Design Procedure and Considerations for Piers in Expansive Soils John D. Nelson, Ph.D., P.E. F.ASCE"; Erik G. Thompson, PhOD., P.-E Robert W. Schaut, P.E., MASCE*; Kuo-Chich Chao, Ph.D. P-E. M. ASCE*; Daniel D. Overton, P.E., F.ASCE®; and Jesse S. Dunham-Friel, Aff.M.ASCE® The design of pe foundation in expansive sllss an important an challenging ase geotechnical engincering, Established for pes analysis include rigid and elastic methods, These methods have cenin HPSS that restrict their applicability to evaluate orn aspen of pie heave, including variable sil profiles, complex weting Pros Et tength-to-diameter ratios, and complex mcennguraions and materials. To address thse imitations a method of analysis So “developed providing a versatile and robust 001 10 pa pat heave and axial forces developed by expansive soils. This method WElPe® & standard finite-element code to solve for piet He ati in ihe per fr the given boundary conditions. This paper contains both a discussion of the general design procedure and the No mlaion This design procedure, inching the finite-element code, scrurasly Gltms OT heave and force in pier roped with ield-measured data, The design procedure and the finite-element 9 particular, address the limitations ofthe established ion lat pie analysis methods with the lexiiity evaluate complex sigh ES "A comparison with field-measured pier heave sec foroein he pir demonstrates thatthe design procedure aeurately models both He ‘magnitude of pier heave and foree in the pier. eit obained using this design procedure have been compared wih those obuines the established pier analysis methods for lied led pet examples. The comparison ofthe various methods of ane} demonstrates thatthe finite-element design procedure frit pier heave values that are generally less than the existing clase and rigid pier analysis methods, Tis believed thatthe proposed ign method is more realistic and provides a design tool with improved accuracy ‘compared with existing methods. DOI: 10.106/(ASCE) {G1.1943-3606,0000647. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers CE Database subject headings: Expansive soil; Differential settlement; Foundations: Designs Finite element method; Micro piles uthor keywords: Expansive si; Fre field heave; Heave prediction; Paral station: Pier heave; Foundation design; Finite element analysis; Micropile Introduction ‘on theoretical considerations and results of one-dimensional ocd Sireer tests (Fredlund etal. 1980; U.S. Army Comps of Engineers $983, Nelson and Miller 1992; Fredlund and Rahardjo. 1993). U hehuaai Mods fbr predicting fee-field heave using soil suction are renee ithe heave that ozurs beats of Weting ofthe abo presented nthe ere (MU 1995; McKeen 1992). eer ga nveneeal oad being apie othe soi Rigorous erase mos gests laboratories conduct only eo gat hee Hall heave have een developedbased olor 5, an Uo TAS fess, the meshod presented th ihe authors uses oedometer tests a presented in Nelson and Piller (1992) and refined by Nelson etal. (2006). Nevertheless, oe “Profesor Emeritus, Colorado Stat Uni, Fort Collins, CO 80523: an id the incremental heave profile is determined using any other Pringpal Engineee, Engineering Analytics, nc, 1600 Specht Point Ri St, 209, Fort Colin, CO 80525 method, itis just as applicable for use in calculating pier heave with 29, Fo Co ge Univ, Fon Colin, CO 80523;ané the fnteelement formulation described inal Engine, Engneeing Analyte, Ine, 1600 Specht Poise Ra, Se, 209, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Rigid Pier Analysis ~Sorior Geological Engineer, Engineering Analytics, Inc. 1600 Specht Eo Point Ra, Ste, 208, For Collis, CO 80525. ‘Chen (1965), O'Neill (1988), an Mgenice Geotechnical Engineet, Engineering Analytics, Inc, 1600 1d Nelson and Miller (1992) present methods for rigid pier analysis in expansive soil, The principle of So ees, clin, CO 5052, Tigi pier design is thatthe negative, or downward, skin fieton A ear Eagueing sii, I, 1600, DEH I re a th plus the dead Youd, ate equal sperit Pot Ra Ste. 209, Fort Colins, CO 80525. reine uplift presoures exerted on the pcr by the swelling soi. Kis sont Ra S208, Fo Clin, CO 8-0 gooSpct Punts thet the pier eve wl eal © 9 eee ae Ee comronting str. Emit generally prodoesconervane it ens 9 MS jdunham-friel@ enganalytics.com founded on a deep deposit of highly expansive soil. Nowe This manuscript was submited on September 21,2010; approved ca eee 2011 published online on October 20,2011, Discussion Elastic Pler Analysis eased open unt January 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submited 8 ee tapers pao te Journal ef Getechncatand Wess rigid pier analysis does not consider pier move {ecard a ice WL. 136, No. 8 August 1, 2012, Tsun the actual sundaes ‘design can generally tolerate some pier ASCE ISSN 1050-024 1/2012/8-945-986/525.00. heave, The elastic pier analysis method (Nelson and Miller 1992) JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012/45A calculates the pier heave, assuming the pier to be a stiff inclusion {aan elastic half-space, This method is based on a theoretical tpoundary-slement analysis developed by Poulos and Davis (1980), ‘The material presented by Poulos and Davis (1980) was modified hy Nelson and Miller (1992). Nelson etal 2007) fuer refined this analysis method and presented desiga charts for stright-shaft tind belted piers, facilitating their use by design engineers. "The clastic method has limitations with respect tothe actual pier configuration. ‘The method was developed for piers with uniform froperties along their length, embedded in homogenous, soil Proles, The method is also better suited for piers with Tength- preiameter ratios less than 20. If long piers with small diameters sew io be analyzed, or if the pier materials vary with depth, an ‘iterative analysis method is needed. Micropiles and Other Complex Pier Configurations Micropiles are increasingly being used for underpinning founda: tions experiencing heave because of expansive soils (Federal ighway Administration 2005), Commonly, portion ofthe micros pile is cased to reduce uplift skin friction. Because oftheir smal pie peter, micropiles have large length-to-diameter ratios. Despite their recent use inthis application, there is a paucity of published Tterature regarding micropile desig, installation, or performance jn expansive soils. Other complex pier configurations have also teen proposed to mitigate the presence of expansive soils incind- ing wrapping the pir with plastic sheeting or applying bitumen 19 ioe see the uplift skin friction. The established pier analysis meth- ‘as are not well suited to analyze these complex pier configurations oe materials, The pier analysis method allows forthe consideration GF complex soil profiles, complex pier configurations, and the ‘unique aspects of microples. Numerical Analysis of Piers in Expansive Soils ‘A method of pier design in expansive soils that uses finite-element hod (FEM) numerical analysis is presented. There have been ‘MMeral investigations that have used finite-clement numerical Spatyss to model pier heave in expansive sols Amir and Sokolov 1976: Lytton 1977; Justo etal. 1984; Abdel-Halim and Al-Qasem 1905, Mohamedzzin et al. 1999), AL-Rawas and Goosen (2006) presenta literature surumary onthe use of finite-element formula: Tons to analyze pier heave. FEMSs have also been used to study the ttehavior and soil-structure interaction of micropiles subjected to Compression or dynamic Toads (Shabrour etal. 2001; Russo and Vamiani 2003; Russo 2004; Shalrour and Juran 2004: Sadek vn sam 2004; Sivakumar Babu et al. 2004; Ballowz 2005: Feng a, 2006; Sadek and Shahrour 2006; Wang et al. 200%a, b; Noorzad and Saghaee 2009). Soilstructure interface modeling tring interface elements within a finite-element formulation were presented. by Katona (1983), Desai et al. (1984), and Mohamedzein and Nour Eldayem (2006). Additional studies exist that analyze pier heave using other numerical methods. O'Neill and Poormosyed (1980) presented field-measured forces in a belled Ficr measured by the U.S. Army Comps of Engineers (1983) and Predeled by O'Neill (1988). A relibilty-based pier design @p- proach is presented by Picornell et al. (1993). Hong (2008) deve ped a rumerical model using a beam column approach tat Gemonstrated good agreement with field-measured forces pre Sented by Kim (1996) and Kim and O'Neill (1998). Kaufmann tt al, (2010) studied the heaving of a pile in expansive clay using fhe commercially available finite-element code PLAXIS, The study demonstrated that soil heave outside of a distance of three pile {fameters was not influenced by the presence ofthe pile, whereas ani within a distance of three pile diameters was. They concluded thatthe heave of the pile was influenced by a combination of shear ‘046 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGI atthe interface and sol shear inthe soil within a distance up to three pile diameters away from the pile “several of the investigations cited above incorporated unsatu- rated flow modeling and/or heave prediction within the numerical Fommulation itself. However, there are advantages to keeping the ‘water migration analysis and the ftec-feld heave prediction sepe Tate from the pier heave analysis. This is especially true given {he complentis associated with the analysis of vadose-zone water migration and free-field heave. Also, it allows for the use of alter Jative methods to calculate water migration and free-feld heave “The fnite-clemeat-based method of pier analysis was developed to provide forthe input of the results ofthe soil heave calculation Separately fom the numerical analysis. Thus, this method ca be tied to analyze piers and micropiles regardless ofthe method used to determine moisture migration or free-field heave. Procedure for Design of Piers in Expansive Soils “This section provides a discussion of a general design procedure for Jers in expansive soils, as well as observations and suggestions that may be useful to the design engineer. Field and Laboratory Data Collection Geotechnical investigations conducted for typical nonexpansive Sites are generally not sufficient to adequately characterize a ste ‘where expansive soils are present. Foundation design for expansive wUhs presents unique challenges. The data that are needed often require te collection and testing of soil samples taken from depts treater than those required for nonexpansve sits Experience based on hundreds of expansive sol sites through ‘out the Front Range of Colorado have shown thatthe depth ofthe Shvestigation required to properly characterize expansive soil sis frequently exceeds 12-15 m (Nelson and Chao 2010), The expl- Tak depth should, at a minimom, extend to a sufficient depth vo fully characterize all soil that may affect the behavior ofa pet. ‘he esign pier length is found to be deeper than the exploration depth, supplemental borings should be completed. A sufficient sereper of samples must be collected and adequate testing must be performed to flly characterize the nature ofthe expansive soils ‘Analysis of Soll-Water Migration ‘The calculation of free-feld heave for a particular soil profile requires analysis of the expected increase in soil-wvater content ‘The assumptions made regarding soil-water migration ae impor Tans factory influencing, whether a foundation system will perfor tdequately. It is common practice in the Front Range area of Coltado to assume a limited depth of wetting of less than 6 m {Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers 1999). How ver this assumption often leads to an underestimation of the sll eave. Where possible, rigorous unsaturated flow analyses in the Nadose zone should be performed (Overton et al. 2006; Chao 2007; Overton et al. 2010). In the absence of rigorous watt inigration analysis inthe vadose zone, itis prudent to assume ful Meaing to the depth of potential heave or perform simplified and salculations. A simplified method for hand calculation of the final water content has been presented by Overton etal (2010) Calculation of Incremental Free-Field Heave for Design Free-feld heave can be caleulated based on the soil profile labo fatory test resuls, and estimated increase in sol-water content, The ‘Gistnbution of the soil heave with depth can be determined using the methods that were discussed previously (Nelson et al. 2006) ‘Based on the analysis ofthe soil-water migration, the percent swell INEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012ind swelling pressure values can be reduced using the methods presented by Reichler (1997), Chao (2007), and Overton et al. 2010). Determination of Appropriate Soil and Interface Properties for Design The relevant properties of the soil and the pier-soil interface seeded for include the incremental free-field heave, overburden pressure, Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, shear- srength parameters (peak and residual), lateral stress coefficient (K), and the coefficient of friction between the pier and the ‘oil. The shearstrength parameters, Young's modulus, Poisson's rio, and the coefficient of friction between the soil and the pier ‘ary withthe water content and soil suction. Therefore, soil-water migration must be considered in determination of the variation ofthese properties throughout the design life ofthe pier. At mini- ‘mum, the value of a particular sol parameter should be determined atsauration and atthe natural in-situ water content prior to wetting. Using these two data endpoints, the value at an intermediate water content can be estimated. Adjustments in soil and interface parameters to account for partial saturation are subsequently dis: assed in more detail Pier Analysis ‘The final step in the design procedure is the mechanical analysis of the pier-soil structure because of soil expansion. As previously discussed, because of the limitations of currently available design ‘methods, an alternative method of analysis was developed to pro- vide a versatile and robust tool to predict both pier heave and tal forces created by expansive soils. The method is subsequently described in deta Finite-Element-Based Analysi A.widely studied tool for piersoil analysis is the FEM. Because ofits versatility in modeling complex soil profiles and soil behav- jor, it has found favor in analyzing soilstructure interaction in ‘general and soil-pier interaction in particular (Amir and Sokolov 1976; Lytton 1977; Katona 1983; Desai et al. 1984; Justo etal 1984; Mohamedzein and Nour Eldayem 2006). ‘A standard code for axisymmetric analysis of elastic solids (Thompson 2005) was modified to take into account soil swelling, ‘Coulomb friction between pier and soil, and Mohr-Coulomb soil failure adjacent to the pier. The resulting code has proven to be both versatile and robust. The development ofthis code is deseribed below. Field Equations with Soil Swelling Material properties are specified pointwise throughout the énalysis, domain, thus allowing for the modeling of complex soil profiles, including soil swell, The swell is assumed to be isotropic, and is simulated using the same method used in conventional analyses of thermal strains in solids, Because this procedure is well known, the details will not be given here, except to state that it can be accounted for by siting the constitutive equations as fn = Gln Mea + on)] +60 0 lam — (n+ Om)] + Fo @ Won + 048) + E40 @ where &no = isotropic swelling strain, which is analogous o thermal strain; and éy Eg, and = components of stress and strain in cylindrical coordinates. Boundary Conditions ‘The pier-sol interface must be modeled such that ether slip be- tween the soil and the pier (Coulomb ftiction) or failure within the soil adjacent tothe pier (Mohr-Coulomb failure) can take place. In some codes, the pier is included in the mesh, and the interface is ‘modeled using very thin elements between the pier and the soil clements (Desai et al. 1984). However, in the finite-element code, ‘only the soil is modeled, and the pier is assumed to be rigid relative to deformation in the soil. The reasonableness of this assumption is evident when one considers the typical values of stiffness. The ‘modulus of elasticity of the ste] reinforced ina pier, is on the order ‘of 200 x'10® kPa, while the stiffness ofthe soil is on the onder of 20,000 kPa. Therefore, considering thatthe stiffness of the pier is ‘on the order of 10,000 times greater than the stiffness ofthe soil, the assumption of a rigid pier relative to the soil is reasonable. This assumption will be subsequently discussed with respect to the val- ‘dation cases. ‘The pier-soil interface is accounted for by using a mixed- boundary condition. This approach has all the versatility that interface elements provide, yet it is computationally more efficient, ‘The details of the method are subsequently presented. Mixed-boundary conditions refer to those that specify a rela- tionship between the nodal displacement and, nodal force, rather than the actual value of one or the other. In the finite-element code, this specification is used for the vertical component or displacement at nodes where the soil would be in contact with the pier Its schematically shown in Fig. 1, and has the follow- ing form: F,= KH, — 0) @ where F; = nodal force tangent to the pier; Hy = pier heave; U, = nodal displacement tangent to the pier; and k = parameter used to adjust shear stress, considered similar to a spring con- stant of the connection between U, and H. Note that Hp ~ U, represents the relative displacement between the pier and adjacent soil ‘The pier heave (H) is assumed to be the same for all nodes because of the pier’s rigidity. Large values of & require U, to be approximately equal to Hy. In these cases, the soil has the same dlisplacement as the pie. This no-slip condition is used as the initial ‘condition forall such nodes, However, when the force at any node lexceeds value necessary 1 cause ether slip between soil and pier No Fiction ‘No Friction o © Fig, 1. Boundary conditions: (a) sll boundary conditions; (b) mixed- ‘boundary condition JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012 / 947‘or soil failure adjacent tothe pier, kis reduced to bring the shear to its smallest allowable value. That value would be the smaller of tithe that which wil eause lip or that which will ause sol ioe Limiting values for sheat as defined by Coulomb frition (sip) and Motr-Coulom® failure (sil failure) are in terms of formal and tangential components of stress. For computational Ciceney, these relationships are converted to equivalent nodal forces with no loss in the generality of the theory. For the ‘Mote: Coulomb fire theory, ts also necessary to determine soil Stain, This poses a unique problem, which willbe subsequently discussed. Development of Pier Heave “The tangential forces exerted on the pier by the soil must equal the total extemal load on the pier, that is, the pier must be in equilibrium. Fig, 2 illustrates how Fy is adjusted to bring about equilibrium, Fig. 2(a) ilustrates the ‘mixed-boundary conditions pefore the soil swells. In this state there is no uplift force on the pies. Fig. 2(b) illustrates the state of the mixed-boundary con- ditions afier swelling takes place, but before any pier heave, The Shear forces ereate an upward force on the pier, and the pier is hho longer in equilibrium (for simplicity, the pier is shown as having no external load), To bring the pier into equilibrium, it must be allowed to move up, creating both upward and down- ‘ward forces acting on the piet. This is illustrated in Fig. 2(€). For given k values, the relationship between heave and total force is linear, thus this adjustment requires an insignificant amount cof computer time. Adjustment in the k Value to Prevent Continued Slip “The following Coulomb friction model is used to predict potential slip between the soil and the pier: F.S\aF,| 6) where F, = magnitude of the tangential force (e-irection); = coefficient of friction between pier and soil; and F, = normal (fadial) force between pier and soil. F, includes components fof force from the overburden, swelling, and the elastic soil Fig. 2. Schematic of pier and soil interface: ()initial-n force on pier, () soil heave-upward force on pier; (¢)piet heave-esultant force on pier equal to zero plot equal oer ‘948 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIFONMENTAL ENGINEERING @ ASCE / AUGUST 2012 deformation. If F, exceeds this maximum value, k is reduced t0 the value that makes the above equality hold. Adjustment in the k Value to Prevent Continued Soil Failure ‘A Mobs-Coulomb failure criterion is assumed forthe soil adjacent to the pier; thas, the maximum shear force at any node along the pier-soil boundary before soil failure is given by F,S|Fe+ F,tan(@)| OO) where ¢ = angle of internal friction; and F, = cohesion force {ie the sol's apparent cohesion multiplied by the nodal area over which it act). If F, exceeds this peak force, k is reduced and therefore the equality is satisfied. However, in doing so, the soil’s tangential ‘isplagement will no longer equal the pir’s displacement. Unlike slip fare, this difference in displacements represents strain inthe foil adjacent to the piet. The proper interpretation of this and the ‘Consegquences of this strain are explained as follows, Soil Failure and Shear Strain If the stress in the soil adjacent to the pier exceeds the amount necessary 10 cause soil failure by the Mohr-Coulomb theory, fand there has been no slip of the soil based on Coulomb friction, then the soil will fai. The soil. against the pier will stick to the pier, ad it is assumed that the relative movement between the piet eave and the nodal point displacement represents a finite shear strain in avery thin band of soil surrounding the ier. This is similar to a boundary layer in viscous flows or slickensides in soil masses. “Two decisions must be made at this point when designing ¢ finite-element model. The first is how to account for the loss in soil strength because of the strains past the peak strength. The second is to decide on a method for calculating the strains based ‘on the relative movement between the pier and the soil node adjacent to the pier when the value of k is reduced The loss in soil strength because of strain is incorporated into the finite-element formulation by a linear decrease in the apparent ‘cohesion (¢,) and angle of intemal friction (4) from their peak Nalues to residual values at @ specified shear strain. This, of Course, Ieads to the second decision regarding the shear-stain Calculation represented by the difference between the nodal dis- placements and the pier’s heave. “Two alternatives were considered. The first was to divide the relative displacement (H, — U;) by an assumed boundary-layer thickness. This would be equivalent tothe shear strain determined ‘when thin elements are used. In each case, itis necessary to decide ‘on either an assumed or an actual thickness for the thin layer of lements. Thus, the two methods are equivalent, and are dependent ‘on the choice made for this thickness. The second alternative tht twas considered was based on the fact that after the first iteration, land before any slip ot sol failure has occurred, the shear stain at teach node is elastic and can be calculated using the shear modulus Of elasticity of the soil and the tangential force at the node. This shear strain is then compared with an average shear strain caleu Tated using the difference between the vertical pier displacement (Game as the boundary node forthe first iteration) and the next interior node. The ratio between the average shear strain and the true shear strain was then saved for each node and assumed to hold after plastic strain takes place. The latter method is used in the finite-lement code, Both choices can, of course, be made 10 coincide by adjusting the assumed boundary-layer thickness for the frst approach or by using an appropriate weighting factor to calculate the average strain in the second approach.Slip or Soil Failure Itis not always predictable which failure mechanism will occur (sip or soil failure). Fig, 3 illustrates the allowable shear stress asa function of the normal stress for both mechanisms. Clearly, forthe $ and o values depicted, the mechanism that govems (slip o soil failure) will depend on the normal stress. Because the rommal stress is unknown at the beginning of an analysis, it is always necessary to monitor both mechanisms. erative Process Because of adjustments in the pier heave and adjustments in the k parameters, the solution is inherently onlinear; thus, an iterative solution procedure must be used. Simultaneous adjustments of the pier heave and the k parameters during each iteration produced reasonable convergence rates, with the exact number of iterations needed being problem-dependent. Of some concern is the possibil- ity that early adjustments could significantly overshoot the values desited, thus indicating soil failure and corresponding soil strains well beyond what would physically happen. For this reason, two approaches are used in the finite-element code to start the iterative process. The frst approsch is to gradually increase the amount of swell everywhere in the region until the final swell is reached within a specified number of iterations. From that point on, the iterations are made with the total swell applied. “The second approach is to simulate @ gradual wetting front from the surface down, increasing both depth and amount with cach iteration, until the total state of swell is reached. This approach an provide a quasi-transient analysis provided thatthe simulated ‘weting zone follows the actual wetting patter to some degree of, ‘accuracy. Both methods have been employed with no noticeable change in the final result, Factors Influencing Pier Design Experience at numerous expansive soil project sites, along with the research and testing conducted during the development of the finteelement code, has given rise to a number of useful and Jmportant observations regarding design of piers and micropiles for expansive soil Soil and Interface Properties Te finite-lement code that has been developed require that a tare of parameters be specified on a layer-by-layer basis for tte entire soil profile. These include Young's modulus. (E), Poisson's ratio (P), pesk and resial angle of internal friction (6, and 6), cohesion c),coefcient of lateral stress (K) effective tresburden tess (ch) and coefficient of fiction between the pier andthe soil (2. Al ofthese parameters vary with the sil Mater content. The subsequent section isa discussion of some key nmeters and observations regarding the paramete’s determine tion and application to pier design Fig. 3. Strength envelopes for slip and soil failure modes Soll Elastic Properties ‘An example pier was analyzed to demonstrate the effect that ‘changes in the values of the soil’s Young’s modulus (E), Poisson's ratio (V), and coefficient of lateral stess (K,) have on heave and tensile foree in the pier. For this example, the other soil properties were held constant at ¢, = 225°, 4; = 12", c= 100 kPa, and @ 3t of 20 KN/m? was used. The soil ‘was assumed to heave to a depth of 3 m, and a pier with a length ‘of 7 m was analyzed. The results are shown in Fig. 4 In Fig. 4(@), an increase in E in the heaving soil zone (the sctive zone) resulted in a significant increase in both the pier heave and inthe tensile forces developed in te pier. For this example, Pois- son’s ratio was held constant at 0.3 and K, was held constant at 1.0. An ‘increase in E of the sol from 5,000 to 20,000 kPa inthe active zone resulted in an increase in the pier heave and tensile force of approxi- mately 250%, Changes in the value of E in the soil below the active zone produced a negligible effect on the heave or tensile force. Fig. 4(b) shows that an increase in the value of Poisson's ratio had a much smaller effect on the calculated pier heave and tensile force. However, the calculation of Young's modulus from the consolidation-swell test data is sensitive to Poisson's rat. aoe TE Palen eater serene) i) 7 of Seeete| tad bo wo 8 i « oof nt $ Faso” ° » e To £20. 2 p> 10 © 9 anos °fsae | 4 ie] | tS 14 xf #0 1905 ‘= q a “ 100 ' ° ° © Fig. 4, Effect of soil elastic properties on heave and tensile force: (8) ef {ect of Young's modulus; (b) effect of Poisson's rato; (c) effect ofthe coeflcient of lateral stress JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012 / 9491m Fig. 40), E was held constant 5,000 KPa and K was held ‘constant at 1.0. Fig. 4(€) shows that an increase in the coefficient of lateral stress, Ky results in a decrease in pier heave and an increase in pier force. For this example, E was held constant at 5,000 kPa, and Poisson’s ratio was held constant at 0.3. K, is of importance primarily inthe lower portion of the pier, where it influences the Anchorage shea stresses at the piersoil interface. An increase in K., from 10 to 20 results in a 50% decrease in pier heave and an increase of about 30% in pier tensile force. A variation of K, from 1.0 to 20 can result in as much as a 20% difference in required pier length, Thus, the pier design is sensitive to the value of K, selected. Data presented in Lambe and Whitman (1969) indicate that values of K, can range from 0.5 to 3.0, depending on the plasticity index and the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) of the soil. For most of the Claystone formations in the Front Range of Colorado, and for all four sites used for validation of the design procedure, the plasticity inex ranged from 25 to 35. In this range, and for a value of the (OCR ranging from 1 to 4, the values of K, presented in Lambe and Whitman (1969) range fom about 0.6 t0 1.0, Thus, a reasonable design value of K, can be selected based on the literature and site-specific soil properties. ‘The value of Young's modulus will vary significantly with soil-water content, Thus, the Young's modulus should be deter- ‘mined for both the in-situ water content and the near-saturated ‘water content. The value of E at the in-situ water content, prior to wetting, can be estimated from unconfined compressive strength test results or from triaxial or oedometer tests performed at the in-situ water content. The value of F at near-saturated conditions can be determined using results of tiaxial or oedometer tests for saturated samples. A method for determination of E using the results of oedometer tests was used for the analyses. Fig. 5 depicts typical results of a consolidation-swell oedometer test and a con- stant volume oedometer test (Nelson and Miller 1992; Nelson etal 2006). The slope of a line connecting the value of percent swell (Sj) with the o/, can be used to calculate an average value of the constrained modulus over a stress range from the inundation pressure to the constant volume swell pressure. F can be calculated using the following equation: M(L+ yy - 20) e a-4 a where M = constrained modulus and x = Poisson's ratio Using the slope of the line from the oedometer test to determine the value of M, the value of E has been computed to range from 2,000 to 12,000 kPa for saturated clay soil and claystone. The ‘Young's modulus for partially saturated soil can be estimated based Canesten St HS TaBa oi Oy Os Applied Stes, 0 (Log Seale) Fig. 5. Results of wetted oedometer tests (water added at o/) ‘on interpolation between the value measured at saturation and that ‘atthe in-situ water content ‘The value of Poisson's ratio will also vary with soil-water content. Unconfined compression tests were performed on several Claystone samples at a variety of water contents, The vertical and lateral strains were measured using vertical and radial linear dis- placement transducers. The test results indicat that a representative value of Poisson's ratio would be about 0.3 for saturated claystone and about 0.2 for claystone at the natural in-sita water content. ‘These data endpoints can be used to estimate Poisson's ratio for intermediate soil-water content conditions Interface Soil-Pier Friction Example calculations using the finite-element code showed that if the coefficient of friction between the pier and the soil, cy is, uniform over the entire pier length, an increase in the value of a resulted in very litle change in the calculated pier heave. How- ever, the magnitude ofthe calculated tensile forces developed in the pier increased by a significant amount as a increased. On the other hhand, if the value varies over the length of the pier, changes in relative values of a from the top of the pier to the bottom will have an effect on the pier heave and the tensile forces in the pier. ‘Thus, placing a liner around the pir to reduce friction in the ative zone will reduce both pier heave and tensile force. The advantage of using the developed finite-element code is that i is versatile enough to accurately analyze a segmented pier that has more than one ‘material in contact with the soil. ‘Values ofthe coefficient of friction, a, presented in the literature ‘generally range from 0.1 to 0.25 for clay and claystone soil against ‘a concrete pier (Chen 1988; O'Neill 1988; Sorochan 1991; Nelson and Miller 1992). However, field test results atthe expansive soil field test site at Colorado State University (CSU) on instrumented full-scale concrete drilled piers indicated values of up to 0.9 in some cases (Benvenga 2005). The analyses conducted indicated thatthe value of a for clay soil against a concrete pier or grouted micropite will range from 0.4 to 0.7, depending on the soil-water content, A different range of a values would apply for a different pier material or a different soil type. ‘Shear Failure of Soil the ftiction between the soil and the pier is greater than the soil shear strength, soil failure will take place within a thin zone within the soil adjacent to the pier. The analysis of which failure mecha- nism will occur was previously discussed. Thus, it is important to accurately characterize the soil shear-strength parameters. ‘The finite-element code takes into account the decrease in soil shear strength for strains greater than that at which peak strength is reached. Thus, both peak and residual values of shear strength must be determined. For unsaturated soils, the shear-strength parameters should also account for soil suction in a manner similar to the formulation presented by Fredlund et al. (1978) and Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993) Variations in the Soil Profile Careful and accurate characterization of the entire soil profile to the full depth that will influence the behavior of te pier is an important clement of pier design. I the depth of exploration is too shallow, or if an insufficient number of samples is collected and tested in the laboratory, small variation in the soil profile will not be detected. For this reason, itis strongly recommended that continuous core samples be collected during site investigations whenever possible; therefore, small variations in the soil profile can be identified and accounted for in pier analysis. 950 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012Validation of the Design Procedure ‘The credibility and accuracy of the design procedure was evaluated by comparing computed results with field-measured data from project sites where measurements of pier heave or tensile force along with reliable soil profile characteristics were available. Four sites were selected for the validation process, including the Woodward Govemor Facility in Loveland, Colorado; the CSU expansive soil test site; and two sites in Sudan established by the Building and Road Institute of the University of Khartoum. For each of the validation cases, the soil profile and laboratory test results were used to create a representative soil profile for cach example piet. The total free-feld heave and the distribution of the soil heave with depth were determined using the methods for predicting incremental heave reduced for partial saturation according to the procedures presented in Overton et al. (2010) and Nelson et al. (2006). The relevant geotechnical properties ‘ae summarized in Table 1. Fig. 6 shows the resulting soil heave istibution for each case. The horizontal axis shows the soil heave expressed as percent vertical strain. Woodward Governor Facility ‘The Woodward Governor Facility is a heavily-loaded manufactur- ing facility located on an expansive soil stein Loveland, Colorado. Structural distress was experienced several years after construction Table 1. Geotechnical Properties forthe Validation Cases (Attwooll etal. 2006; Overton etal, 2007). The foundation consists of drilled concrete piers having a diameter of 750 mm installed to a depth of 7.0 m. The sol profile atthe site consists of approximately 3.8-4.3 m of silty/sandy clay underlain by claystone of the Pierre Shale formation. The piers were constructed below the basement level with the top of the piers being about 6 m below the top of the original grade. Thus, the piers are located entirely within the Pierre Shale. The relevant soll properties are presented in Table 1 CConsolidation-swell tess on samples from depths and locations that had not been wetted indicated a fairly uniform percent sivell and swelling pressure. The soil properties shown in Table | were used to represent the preconstruction conditions. ‘The liee-iel! hheave profile was calculated for a uniform soil as shows Fig. 6(@). Using the finite-element code and the heave profile shown in Fig. 6(@), the computed ultimate heave of « 75U-inm. diameter'pier with a dead load of 435 KN ranges from 345 (0 380 mm for values of E of 5,000 and 10,000 KPa, respectively For comparison purposes, ifthe clastic pier design method is useit (Nelson and Miller 1992), the computed ultimate pier heave is 460~ 470 mm for values of E of 5,000 and 10,000 kPa, respectively. ‘At the time of the investigation, the total ultimate pier heave hhad not yet been realized. Elevation surveys of the top ofthe piers hhad been conducted over a period of several years. To compare the computed pier heave with the elevation survey data, it was neces- sary to extend the survey data into the future to evaluate what the Se Depth Gm) Material Water content (%) Dry density (&N/m™) Sy (7) of, Pa) of, CPs) 0} KPa) Woodward Governor Facility 0-160 Claystone 3 202 73 1008S 40 Colorado State Univesity os Chay M40 173 190 9 Colorado State University Clay 9 177 29 ms9 a8 Colorado State University Weathered claystone 156 114 25 mss aD Colorado State University Weathered claystone 206 181 09 ims a9 Colorado State Univenity ‘Weathered clystone 104 116 38 09 207 Colorado State Univesity ‘Weathered clystone us 119 19 207 — 97 Colorado State University ‘Weathered claystone us 119 382873 297 ‘Sodan Site 1 chy 10 169 36 — (1860364 ‘Sudan Site 2 Clay ns 176 03 — 8800176 ‘Sudan Site 2 Chay 28 176 61 = 5030353 ‘Sudan Site 2 Chay m2 m9 50 = 4860537 ‘Sudan Site 2 3345 Clay 122 176 41 — 5200 709 ‘Not: Sol properties presented for Sodan sites are the authors best understanding and interpretation of de data presented in the Ierature Teremental Heave(%) Increment eave (%) Incremental Heave(%) _ IneromentalHeave (4) Sees, pein, eee, amps a 4 4 4 @24 #4 @24 Be Bi i 7 (a) 7 ) ° © ‘ @ Fig, 6. Soil heave profiles for validation cases: (2) Woodward Governor; (b) Colorado State University test site; (€) Sudan Site 1; (@) Sudan Site 2 JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012 / 951ultimate pier heave would be. Therefore, the measured pier heave was fitted to a hyperbolic function of the form __t “aah Pe @) where y= per heave; = time; and a and b= curve fing param- eters. From Eq, (8), the limit ofp, as time becomes very large i 1/b, which therefore represents the wtimate pier heave. This tech- niqe as been used previously for analysis of pier movement in expansive sil (Chao 2007; Overton etal. 2007), Fig. 7 shows the elevation survey data and the hyperbolic function for wo groups of piers that experienced excessive heave. The different hyperbolic funtion for diferent piers i a result of diferent rates of weting 1eis of particular intrest that theultimate heave given by the value ‘of 1/b has a very small ange, fom 385 to 420 mm. The range of valves of pier heave calculated wsing the design proce is also shown in Fig. 7. Fig. shows that good agreement fists between the computed value of heave and that determined {sing measured values. Comparison with the per heave predicted using the clastic pier design method. demonstrates improved accuracy with the use of the finite-element design procedure Colorado State University Test Site ‘The CSU expansive soils test site is located in an area of the Pierre Shale formation. The site has been documented by many investi- gations (Porter 1977; Goode 1982; Reichler 1997; Chapel 1998; Durkee 2000; Abshire 2002; Benvenga 2005). The soil consists Of approximately 05 m of organic silt and 0.9-1.2 m of clay underlain by claystone ofthe Sharon Springs member of the Pierre formation. There are several montmorillontic seams ranging up to about 150-mm thick, located at depths ranging from 1.5 to 5.5 m below the ground surface. Abshire (2002) presents a ‘summary of laboratory testing data for this site. The relevant soil properties are presented in Table 1. Four 3S0-mim diameter piers were installed at the ste to a depth ‘of 7.6 m in August 1995 (Chapel 1998). The piers were reinforced with three number 5 steel reinforcing bars placed in a triangular patter. Vibrating wire embedded concrete strain gauges were mounted in the center of each pier between the reinforcing steel at depths of 1.8, 31, 4.3, and 5.5 m below the ground surface. Irrigation water was placed on the site during the summer and fall top ofeach pier and the adjacent ground was monitored. Elevation surveys were referenced to a local deep benchmark anchored inthe Smoky Hills member of the Niobrara formation. The four piers ‘were installed in close proximity and had similar characteristics and behavior (Benvenga 2005). One pier was selected as avalida- tion example. During the time prio from August 1995 o August 1997, the fieeield heave adjacent to this example pier was ‘measured to be 64 mm, and the pier heave was 9 mm. ‘Readings taken of the suain gauges in October 1997 were used to calculate the tensile forces inthe pies The total fore in the pier was calculated using the values of strain along with the cross-sectional area and modulus of elasticity of the concrete and the stel in the pier. The method of calculation is presented in Benvenga (2005). The fiee-feld heave profile was computed using the soil data presented in Table 1. This profile was used as input to the finite-element code to compute the tensile force profile in the pie. “The masured and computed fores inthe pier are shown in Fi. 8. There is generally good agreement between the measured and calculated values for the upper three strain gauges. For the lowest strain gauge, at a depth of 55 m, the measured strain was 150% 10-®, which exceeded the failure strain of the concrete which was estimated to be approximately 120-130 x 10-E, Thus, the concrete at this location was at leas partially eracked. The lo- cation of this strain gauge coincides with a montmorillonite seam, ‘which is believed to have caused the high tensile forees that re sulted inthe pier cracking. When the conerete cracks, the stain gauge readings are nota direct measurement of load transferred to the pice Cracking ofthe concrete i the pier resulted in a reduced cross-sectional area ofthe conerete. Also, any portion of the con- crete that may not have cracked would have undergone significant Yielding, Ihe concrete was not cracked, te force inthe per would have been almost 450 kN as shown, Fora fully cracked cross sec- tion, the force in the pier would be taken only by the steel and ‘would be equal to 18 KN, as shown by the open dot in Fg. 8. Fora partially eracked and or yielded section, the force a this depth ‘would be somewhere between those two values. Force (KN) 0 1S 180 225 300 375 450 months for the period of September 1995 through October 1997. - ‘The water content profiles were measured over an extended time > period using a downhole nuclear gauge. The movement of the 1 450. . T 400 7 | i 350 | F se0- a 1 Eon a t cl i. = 200 1] ox Menard Pare ce t Zio event tte 6 Nectnyoron re Sc er + |aan: Mert ; ff | Vemma rextrerene EE ene ve — Predicted Fore : T T T T T & @ Measured Force: 1000” 2000 "3000 "4000 "5000 "600 © Measured Fors (Ccked) Time (days) ° Fig. 7. Elevation survey data in hyperbolic form compared with pier heave computed for the Woodward Governor building Fig. 8. Measured versus predicted axial force in the concrete pier for the Colorado State University test site 952 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012Good agreement is seen between the measured force values at the upper three strain gauges. The curve falls appropriately between the upper and lower bounds of the measured force at a <éepth of 5.5 m. Simple integration of the strain along the length of the pier using the results shown in Fig. 8 demonstrate that the elongation of the drilled pier is conservatively equal to 0.8 mm. ‘when the cross-sectional area of the steel alone is considered. ‘The measured piet heave was 9 mm. The elongation of the pier contributed to less than 10% of the measured pier heave. Thus, the assumption thatthe pie is rigid, relative to the soil, is justified for a typical drilled pier configuration. ‘The computed pier heave for this time period was 4 mm, and the measured pier heave was 9 mm. These measured and observed values of pier heave are both quite small and within the accuracy of the design method and the measured heave. Of greatest importance is the fact that the values of the internally measured forces agree ‘well with the computed values. Even for small values of heave, the ‘measured and computed values of internal force agreed well, which indicates the validation of the design procedure. ‘Sudan Building and Road Research Institute Test Sites ‘Two expansive soil test sites were established in Wad Madani and liao, Sudan, by the Building and Road Institute of the University ‘of Khartoum and are presented in several references (Mohamedzein ct al. 1999; Osman and Elsharief 1999; Al-Rawas and Goosen 2006). Straightshaft concrete test piers were constructed at both sites prior to the rainy season of 1985. The piers were 250 mm in diameter with lengths ranging from 1 to 4 m. The test sites were flooded during the rainy season, and the pier and ground heave were measured for a period of 3.5 months. The relevant properties ae presented in Table 1. Fig. 9 shows the pier heave computed using the design pro- cedure along with the measured values as reported in the literature 300 , S hinewaesiet 250 |S Fritresocs ste s Ness Fam44 Farsi 5 ro Bie ie Sie per Ses 2 T E10 50- Nek | 0 + +7 das 11s 225 3 35 4 455 @ er Length) 300 © Phin Se? 280 rites Ste > | Net Ste2 # 200-teg Fomssrewesie? ETS] [a ea se Eo 2 Radi ie Z 10 . 0 f ott bet Dos 1 152 253.35 4 45 5 (b) ‘Pier Length (m) Fig. 9. Results forthe Sudan Sites: (a) Site 1; (b) Site 2 (Mohamedzein et al. 1999; Osman and Elsharief 1999; ALRawas ‘and Goosen 2006), The results show that the computed pier heave ‘agrees closely with the measured pier heave for both sites. This ‘demonstrates good agreement between the measured and computed pier heave, especially when itis considered that all data and com- putations were collected and performed independently. The elastic pier design method also predicts pier heave similar to the measured ‘Gata for these sites. This verifies that elastic pier design is slightly ‘more conservative than the design procedure presented, but never theless is applicable for standard drilled piers with simple heave profiles. ‘Comparison of the Design Procedure with Published Design Methods ‘The rigid and elastic methods have traditionally been used for analysis of piers in expansive soil (Chen 1988; Nelson and Miller 1992), The design procedure presented here represents an improve~ rent over these two methods and has much versatility, as previ- ously discussed, It is of interest to compare the design of a pier ‘using the finite-element code withthe design ofa pier in the same sil profile using the other two methods. ‘The first soil profile considered was one in which the soil had constant swelling pressure and uniform soil properties to a large depth, It was assumed thatthe soil was fully wetted throughout the felire soil profile and that there was no applied dead load on the pier. The heave profile for this example is shown in Fig. 10(a). ‘The horizontal axis shows the soil heave expressed as a percent vertical strain. "The design pier length is shown as a function of the pier heave in Fig. 11(a). The elastic method predicts greater heave than the finite-element code. The difference is significant, particularly if ‘one were to select the pier length based on a given value of allow- able heave, such as 50 mm. The two curves appear to converge 38 the heave approaches zero, at which point they agree well with the rigid pier case ‘The pier length forthe elastic method is govemed largely by the depth ofthe active zone, which in tis case isthe depth of potential heave. Also, the elastic pier method assumes that the free-feld heave profile varies linearly from a maximum at the surface to zero atthe depth of the active zone. As shown in Fig. 10(2), the lower several meters contribute very little to the free-field heave and even less to the pier heave. If only the upper portion of the heaving ‘zone to a depth contributing 90% ofthe heave is considered to be heaving, the heave profile would be truncated at a depth of about 10 m, as shown in Fig. 11(b). In that case, the design pier length would be shown in Fig. 11(6) and much closer agreement ‘would exist. Seldom is a heaving profile as uniformly varying as the one shown in Figs. 10(a) and 10(6) encountered in the field. At most project sites, the soil profile consists of different soil layers with variable swell values, resulting in a heave profile that doesn't those categories previously described, A heave profile for an actual project site near Denver was considered for an additional com- parison example, The heave profile is shown in Fig. 10(c). Soit Swelling toa depth of 18.3 m was predicted, with a total frec-fild heave of 155 mm. The design pier length is shown in Fig. 11(6) for the three design methods. The rigid and elastic analysis methods fare somewhat conservative compared with the results obtained using the finite-element code, ‘This comparison of the various methods of analysis demon- strates thatthe finite-element design procedure predicts pier heave values that are generally less than the existing elastic and rigid JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012 / 958Incremental Heave(%) Incremental Heave (22) Incremental Heave (%) es oe a 1 ' 1 s = = Z0 go 0 g £ 1s 4 » » 2 @ o © Fig. 10. Heave profiles for comparison of analysis methods: (a single swelling layer, fll depth; () single swelling layer to 10m; (¢) Front Range, Colorado example 350 qm E20 gm iso i 100 © 50. ° oF Is mas 303s @ er Length) am ‘Rigid Pie . [oo Rie er ee - Elastic Pier| ‘200: i FEM, 130 100 so4 a 7 oS was 20253038 0 rena my 200 > == Rigid Pier F iso =a Hat Pie i Fa es 7 i eo 7 2 50. a 5 bee o eee Fig. 11. Comparison of analysis methods: (a) single layer swelling {all dept (b) single layer swelling to 10 m; (c) Colorado Front Range profile pier analysis methods. Closer agreement between the methods is ‘observed for cases in which the depth of the heaving soil is trun- cated, because of a limited depth of wetting or because of the presence of nonexpansive soil underlying the expansive soil. The ‘most important observation that can be drawn from this compari- son is thatthe shape of the heave profile has a significant impact, on the difference between the methods. In cases where the heave profile has a logarithmic shape or highly variable shape, the existing rigid and elastic analysis methods may result in designs ‘with greater pier lengths. Nevertheless, the FEM of analysis is more rigorous and accurate for any heave profile. Conclusions ‘A general design procedure for piers in expansive soils has been presented, including a finite-clement-based analysis tool. The design procedure accurately predicts pier heave and force in a pier to a degree of accuracy that is sufficient for engineering practice, ‘when compared with field measured data. The finite-element code presents a versatile and robust analysis tool that addresses the limitations of the existing rigid and elastic pier analysis meth- ‘ods. The design procedure allows for pier analysis within complex soil profiles, where soil properties and water content vary with depth or piers with complex construction details, such as seg- ‘mented micropiles. “The importance of a thorough field investigation was empha- sized, The tensile force in the pier can be influenced significantly by discrete changes in the soil properties. To adequately character- ie even small features that can significantly impact the behavior of a pier, the collection of a sufficient number of samples for testing along with continuous core sampling is recommended t0 censure the soil profile is thoroughly characterize, ‘The pier heave and the tensile force are particularly sensitive to the value of Young's modulus of the heaving soil. Sufficient ‘are should be used to accurately determine the value of Young’s modulus, particularly for the heaving soil. The coefficient of skin fiction (a) also has a significant impact on both the pier heave and the tensile force. For all soil and interface properties, changes in the water content should be taken into account. ‘The computed pier elongation at the CSU test site was small ‘and justified the assumption in the finite-element analysis that a standard drilled pier is rigid, relative to the soil. For long slender piers or micropiles, the tensile strain in the pier can be computed from the force and integrated along the length to determine the elongation of the pier. Analyses performed by the authors indicate that micropile elongation is conservatively of a magnitude equal to 1-10 mm for typical micropile configurations. Elongation of ‘this magnitude justifies the assumption that a microple is rigid, relative to the soil. Elongation of as much as 10 mm would be acceptable if one considers that all micropiles installed beneath ‘a structure will elongate making the differential movement because cof elongation less than 10 mm, However, if differential of that 954 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012mount is of concer, it ean be computed and taken into account in the design, Compared with the existing rigid and elastic pier analysis methods, the fnite-clement-based design procedure generally pre- dicts lower pier heave values when considering a standard straight shaft concrete pet. The magnitude ofthe difference depends on the shape of the soil heave profile. The proposed design method is more realistic and provides a design tool with improved accuracy ‘compared with existing methods, References ‘Alsel-Halim, M. A, Hand AL-Qusem, M. M. (1995). Mode! studies on ‘bored piles in siff expansive clay” Int. J. Struct, 15(1), 38-88 [Absite, M.S. 2002}. "Differential moisture migration and heave beneath slabs over dipping expansive shale” M.S. thesis, Colorado State Univ For Collis, CO. [AlRawas, A. Av, and Goosen, M. FA. (2006). Expansive soils: Recent ‘advances in charactriation and teaoment, Taylor & Francs, London ‘Amit, J. Mand Sokolov, M. (1976). "Finite element analysis of piles in ‘expansive media” J. Geotech, Engrg. Di, 102(), 701119. Atwooll, B, Reis, J, and Lykosh, P, (2006). “Heave at manufacturing faclity: Observations and response.” Proc, 40h Int. Conf. on Unsatu- rated Soils, ASCE, Reston, VA, 147(1), 323-346. ‘allouz, M. 2005). "Mieropiling in kacstc tock: New CMFF foundation Solution applied at the Sanita factory” Proc, 10th Mutidisciptinary Conf. on Sintholes and the Engincering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, ASCE, Reston, VA, 311-321 Benvenga, MM. (2005). "Persil adhesioa factor for drilled shat piers in ‘xpansve soi” Master's thesis, Colorado State Univ, Fort Collins, CO. Chao, KC (2007). "Design principles for foundations on expansive seis” PhD. dissertation, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO. Chapel, TA, (1998). “Feld investigation of helical and conerete piers in expansive sil,” M.S. thesis, Colorado State Univ. Fort Collins, CO. (Chen, FH (1965), “The se of pies to prevent the uplift of lightly loaded ‘structures founded on expansive soils” Proc, Int. Conf. on Expansive Soil, Texas A&M Press, College Station, TX. Chen, FH. (1988), Foundations om expansive sols, Elsevier, New York. {Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers (CAGE). (1999). "Com- mentary on geotechnical practices, deed pier design criteria for Tightly loeded structures in the Denver metropolitan area” CAGE. Professional Practice Committe, Glendale, CO. Desai,C.S, Zaman, M, M., Lighter J.C. and Siriwardane, H. J. (1984). ““Thin-layer elements for imerfaes and joints” Int. J. Numer. Anal Methods Geomech, 8, 19-43, Dutkee, D. B. (2000), “Active zone depth and edge moisture variation distance in expansive soils.” PhD. dissertation, Colorado State Univ, Fort Collins, CO. Federal Highway Adminisaton (FHWA), (2005). “Micropile design and ‘onsirution” Publication No. FHWA NHILOS.039, Federal Highway ‘Administration, Washington, DC. Feng, J, Zhou, D-P, Jang, N, and Yang, T. (2006) "A model for ealeu- Teton of intemal force of micopile sytem to reinforce bedding rock slope.” Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng.,25(2), 284-288, Freund, D. G, Hasan, J. U., and Filson, H, (1980), “The prediction of total heave Proc, 4h Int. Conf om Expansive Sols, ASCE, Reston, Va, 1-11 Frediund, D. G,, Morgenstem, N.R, and Widger, R.A. (1978). "The shear strength of unsatrated soils” Can. Geotech J, 15(3), 313-321 Fredlund, D.G., and Rahardjo, H, (1993), Soll mechanics for unsarurated soils, Wiley, New York Goode, J.C. (1982), “Heave prediction and moiscure migration beneath slabs on expansive s0ilk” M.S. thesis, Colorado Ste Univ. Fort Collins, CO. Hong. G. T (2008), “Earth pressures and deformations in civil infrastruc- ture in expansive soil.” PRD. disseration, Texas A&M Univ, College ‘Station, TX. Justo, J. La Saum, J, Rodsifuer, J. B., Delgado, A., and Jaramillo, A (1984) "A fine’ element method w design and calculate pier foundations in expansive soils" Proc. Sth Int. Conf. on Expansive Soils, Academic Press, Jerusalem, 119-123. Katona, M. G. (1983). “A simple contact-frction interface element ‘with applications to buried culver” I. J. Numer. Anal, Methods Geomech 13), 371-384, ‘Kaufmann, K. L, Nielsen, B. N., and Augustesen, A. H. (2010). “Finite ‘clement investigations on the interaction between a pile and swelling Clay.” Tech. Rep. No. 104, Dept. of Civ Engineering, Aalborg Univ, ‘Aalborg. Denmark Kim, M.H. (1996), “fet of an expansive clay onthe behavior of drilled ‘shafts.” Ph.D. disseation, Uni. of Houston, Houston Kim, MH, and O'Neil M. W. (1998). “Sie shear induced in dried shaft by suction change.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124(8), 771-780. Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. ¥. (1969). “Soil mechanics” General tspects of drained siress-strain behavior, Wiley, New York, 300. Lytton, R. L. (1977), “Foundations in expansive soils” Numeriea! methods in_geotechnical engineering, C. S. Desai and J. T. Chin ot McGraw Hill, New York, 427-857, MeKeen, RG. (1992) "A model for predicting expansive weil bli. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Expansive Sols, Texas University 14> Lubbock, TX, 1-6. Mille, D. J, Dutkee, D. B., Chao, K. C., and Nelson, 1. 9. (1995 Simplified heave prediction for expansive soils Proc, Ua Soils Conf, A.A. Balkema, Rotedam, The Netherlands, $91-8 Mohamedzein, ¥.E, A., Mohamed, M, Gand Sharif, A. Mt E19) Finite element analysis of shor piles in expansive sis” Cong Geotech., 243), 231-245, Mohamedzein, ¥. E, A. and Nour Eldayem, FE, (2006). “The eflet of imerface onthe performance of piles in expansive soils” Proc, 0 ‘Arab Strict, Eng. Conf, Kuwait Univ, Kuvait, 13 Nelson, J. D. and Chao, K. C. (2010). “Depth of investigation for expansive soils” Proc, 17ik Southeast Asian Geotech. Con, sivas Geotechnical Society, Taipei, Taiwan. Nelson, JD, Chto, K.C., and Overton, D. D. (2007), "Design of pier foundations on expansive soils” Proc, 3rd Aslan Conf: on Unsanurated Soils, Science Pest, Baling. Nelson 1D, Chao, K.C., and Overton, D, D. (2008). "Modeting vase Zone water migration based on downhole nuclear gauge dat.” Pac 3rd Ine Cont. on Site Characterisation, Taiwan Geotechnical Society. “Taipei, Taiwan, Nelson, J.D, and Mille, D. J, (1992). Expansive soils. Problems and ‘practice in foundation and pavement engineering, Wiley, New York. Nelson, J. D, Reichler, D. K, and Cumbers, J. M. (2006). "Parameters for heave prediction by cedometer tests” Proc. 4th In Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, ASCE, Reston, VA, 951-961 Nooread, R.. and Saghaee, G. R. (200), “Seismic analysis of incined micropils using numerical methods” Proc. Int. Foundation Congress land Equipment Expo on Contemporary Topics in Deep Foundations, ASCE, Resto, VA, 406-413. O'Neill, M. W. (1988), “Adaptive model for drilled shafts in expansive clay” Proc, Geotech, Eng. Div. National Convention, ASCE, New York, 1-22 O'Neill, M. Wand Poormoayed, N. (1980). “Methodology for found ations on expansive clays” J Geotech Engrg. Div, 106(12), 1345-1367, (Osman, M, and Elharef, A. M. (1999). "Field experiments on ples in the ‘expansive soils of central Sudan.” Build. Road Res, J, 2, 17-26. ‘Overton, DD, Chao, KC and Nelson, J.D. (2006). "Tne rate of ewe ‘prediction Tor expansive soils” Proc, GeoCongress: Geotechnical Engineering inthe Information Technology Age, ASCE, Reston, VA, (Overton, D. D. Cha, K. C:, and Nelson, J. D. (2007). “Have distess ‘oft manufacturing builling” Pro, Geo-Denver 2007: Contemporary Issues in Deep Foundations, ASCE, Reston, VA. Overton, B. B., Chao, K. C., and Nelson, J. D. 2010). “Water content ‘profiles for design of foundations on expansive suis” Proc, Sth Int. Conf, om Unsaturaied Soils, CRC Press, London Pcomell, M, Ferregut, C.,Gos/dsppa, H., and Behr, (1993). "Data base for the design of piers in expansive soi.” Unsamated Soils: Proc 1993 ASCE National Convention and Exposition, S. L. Houston and W. K. Wray, eds, ASCE, New York, 211-222 JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012 / 985Ponter, A A. (1977). “The mechanics of swelling in expansive clays” MS. thesis, Colorado State Univ, Fort Collins, CO. Poulos, H. G.. and Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile foundation analysis and design, Wiley, New York. Reichler, D. K. (1997), “Investigation of variation in swelling pressure values far an expansive soil” M.S. thesis, Colorado State Univ, Fort Callin, CO. Russo, G. (2004), “Pull-scale load tests on instrumented micropiles” Proc Tins, Cis. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 1513), 127-135, Russo, G., and Viggian, C. (2003), “Full sale load tests on instrumented ricropiles: Technology and behav” Proc, BGA Tn. Conon Foun- dations, Innovations, Observations, Design and Practice, Thomas Telfort, London, 777-726. Sadek, M, an! Tsam, S. 2004). “Three-dimeasiona finite element analysis of We seismic behavior of inclined micrpiles." Soil Dyn. Earthquake Fig, 246), 473-485, Sack. Mand Shalvoue, I. (2006), “Iuence ofthe head and tip connec tion on the seis performance of micropiles.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng, 263), 451-68 Shah, and Soran, 1. (2004). "Seismic behavior of mcropile systems” Grownd Inprow, (3), 109-120. Shahzour, L, Sadek, Mand Ousta, R. (2001), “Seismic behavior of iieropiles used as foundation support elements, three-dimensional finite element analysis” Transportation Research Record 1772, ‘Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 84-90. Sivakumar Babu, G. L., Srinvase, M. B, Murthy, B.S. N., and Nataraj, M.S. (2008) “Bearing capacity improvement using micro piles: A case sudy" Proc, GeoSupport 2004: Drilled Shafts ‘Micropilng, Deep Mixing, Remedial Methods, and Specialty Founda tion, ASCE, Reston, VA, 692-699. Sorochan, E. A. (1991). Construction of buildings on expansive sil, ‘A.A. Balkema, Brookfield, VT. ‘Thompson, E. G. (2005). Am introduction to the fnie element method Theory, programming, and applications, Wiley, Hoboken, NI US, Anny Corps of Engineers. (1983). Technical manual TM 5-818-7, Foundations in Expansive Soils, Washington, DC. ‘Wang, H, Zhou, D., and Jiang, J. 20094). "Stability of compression piles inmicrople unit" Proc, 2nd Ii. Conf on Transportation Eng, ASCE, Reston, VA, 997-1002. Wang, Z.. Mei, G., Cai, G., and Yo, X_ (20096). "Dynamic finite ‘lenient analysis of micropile foundation in subgrade.” Proc., Recent ‘Advances in Soll Behavior, In Siu Test Methods, Pile Foundations, ‘and Turseling, ASCE, Reston, VA, 139-146, 956 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012