Davisson and Sal l ey, f or f ur t her guidance. In some appl i cat i ons t e s t i ng of
a- p i l e group may be requi red.
e. Other Comments. A response of a dri ven p i l e i n a l oad t e s t can be
gr eat l y af f ect ed by t he time el apsed between dr i vi ng and t es t i ng. In most
cases, a gai n i n p i l e bearing capaci t y i s experienced wi t h time and i s gov-
erned by t he r a t e of di s s i pat i on of excess pore water pressures generat ed by
dr i vi ng t he p i l e throughout t he surrounding s o i l mass. This i s f r equent l y
termed "freezi ng. " The time requi red f or t he s o i l t o r egai n i t s maximum s hear
s t r engt h can range from a minimum of 3 t o 30 days or l onger. The act ual re-
qui red wai t i ng period may be determined by r edr i vi ng pi l e s o r from previ ous
experi ence. General l y, however, e a r l y t e s t i ng w i l l r e s ul t i n an underest i mat e
of t he act ual p i l e capaci t y es peci al l y f or pi l e s der i vi ng t h e i r capaci t y from
s at ur at ed cohesive s oi l s .
Pi l e s dri ven through sat ur at ed dense f i ne sands and si l t s may experi -
ence l os s of dr i vi ng r es i s t ance a f t e r peri ods of r es t . When r edr i ven a f t e r
peri ods of rest t he dr i vi ng r es i s t ance (and beari ng capaci t y) w i l l be less
compared t o t he i n i t i a l dr i vi ng r es i s t ance (and capaci t y). This phenomenon i s
commonly r ef er r ed t o a s r el axat i on.
Sect i on 5. DI STRI B~ I ON OF LOADS ON PILE GROUPS
1. VERTICAL PILE GROUPS.
a. Eccent ri c Ver t i cal Loading. Di s t r i but i on of desi gn l oad on pi l e s i n
groups is analyzed by r out i ne procedures a s follows:
(1)
For di s t r i but i on of appl i ed l oad eccent r i c about one or two
axes, see Reference 6.
( 2)
Overload from eccent r i ci t y between appl i ed l oad and cent er of
gr avi t y of p i l e group s ha l l be permitted up t o 10 percent of al l owabl e working
l oad when a s a f e t y' f a c t or of 2-112 t o 3 i s avai l abl e f or t he working load.
( 3) Overload from wind pl us ot her temporary l i v e l oads up t o 33 per-
cent of t he al l owabl e working l oad i s permi t t ed, when a s af et y f act or of 2-112
t o 3 i s avai l abl e f o r t he working load.
( 4)
Except i n unusual circumstances, a l l beari ng pi l e s i n a group
s h a l l be of t he same type, and of equal l oad capaci t y.
FIGURE 7
Load Test Analysis Where Downdrag Acts on Pile
t
I. IF SKlN FRICTION ACTING ONTEST PlLE MAY BE REVERSED IN THE PROTOTYPE BY CONSOLIDATION
OF MATERIALS ABOVE THE BFARING CrRATUM,ANALYZE UADTEST TD DETERMINE RELATION
OF U)AD VS SETTLEMENT FOR PlLE TIP AUNE .
2. COMPUTE THEORETICAL ELASTIC SHORTENING ASSUMING SEVERAL POSSIBU VARIATIONS OF SKIN
FRICTION ON PlLE AS SHOWN BELOW FORA CYLINDRICAL PILE.
3. COMPARE THEORETICAL WltH OBSERVED ELASTIC SHORTENING AND DETERMINE PROBABLE
VARIATION OF SKlN FRICTION ON PILE. USING THIS VARIATION OF SKlN FRICTUN, COMPUTE LaAD
AT TIP.
CYLINDRICAL PILE: MODULUS OF ELASTICITY =E
CA= MAXIMUM
SKlN FRICTION
- -
Q A
n
I
I
' F
I I
I / a c A ,'
BEARING DIVISION OF APPLIED LOAD IN~ENSITY OF SKIN
STRATUM BETWEEN TIP LOAD ,AND
FRICTION
SKlN FRICTION
R =RADIUS A = AREA F = TOTAL SKIN FRICTION
8E = ELASTIC SHORTENING OF PILE WITH
LOAD QA AT BUTT AND Qp' AT TIP.
CASE @ , SKIN FRICTION DECREASING TD a CA
AT TIP :
BE =( a* - 2n~~~( -3 Q
*
CASE a ,SKIN FRICTION CONSTANT
WITH DEPTH :
L
8~ = (QA-rr R CALI AE
ap' =
L
CASE @ ,SKIN FRICTION DECREASING TO
ZERO AT TIP :
BE = ( QA- 4TRCAL 3
' n ~ L
~ A E ~ E -+
QP' = 2,
2. GROUPS WITH VERTICAL AND BATTER PILES. Analyze d i s t r i b u t i o n of p i l e
l oads accordi ng t o c r i t e r i a i n Reference 25, P i l e Foundat i ons, by Chel l i s .
The fol l owi ng l i mi t a t i ons appl y:
( 1) Assume i nc l i na t i on of b a t t e r p i l e s no f l a t t e r t han 1 hor i z ont a l
t o 3 v e r t i c a l unl ess s pe c i a l dr i vi ng equipment i s s peci f i ed.
( 2)
When b a t t e r p i l e s a r e i ncl uded i n a group, no al l owance i s made
f o r pos s i bl e r es i s t ance of v e r t i c a l p i l e s t o hor i zont al f or ces.
( 3 )
For a na l ys i s of l oads on p i l e s i n r el i evi ng pl at f or ms, s ee
Reference 26, American Ci v i l Engi neeri ng Pr act i ce, Vol. 1, by Abbett.
( 4) For a na l ys i s of b a t t e r p i l e anchorage f o r tower guys, s e e Fi gur e
8.
Sect i on 6. DEEP FOUNDATIONS ON ROCK
1. GENERAL. For or di nar y s t r uc t ur e s , most rock format i ons provi de an i d e a l
foundat i on capabl e of support i ng l a r ge l oads wi t h ne gl i gi bl e set t l ement . Nor-
mal l y, t he al l owabl e l oads on p i l e s dr i ven i n t o rock a r e based on p i l e s t r uc-
t u r a l capaci t y whi l e t he al l owabl e beari ng pr essur es f o r f oot i ngs / pi er s on
rock a r e based on a nominal val ues of al l owabl e beari ng capaci t y ( s e e Chapt er
4 1.
There a r e however c e r t a i n unfavorabl e rock condi t i ons (e. g. , cavernous
l i mest one, s ee DM-7.1, Chapter 1 ) which can r e s u l t i n excessi ve s et t l ement
and/ or f a i l ur e . These pot e nt i a l hazards must be consi dered i n t he desi gn and
cons t r uct i on of foundat i ons on rock.
2. PILES DRIVEN INTO ROCK. Pi l e s dr i ven i n t o rock normally meet r e f us a l a t
a nominal dept h below t he weathered zone and can be desi gned based on t h e
s t r u c t u r a l capaci t y of t he p i l e imposed by bot h t he dynamic dr i vi ng s t r e s s e s
and t he st at i c stresses. Highly weathered r ocks such as decomposed gr a ni t e o r
l i mest one and weakly cemented rocks such as s o f t cl ay-shal es can be t r e a t e d a s
s oi l s .
The p o s s i b i l i t y of buckl i ng below t he mudline shoul d be eval uat ed f o r
hi gh capaci t y p i l e dr i ven through s o f t s o i l s i n t o bedrock ( s e e Reference 27,
The Design of Foundations f o r Bui l di ngs, by Johnson and Kavanaugh).
3. ALLOWABLE LOADS ON PIERS I N ROCK. Pi er s d r i l l e d t hrough s o i l and a
nominal dept h i n t o bedrock shciuld be desi gned on t he bas i s of an al l owabl e
beari ng pr es s ur e gi ven i n Chapter 4 o r ot her c r i t e r i a ( s e e Reference 28,
Foundation ~ n ~ i n e e r i n ~ , by peck, e t al . ). Pi e r s a r e normally d r i l l e d a -
nominal dept h i n t o t he rock t o ensure beari ng e n t i r e l y on rock and t o ext end
t he p i e r t hrough t he upper, more f r act ur ed zones of t he rock. I ncr eas e i n
al l owabl e bear i ng wi t h embedment dept h should be based on encount eri ng more
competent rock wi t h depth.
EL-33
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS IN
BEARING STRATUM
FORA SIX PILE GROUP -4 TENSION, 2 COMPRESSION ASSUME A SQUARE STRAIGHT CONCRETE PILE,
AS SHOWN , ~ = 2 0 ' (D(20B) PILE CAP WEIGHT (DW)= 10X l l X 3 X 0.b KCF
=*.5K
FIND Fs AGAINST Quit AND Tult
DETERMINE PILE FORCES BY A FORCE DIMRAM.
IGNORE RESISTANCE ABOVE FIRM SAND STRATUM.
BEARING STRATUM 4 = 30, Nq = 2 1
KHC =I.5, K~~ = 1.0,8=) (-=22d0 (m FIGURE I )
A ~ = ( # ) ~ = 1 . 3 6 ~ ~
PERIM. AREA /lf = 4 X +$ = 4.7 SF&(
. - -
"'l
x TAN 22.5 x4.7 i 2 0 ) Quit = 1.98 X 21 X 1.36 + (1.5 x (
= !5654+81.47
= 138 K
COMPRESSION LOAD ONPILES FROM FORCE MAGRAM IS 70 KIPS. UMD PERPILE 70 K h = 35K
F ~ = ~ 3 . 9 ) ~,REQ' D Fs
0.81 +Isg8 ) xTAN 225 x 4.7 x 20 Tul t = I.Ox(
= 54.31 K
TENSION LOAD ONPILES FROM FORCE DIAGRAM IS 80 KIPS. LOIO PO1 PILE
=20 K
WEIGHT OF PlLE ~0. 204 Kp/ ' X 37 = Z6 K
- 54.3 -4.3 > 3 REQ'D FS
i
Fs - (20.0 -7.6)
FIGURE 8
Example Problem - Batter Pile Group as Guy Anchorage
7.2-233 -
Rock-socketed dr i l l e d pi e r s extending more t han a nominal dept h i nt o rock
deri ve capaci t y from both s haf t r esi st ance and end bearing. The pr opor t i on
of t he load t r ansf er r ed t o end beari ng depends on t he r e l a t i ve s t i f f ne s s of
t he rock t o concret e and t he s haf t geometry. Generally, t he proport i on t r ans-
f er r ed t o end bearing decreases f or i ncreasi ng depth of embedment and f o r i n-
creasi ng rock s t i f f nes s . This proport i on i ncr eases with i ncreased loading.
Fi el d t e s t s i ndi cat e t ha t t he ul t i mat e s haf t r esi st ance i s developed wi t h very
l i t t l e deformation (usual l y less t han 0.25 i nches) and t ha t t he peak r e s i s -
t ance developed tends t o remain const ant with f ur t her movement. Based on l oad
test dat a, t he ul t i mat e s haf t r esi st ance can be est i mat ed approximately from:
Sr = (2.3 t o 3 ) ( f w ~ ) l / ~ ( pi er diameter >16 i nches)
Sr = ( 3 t o 4) ( f w' ) l I 2 ( pi er diameter (16 i nches)
where :
Sr
ul t i mat e shaf t r esi st ance i n f or ce per s haf t cont act area
fw' = unconfined compressive st r engt h of e i t he r t he rock or t he
concret e, whichever i s weakest.
See Reference 29, Shaft Resi st ance of Rock Socketed Dr i l l ed Pi er s, by Horvath
and Kenney.
4. SETTLEMENT OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS I N ROCK. Set t l ement i s normally negl i gi -
bl e and need not be eval uat ed f or foundations on rock designed f or an appro-
p r i a t e allowable bearing pressure.
For very heavy or f o r extremely set t l ement s ens i t i ve st r uct ur es, t he set -
tlement can be computed based on t he sol ut i on f or e l a s t i c set t l ement present ed
i n Chapter 5 of DM-7.1. The choice of t he e l a s t i c modulus, E, t o use i n t he
anal ysi s should be based on t he rock mass modulus which r equi r es f i e l d i nves-
t i gat i on. For guidance see Reference 9 and Reference 30, Rock Mechanics i n
Engineering Pr act i ce, by Stagg and Zienkiewicz, eds. In cases where t he
seismic Young's modulus is known, t he s t a t i c modulus can be conservat i vel y
assumed t o be 1110th t he sei smi c modulus.
Sect i on 7. LATERAL LOAD CAPACITY
1. DESIGN OONCEPTS. A p i l e loaded by l a t e r a l t hr us t and/or moment a t i t s
t op, resists t he load by def l ect i ng t o mobilize t he r eact i on of t he surround-
i ng soi l . The magnitude and di s t r i but i on of t he r e s i s t i ng pressures ar e a
funct i on of t he r e l a t i ve s t i f f ne s s of p i l e and s oi l .
Design c r i t e r i a i s based on maximum combined stress i n t he pi l i ng, allow-
abl e def l ect i on a t t he top or permi ssi bl e bearing on t he surrounding s oi l .
Although 114-inch a t t he p i l e top i s of t en used a s a l i m i t , t he allowable
l a t e r a l def l ect i on should be based on t he s pe c i f i c requirements of t he
st r uct ur e.
2. DEFORMATION ANALYSIS - SINGLE PILE.
- a. General. Methods a r e avai l abl e ( eon. , Reference 9 and Reference 31,
- - -
Non-Dimensional Sol ut i ons f o r Lat er al l y Loaded Pi l e s , wi t h Soi l Modulus
Assumed Proport i onal t o Depth, by Reese and Matlock) f o r computing l a t e r a l
p i l e load-deformation based on complex s o i l condi t i ons and/ or non-l i near s o i l
s t r es s - s t r ai n r el at i ons hi ps . The COM 622 computer program (Reference 32,
Lat er al l y Loaded Pi l es : Program Documentation, by Reese) has been documented
and i s widely used. Use of t hese methods should onl y be consi dered when t he
s o i l s t r es s - s t r ai n pr oper t i es a r e w e l l understood.
Pi l e deformation and s t r e s s can be approximated through appl i cat i on
of sever al si mpl i f i ed procedures based on i deal i zed assumptions. The two
basi c approaches present ed below depend on ut i l i z i ng t he concept of coef f i -
c i e nt of l a t e r a l subgrade react i on. It i s assumed t ha t t he l a t e r a l l oad does
not exceed about 113 of t he ul t i mat e l a t e r a l l oad capaci t y.
b. Granular Soi l and Normally t o Sl i ght l y Overconsolidated Cohesive
Soi l s. Pi l e deformation can be est i mat ed assuming t ha t t he coef f i ci ent of
subgrade r eact i on, Kh, i ncr eases l i ne a r l y with depth i n accordance with:
f z
-
Kh =
D
where : Kh = coef f i ci ent of l a t e r a l subgrade r eact i on ( t ons i f t 3)
f = coef f i ci ent of var i at i on of l a t e r a l subgrade r eact i on
( t ons/ f t 3)
z = dept h ( f e e t )
D = widthldiameter of loaded ar ea ( f e e t )
Guidance f or s el ect i on of f i s given i n Fi gure 9 f or fi ne-grai ned and
coarse-grained s oi l s .
c. Heavily Overconsolidated Cohesive Soi l s. For heavi l y overconsol i -
dated hard cohesive s o i l s , t he coef f i ci ent of l a t e r a l subgrade r eact i on can
be assumed t o be const ant wi t h depth. The methods present ed i n Chapter 4
can be used f or t he anal ys i s ; Kh var i es between 35c and 70c ( uni t s of
force/length3) where c i s t he undrained shear st r engt h.
d. Loading Conditions. Three pr i nci pal l oadi ng condi t i ons a r e i l l us -
t r a t e d with t he desi gn procedures i n Figure 10, usi ng t he i nf l uence diagrams
of Figure 11, 12 and 13 ( a l l from Reference 31). Loading may be l i mi t ed by
allowable def l ect i on of p i l e t op or by pi l e s t r es s es .
Case I. Pi l e with f l e xi bl e cap o r hinged end condi t i on. Thrust and
moment a r e appl i ed a t t he t op, which is f r e e t o r ot at e. Obtain t o t a l defl ec-
t i on, moment, and shear i n t he p i l e by al gebr ai c sum of t he e f f e c t s of t hr us t
and moment, gi ven i n Fi gure 11.
I
I
FIGURE 9 ,
Coefficient of Variation of Subgrade Reaction
FIGURE 10
Design Procedure f o r La t e r a l l y Loaded Pi l e s
.
,
I. ASSUME A HINGE AT POINT A WlTH A BALANCING
MOMENT M APPLl ED #r POINT A.
2.
COMPUTE SLOPE e2 ABOVE GROUND AS A FUNCTION
OF M FROM CHARACTERISTICS OF SUPERSTRUCTURE.
3. COMPUTE SLOPE el FROM SLOPE COEFFICIENTS
OF FIGURE 13 AS FOUMIVS:
MT
& ) + F ~
8, =Fe ( E I
4. EQUATE = e2 AND SOLVE FOR VALUE OF M.
5. KNOWING VALUES OF P AND M, SOLVE FOR DEFLECTION,
SHEAR,AND MOMENT AS IN CASE I.
NOTE : IF GROUND SURFACE AT PlLE LOCATION IS
INCLINED, LOAD P TAKEN BY EACH PlLE IS
PROPORTIONAL TO 1 1 ~ ~ 3 .
CASE I. FLEXIBLE CAP, ELEVATED POSITION
DESIGN PROCEDURE
FOR DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS SEE FIGURE 12
I. COMPUTE RELATIVE STIFFNESS FACTOR.
E I )ID
T =( -
f
2. SELECT CURVE FOR FROPER 9 IN FIGURE I I.
3. OBTAIN COEFFICIENTS Fs, FM, FV AT DEPTHS DESIRED.
4. COMPUTE DEFLECTION, MOMENT AND SHEAR AT
DESIRED DEPTHS USING FORMULAS OF FEURE I I .
NOTE : 'If I' VAWES FROM FIGURE 9 AND CONVERT
TO LB/IN?
LQLID AT
GROUND LINE
FOR EACH PILE:
! L
P =
M = PH
M
n
7
DEFLECTED
POSITION
CONDITION
" r = = ?
H
I
I 1
i
CASE 1. PILES WITH RIGID CAP AT GROUND SURFACE
T T mn T I T mm, ' T n r t r z
n = NUMBER OF PILES
I
I. PROCEED ASINSTEP 1,CASEI.
2. COMPUTE DEFLECTION AND MOMENT AT DESIRED
DEPTHS USING COEFFICIENTS 4, FM AND
FORMULAS OF FIGURE 12.
3. MAX!MUM SHEAR OCCURS AT TOP OF PlLE
AND EQUALS p = Pf IN EACH PILE.
n
PT
T-
1
CASE m. RIGID CAP, ELEVATED POSITION
DEFLECTED
P
-
1
FIGURE 11
Influence Values for Pile with Applied Lateral Load and Moment
(Case I. Flexible Cap or Hinged End Condition)
ND GROUND SURF. .
ES= f ( Z) SOIL MODULUS OF ELASTICITY
f = COEFFICIENT OFVARIATION OF LATERAL SUBGRAOE
REACTION (SEE FWRE 9 )
L= LENGTH OF PlLE BELOWGROUND SURFACE
T = RELATIVE STIFFNESS FAClDf?
E- MODU U S OF ELASTICITY OF PlLE
I = MOMENT OF INERTIA OF PILE CROSS SECTON
Mp ,Vp=DERECT(ONIMOMENT, 8 SHEAR ATANY DEPTH
Z DUE TO FORCE P.
FIGURE 12
Influence Values for Laterally Loaded Pile
(Case 11. Fixed Against Rotation at Ground Surface)
7.2-239
ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS OF PARAMETERS
- 3.0 - 25 -2.0 -1.5 - 1.0 -0.5 0
SLOPE COEFFICIENT, Fg
SU)PE COEFFICIENT, Fg
FIGURE 13
Slope Coefficient for Pi l e with Lateral Load or Moment
Case 11. P i l e wi t h r i g i d cap f i xed agai ns t r o t a t i o n a t ground sur-
face. Thrust i s appl i ed a t t he t op, which must mai nt ai n a v e r t i c a l t angent .
Obt ai n def l ect i on and moment from i nf l uence val ues of Fi gure 12.
Case 111. Pi l e wi t h r i g i d cap above ground surface. Rot at i on of
p i l e top depends on combined e f f e c t of s uper s t r uct ur e and r e s i s t a nc e below
ground. Express r o t a t i o n a s a f unct i on of t he i nf l uence val ues of Fi gur e 13
and determine moment at p i l e top. Knowing t h r u s t and moment appl i ed at p i l e
t op, obt ai n t o t a l def l ect i on, moment and shear i n t he p i l e by a l ge br a i c sum of
t he s epar at e e f f e c t s from Fi gure 11.
3. CYCLIC LOADS.
Lat er al subgrade c oe f f i c i e nt val ues decrease t o about 25% t he i n i t i a l val ue
due t o c yc l i c l oadi ng f o r s of t / l oos e s o i l s and t o about 50% t he i n i t i a l val ue
f or s t i f f l d e n s e s oi l s .
4. LONG-TERM LOADING. Long-term l oadi ng w i l l i ncr eas e p i l e d e f l e c t i o n cor-
respondi ng t o a decr ease i n l a t e r a l subgrade r eact i on. To approxi mat e t h i s
condi t i on reduce t he subgrade r eact i on val ues t o 25% t o 50% of t h e i r i n i t i a l
val ue f o r s t i f f cl ays , t o 20% t o 30% f o r s o f t cl ays , and t o 80% t o 90% f o r
sands.
5. ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY - SINGLE PILES. A l a t e r a l l y l oaded p i l e can f a i l
by exceeding t he s t r engt h of t he surroundi ng s o i l o r by exceeding t h e bending
moment capaci t y of t he p i l e r e s ul t i ng i n a s t r u c t u r a l f a i l ur e . Sever al me t -
hods a r e avai l abl e f o r es t i mat i ng t he ul t i mat e l oad capaci t y.
The method present ed i n Reference 33, La t e r a l Resi st ance of Pi l e s i n Cohesive
Soi l s , by Broms, provi des a si mpl e procedure f o r es t i mat i ng ul t i mat e l a t e r a l
capaci t y of pi l e s .
6. GROUP ACTION. Group a c t i on shoul d be consi dered when t he p i l e spaci ng i n
t he di r e c t i on of l oadi ng i s l e s s t han 6 t o 8 p i l e di amet ers. Group a c t i o n can
be eval uat ed by reduci ng t he e f f e c t i ve c oe f f i c i e nt of l a t e r a l subgrade reac-
t i o n i n t he di r e c t i on of l oadi ng by a r educt i on f a c t o r R (Reference 9) a s f o l -
lows :
P i l e Spacing i n Subgrade React i on
Di r ect i on of Loading Reduction Fact or
D = P i l e Diameter R
8D 1-00
6D 0.70
4D 0.40
3D 0.25
REFERENCES
I. Teng, W. C. , u-**-.lation Design, Prentice Hall International, 1962
2. Skempton, A.W., The Bearing Capacity of Clays, Proceedings, Building
Research Congress, London, 1951.
3. Tomlinson, M.F., The Adhesion of Piles Driven in Clay Soils,
Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, London, 1957.
4. Departments of the Army and Air Force, Soils and Geology, Procedures for
Foundation Design of Buildings and Other Structures (~xcept Hydraulic
Structures), TM51818-1lAFM88-3, Chapter 7, Washington, D.C. 1979.
5. Meyerhof, G.G., and Hanna, A.M., Ultimate Bearing Capacity of
Foundations on Layered Soils Under Inclined Load, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1978.
6. Vesic, A.S., Design of Pile Foundations, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program Synthesis 42, Transportation Research Board, 1977.
7. Meyerhof, G.G., Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT3,
1976.
8. Baguelin, F., Jexequel, J.F., and Shields, D.H., The Pressuremeter and
Foundation Engineering, TransTech Publications, 1978.
9. Canadian Geotechnical Society, Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual,
Canadian Geotechnical Society, 1978.
10. Smith, E.A., Pile Driving by the Wave Equation, Transactions, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 127, Part 11, pp 1145-193, 1962.
11. Rausche, F., Moses, F., and Goble, G.G., Soil Resistance Predictions
from Pile Dynamics, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM9, 1972.
12. Meyerhof, G.G., Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Footings on Sand Layer
Overlying Clay, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1974.
13. Whitaker, T., Experiments with Model Piles in Groups, Geotechnique,
London, 1957.
14. Tomlinson, M.J., Pile Design and Construction Practice, Viewpoint
Publications, Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1957.
15. Garlanger, J.E., Prediction of the Downdrag Load at Culter Circle
Bridge, Symposium on Downdrag of Piles, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 1973.
16. Fellenius, B.H., Downdrag on Piles Due to Negative Skin Friction,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1972.
17. Claessen, A.I.M. and Horvat, E., Reducing Negative Skin Friction with
Bitumen Slip Layers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
-
ASCE, Vol. 100, No. GT8, 1974.
18. Bjerrum, L., Johannessin, I.J., and Eide, O., Reduction of Negative
Skin Friction on Steel Piles to Rock, Proceedings of the Seventh
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Vol. 2, pp 27-34, 1960.
19. Deep Foundation Institute, Inspectorsf Manual for Deep Foundations, The
Deep Foundations Institute, Springfield, NJ, 1978.
20. AWPI, Technical Guidelines for Pressure-Treated Wood, Timber Piling, P1
American Wood Preservers Institute, 1976.
21. ACI Committee 543, Recommendations for Design, Manufacture and
Installation of Concrete Piles, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice,
American Concrete Institute, Part 3, October, 1974.
22. Reese, L.C. and Wright,S.J., Drilled Shafts: Design and Construction,
Guideline Manual, Vol. 1; Construction Procedures and Design for Axial
Load, Federal Highway Authority, July, 197 7.
23. Garneau, R., and Samson, L., A Device for the Constant Rate of
Penetration Test for Piles, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 11, No.
2, 1974.
24. Davisson, M.T. and Salley, J.R., Model Study of Laterally Loaded Pile,
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No.
SM5, 1970.
25. Chellis, R.D., Pile Foundations, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1961
26. Abbett, American Civil Engineering Practice, Vol. 1.
27. Johnson, S.M. and Kavanaugh, T.C., The Design of Foundations for
Buildings, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1968.
28. Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H., Foundation Engineering,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , 1974.
29. Horvath, N.G. and Kenney, T.C., Shaft Resistance of Rock-Socketed
Drilled Pier. ASCE, Preprint #3698. 1979.
30. Stagg, K.G. and Zienkiewiez, O.C., Eds., Rock Mechanics in Engineering
Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1968.
31. Reese, L.C. and Matlock, H., Non-Dimensional Solutions for Laterally
Loaded Piles with Soil Modulus Assumed Proportional to Depth,
Proceedings, Eighth Texas Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Austin, Texas, ASCE, 1956.
32. Reese, L.C., Laterally Loaded Piles: Program Documentation, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT4, 1977.
33. Broms, B.B., Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils, Journal of
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 90, No. S M ~ and
SM3, 1964.
)ut of Date
I
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Petroleum Institute, Recommended Practice for Planning,
Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, API RP 2A, January
1971. '
Casagrande, L., Comments on Conventional Design of Retaining Wall
Structures, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. SM2, 1973.
Davisson, M.T., Inspection of Pile Driving Operations, Tech. Report M-22,
Cold Regions Research Engineering Laboratories Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Department of the Army, 1972.
Foster, C.R., Field Problems: Compaction, Foundation Engineering,
Leonards, G.A., Editor, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, Chapter
12, 1952.
Fuller, F.N. and Hoy, H.E., Pile Load Tests Including Quick Load Test
Method, Conventional Methods and Interpretations, Highway Research Record
No. 333, HRB U.S. National Research Council, pp 74-86, 1970.
Hunt, H.W., Design and Installation of Pile Foundations, Associated Pile
Fitting Corporation, Clifton, NJ, 1974.
McClelland, Be, Design of Deep Penetration Piles for Ocean Structures,
Terzaghi Lectures: 1963-1972, ASCE, New York, pp 383-421, 1974.
Meyerhof, G.G., Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations,
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No.
GT3, 1976.
National Bureau of Standards, Corrosion of Steel Pilings in Soils,
Monographs 58 and 127, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
Reese, L.C. and Welch, R.C., Lateral Loading of Deep Foundations in Stiff
Clay, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101,
NO. GT7, 1975.
USBR, Earth Manual, Second Edition, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau
of Reclamation, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1974.
Vesic, A.S., Ultimate Loads and Settlements of Deep Foundations in Sand,
Procs., Symposium on Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foundations, Duke
University, Durham, NC. , 1967.
Winterkorn, H.F., and Fang, H.Y., Editors, Foundation Engineering
Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1975.
Woodward, R.J., Gardner, W.S. and Greer, D.M., Drilled Pier Foundations,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 1972.
APPENDIX A
Listing of Computer Programs
,
Subject
Shallow Foundations
(Chapter 4)
Excavation, and Earth
Pressures
(Chapter 1) and
(Chapter 3)
Deep Foundations
(Chapter 5)
Program
QULT
GESA Catalog No.
E03-0001-00043
SOIL-STRUCT
SSTINCS-2DFE
COM6 2 2
GESA Catalog No.
E04-0003-00044
TTI
W EAP
GESA Catalog No.
E04-0004-00046
Description
Bearing capacity analysis by
Balla, Brinch Hansen, Meyerhof-
Prandtl, Sokoluvski and
Terzaghi Methods.
Two dimensional finite element
program to analyze tieback
walls.
Two dimensional finite element
program to analyze tieback
walls.
Program solves for deflection
and bending moment in a lat-
erally loaded pile based on
theory of a beam on an elastic
foundation using finite differ-
ence techniques. Soil proper-
ties are defined by a set of
load-deflection curves.
Program for analysis of pile
driving by the Wave Equation;
developed at Texas A&M
University.
Wave Equation analysis for pile
driven by impact hammers,
diesel hammers and airlsteam
hammers.
Availability
Geotechnical Engineering
Software Activity
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309
Stanford University
Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State
University, Blacksburg,
VA 24061
GESA or University of
Texas at Austin
U.S. Department of
Transportation FHWA R&D
Implementation Div.
GESA
APPENDIX A
Li sti ng of Computer Programs (continued)
A
Avai l abi l i t y
GESA
I.
I.
Description
Auxillary program for WEAP.
Hammer data for WEAP.
WEAP data generator.
Subject
Deep Foundations
(Chapter 5)
Program
WINIT
GESA Catalog No.
E04-005-00047
WEHAM
GESA Catalog No.
E04-006-00048
WDATA
GESA Catalog No.
E04-007-00049
GLOSSARY
- d
Downdrag. Force induced on deep foundation r es ul t i ng from downward movement
of adj acent s o i l r e l a t i ve t o foundation element. Also r ef er r ed t o as nega-
t i ve ski n f r i ct i on.
Homogeneous Eart h Dam. An ear t h dam whose embankment i s formed of one s o i l
t ype without a syst emat i c zoning of f i l l mat er i al s.
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction. The r a t i o between t he beari ng pressure of a
foundation and t he corresponding set t l ement a t a given poi nt .
Nominal ~ e a r i n g Pressures. Allowable beari ng pressures f or spread foundat i on
on vari ous s o i l t ypes, deri ved from experi ence and general usage, which
provide s af et y agai nst shear f a i l ur e o r excessi ve set t l ement .
Optimum Moisture Content. The moisture cont ent , determined from a l abor at or y
compaction t e s t , a t which t he maximum dry densi t y of a s o i l i s obt ai ned usi ng
a s pe c i f i c e f f or t of compaction.
Piping. The movement of s o i l par t i cl es as t he r e s ul t of unbalanced seepage
f or ces produced by percol at i ng wat er, l eadi ng t o t he development of boi l s o r
er osi on channels.
Swell. Increase i n s o i l volume, t ypi cal l y r ef er r i ng t o volumetric expansion
of par t i cul ar s o i l s due t o changes i n water cont ent .
Zoned Eart h Dam. An ear t h dam embankment zoned by t he syst emat i c
di s t r i but i on of s o i l types according t o t h e i r st r engt h and permeabi l i t y
char act er i s t i cs , usual l y with a cent r al impervious core and s he l l s of coar ser
mat eri al s.
SYMBOLS
Symbol
Designation
.k
ks f
k s i
Cross-sectional area.
Anchor pul l i n t i eback system f or f l e xi bl e wal l .
Width i n general , or narrow dimension of a foundation uni t .
Unit adhesion between s o i l and pi l e sur f ace or sur f ace of some
ot her foundation mat eri al .
Allowable cohesion t hat can be mobilized t o resist shear
s t r es s es .
Shape f a c t or coef f i ci ent f or computation of immediate
set t l ement .
Cohesion i nt er cept f or Mohrts envelope of shear st r engt h based on
t o t a l s t r es s es .
Cohesion i nt er cept f or Mohrts envelope of shear st r engt h based on
ef f ect i ve st r esses.
Coeffi ci ent of consol i dat i on.
Depth, di amet er, or di st ance.
Rel at i ve densi t y.
Grain s i z e di vi si on of a s o i l sample, percent of dry weight
smal l er than t hi s gr ai n s i z e i s i ndi cat ed by subscr i pt .
Modulus of e l a s t i c i t y of s t r uc t ur a l mat eri al .
Modulus of e l a s t i c i t y or "modulus of deformation" of s oi l .
Void r a t i o.
Safet y f a c t or i n s t a b i l i t y or shear st r engt h anal ysi s.
Coeffi ci ent of - va r i a t i on of s o i l modulus of- e l a s t i c i t y wi t h dept h
f or anal ysi s of l a t e r a l l y loaded pi l es.
~ ~ e c i f i k ' gr avi t y of s ol i d par t i cl es i n s o i l sample, or s hear
modulus of s oi l .
In general , hei ght or t hi ckness.
Height of groundwater or of open water above a base l evel .
Infl uence value f or ve r t i c a l s t r e s s produced by superimposed
l oad, equal s r a t i o of s t r es s es a t a poi nt i n t he foundat i on
t o i nt e ns i t y of appl i ed load.
Gradient of groundwater pressures i n underseepage anal ysi s.
Coeffi ci ent of act i ve ear t h pressures.
Ratio of hor i zont al t o ve r t i c a l ear t h pressures on s i de of p i l e
or ot her foundation.
Coeffi ci ent of l a t e r a l subgrade react i on.
Coeffi ci ent of passi ve ear t h pressures.
Modulus of subgrade r eact i on f or bearing pl a t e or foundat i on of
width b .
Modulus of subgrade r eact i on f or 1 f t square beari ng pl a t e at
ground sur f ace.
Coeffi ci ent of permeabi l i t y.
Kips per sq f t pressure i nt ensi t y.
Kips per sq i n pressure i nt ensi t y.
Symbol Desi gnat i on
Lengtn lu gener al o r l ongezt dimension 9f f oundat i cr uni t .
Bearing capaci t y f act or s .
St a b i l i t y number f o r s l ope s t a b i l i t y .
Por os i t y of s o i l sample.
Ef f ect i ve por osi t y.
Optimum moi st ure cont ent of compacted s o i l .
Resul t ant act i ve e a r t h f or ce.
Component of r e s ul t a nt a c t i v e f or ce i n hor i zont al di r ect i on.
Densi t y i n pounds per cubi c f oot .
Resul t ant hor i zont al e a r t h f or ce.
Resul t ant passi ve e a r t h f or ce.
Component of r e s ul t a nt passi ve e a r t h f or ce i n hor i zont al
di r ect i on.
Resul t ant v e r t i c a l e a r t h f or ce.
Resul t ant f or ce of wat er pressure.
I nt e ns i t y of appl i ed l oad.
Exi s t i ng e f f e c t i ve overburden pr es s ur e act i ng at a s p e c i f i c
hei ght i n t he s o i l pr of i l e.
Pr econsol i dat i on pressure.
Allowable l oad capaci t y of deep foundat i on element.
Ul t i mat e l oad t h a t causes s hear f a i l u r e of foundat i on uni t .
I nt e ns i t y of v e r t i c a l l oad appl i ed t o foundat i on uni t .
Allowable beari ng capaci t y of shal l ow foundat i on uni t .
Unconfined compressive s t r e ngt h of s o i l sample.
Ul t i mat e beari ng pr essur e t h a t causes s hear f a i l u r e of
foundat i on uni t .
Radius of wel l o r ot her r i g h t c i r c u l a r cyl i nder .
Shear s t r engt h of s o i l f o r a s p e c i f i c s t r e s s o r condi t i on i n s i t u ,
used i ns t ead of s t r engt h paramet ers c and 0.
Thickness of s o i l st r at um, o r r e l a t i v e s t i f f n e s s f a c t o r of s o i l
and p i l e i n anal ys i s of l a t e r a l l y loaded pi l e s .
Depth.
Dry u n i t weight of s o i l .
Ef f ect i ve uni t weight of s o i l .
Maximum dry uni t weight of s o i l determined from moi st ure cont ent
dr y u n i t weight curve; o r , f o r cohesi onl ess s o i l , by vi br at or y
compaction.
Minimum dr y uni t weight.
Submerged (buoyant) u n i t weight of s o i l mass.
W e t uni t weight of s o i l above t he groundwater t abl e.
Unit wei ght of wat er, varyi ng from 62. 4 pcf f o r f r e s h wat er t o 64
pcf f or s ea water.
Magnitude of set t l ement f o r var i ous condi t i ons.
Angle of i n t e r n a l f r i c t i o n o r "angle of shear i ng r es i s t ance, "
obt ai ned from Mohr's f a i l u r e envelope f o r shear s t r engt h.
Poi sson' s Rat i o.
INDEX
A
Anchorages, tower guy..........7.2-169
See Foundations, shallow,
Tower Guy Anchorages
B
Bibliography...................7.2-B-1
C
Cofferdams, double-wall........7.2-116
See Walls and retaining
structures .
Compaction procedures..........7.2-45
Computer Programs, Listing of..7.2-A-1
E
Embankments compacted, compac-
tion procedures, and hydrau-
lic fill~..............o..o.o7o2-37
Applications................7.2-37
Compaction control, embank-
ment......................7.2-50
Analysis of control
test data..............7.2-51
Compactive effort.....7.2-52
Moisture contro1......7.2-52
Statistical study.....7.2-52
Number of field density
tests..................7.2-51
Number of laboratory
compaction tests.......7.2-51
Compaction requirements
and procedures............7.2-45
Material type influence..7.2-45
Oversize effect ...... -7.2-45
Soils insensitive to
compaction moisture .7.2-45
Soils sensitive to
compaction moisture.7.2-45
Methods..................7.2-45
Requirements.............7.2-45
Specification pro-
visions.............7.2-45
Cross-section design........7.2-38
Earth dam embankments....7.2-41
Piping and cracking...7.2-41
Seepage contro1.......7.2-41
Embankment compacted, compaction pro-
cedures, and hydraulic fills
(continued)
Cross-section design (continued)
Material type influence..7.2-38
Utilization...........7.2-38
Settlement...............7.2-38
Embankment consolida-
tion................7.2-38
Foundation settlement.7.2-38
Secondary compression.7.2-41
Stable foundation........7.2-38
Weak foundation..........7.2-38
Excavation, borrow..........7.2-52
. Methods of excavation.. .7.2-53
Utilization of excavated
materials..............7.2-53
Borrow volume.........7.2-53
Rock fi11.............7.2-53
Fills, hydraulic and under-
water.....................7.2-54
Construction methods.....7.2-54
Hydraulic fill on
land................7.2-54
Underwater fills......7.2-54
Performance of fill mate-
rials..................7.2-54
Coarse-grained fills..7.2-54
Hard clay fills.......7.2-56
Equipment, pile driving........7.2-213
See Foundations, deep,
5pes
Excavation, borrow.............7.2-52
See Embankments , compacted ,
Excavation.
Fills, hydraulic and under-
water........................7.2-54
See Embankments compacted,
Fills.
Foundations, deep..............7.2-177
Application.................7.2-177
Bearing capacity............7.2-191
Dynamic Driving Resis-
tance..................7.2-202
Pile group, theoretica1..7.2-204
Single pile, theoretical.7.2-192
Foundations. deep (cont i nued)
Di s t r i but i on of l oads on
p i l e groups o.............. 7. 2-230
Downdrag .................... 7. 2-209
................ I ns t a l l a t i on 7. 2-213
....... I nvest i gat i on program 7. 2-177
Lat er al load capaci t y ....... 7. 2-234
Load tests .................. 7. 2-228
Rock. deep foundat i ons on ... 7. 2-232
Settlement.. ................. 7. 2-207
Pi l e group ............... 7. 2-209
Si ngl e p i l e .............. 7. 2-207
Types ....................... 7. 2-178
Allowable stresses ....... 7. 2-179
Design c r i t e r i a .......... 7. 2-179
Foundations. shallow ........... 7. 2-129
Appl i cat i ons ................ 7. 2-129
Bearing capaci t y ............ 7. 2-129
Footings. proport i oni ng
i ndi vi dual ............. 7. 2-146
Nominal beari ng pres-
s ur es ..............:... 7. 2-141
Modi fi cat i ons ......... 7. 2-141
Ut i l i zat i on ...........7. 2-141
Ultimate shear f a i l ur e ... 7. 2-129
Bearing capaci t y dia-
grams ............... 7. 2-129
Theoret i cal beari ng
capaci t y ............ 7. 2-129
Upl i f t capaci t y .......... 7. 2-169
........ Rock anchorages 7. 2-169
Soi l anchorages ...... .7.2-169
Collapsing s o i l s ............ 7. 2-163
Engineered f i l l ............. 7. 2-159
Compaction cont r ol ....... 7. 2-159
Ut i l i zat i on ..............7. 2-159
Expansive s o i l s ............. 7. 2-159
El i mi nat i ng swel l ........ 7. 2-161
Minimizing swel l effects.7.2-161
Pot ent i al swel l i ng con-
di t i ons ................ 7. 2-159
Mat and continuous beam
foundat i ons ...............7. 2-150
Appl i cat i ons ............. 7. 2-150
Design ...................7. 2-150
Settlement ...............7. 2-150
St a bi l i t y requirements ... 7. 2-150
Tower guy anchorages ........ 7. 2-169
Anchoring tower guy
l oads ..................L 2-169
Deadman anchorages .... 7. 2-172
Pi l i ng anchorages ..... 7. 2-233
Rock ..................7. 2-169
Foundations. shal l ow (cont i nued)
Underdrainage and water-
proofi ng .................. 7. 2-163
Pressure s l abs ........... 7. 2-163
Relieved s l abs ........... 7. 2-169
Waterproofing requi re-
ments .................. 7. 2-169
Glossary ....................... 7.2- G-1
Mat foundat i ons ................ 7. 2-150
See Foundations. shallow.
Mat .
Pi l e s :
Foundations ( s ee Foundations.
deep) ..................... 7. 2-177
Walls and r et ai ni ng s t r uct ur es .
anal ys i s ..................... 7. 2-59
Cofferdams. double-wall ..... 7. 2-116
Analysis ................. 7. 2-116
Ext er i or pressures .... 7. 2-116
St a bi l i t y requi re-
ments ............... 7. 2-116
C e l l f i l l ................ 7. 2-125
Drainage .............. 7. 2-125
Mat eri al s ............. 7. 2-125
Types .................... 7. 2-116
....... Fl exi bl e w a l l s desi gn 7. 2-85
Anchored bulkheads ....... 7. 2-85
Anchorage system ...... 7. 2-90
... Computation example 7. 2-93
Construct i on pr e-
caut i ons ............ 7. 2-90
Drainage .............. 7. 2-85
....... Movements. wal l 7. 2-85
....... Pressures. wal l 7. 2-85
Braced sheet pi l e wal l s ..7. 2-90
Computation example ... 7. 2-107
Narrow cut s braced .... 7. 2-101
kralls and r et ai ni ng st r uct ur es. .
anal ysi s (cont i nued)
~ l e k b l e ' wal l s desi gn (continued)
Braced sheet pile w a l l s (con-
t inued )
Raking braces with
................ wal l 7. 2-101
St a bi l i t y of base of
excavat i on .......... 7. 2-104
Tied backwalls ........ 7. 2-101
............... Crib wal l s 7. 2-116
Gabions .................. 7. 2-112
Pressures. wal l . computa-
t i ons ..................... 7. 2-59
......... Active pressures 7. 2-59
St r a t i f i e d backf i l l .
sl opi ng groundwater
l e ve l ............... 7. 2-61
Uniform backf i l l . no
groundwater ......... 7. 2-61
Uniform backf i l l .
s t a t i c groundwater ..7. 2-61
Coef f i ci ent s wi t h wal l
f r i c t i on ............... 7. 2-61
Effect of const ruct i on
procedures ............. 7. 2-76
Compacted f i l l s ....... 7. 2-76
Hydraulic f i l l s ....... 7. 2-76
Effect of seepage and
Drainage ............... 7. 2-70
Beneath wal l s seepage.7.2-70
Conditions. genera1 ... 7. 2-70
Rai nf al l on drained
w a l l s ............... 7. 2-70
St a t i c di f f e r e nt i a l
head ................ 7. 2-70
Loading. surcharge ....... 7. 2-70
Area l oads ............ 7. 2-73
Live l oads ............ 7. 2-73
Movement. w a l l ........... 7. 2-73
Braced f l e xi bl e
sheet i ng ............ 7. 2-73
Rest rai ned wal l s ...... 7. 2-76
Ti l t i ng r et ai ni ng
wal l s ............... 7. 2-73
Passi ve pressures ........ 7. 2-59
St r a t i f i e d backf i l l .
sl opi ng groundwater
l e ve l ............... 7. 2-61
Uniform backf i l l . no
groundwater ......... 7. 2-61
Uniform backf i l l .
s t a t i c groundwater
l evel ...............7, 2-61
Walls and r et ai ni ng s t r uc t ur e s .
anal ysi s (cont i nued)
Pressures. wal l . computation (con-
t i nued)
Reinforced e a r t h ......... 7. 2-116
Rigid r et ai ni ng w a l l s .... 7. 2-82
Cr i t e r i a . genera1 ..... 7. 2-82
Drainage .............. 7. 2-85
Set t l ement and over-
t ur ni ng .............7, 2-82
St a bi l i t y ............. 7. 2-82
High wal l s ............... 7. 2-82
Low wal l s ................ 7. 2-85
Drainage .............. 7. 2-85
Equivalent f l ui d
pressures ........... 7. 2-85
7.2:INDEX . 3
U. S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1984 0 . 442-802

You might also like