Geotecnical Manual

Geotechnical Manual
October 2000
SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

Geotechnical Manual
October 2000
Manual Notices
Manual Notice 2000-1
To: All Districts and Divisions
From: Kirby W. Pickett, P.E.
Functional Manual: Geotechnical Manual
Effective Date: August 29, 2000
Purpose
This manual is intended to guide the districts in performing geotechnical investigation and
design for project development.
Contents
The manual contains nine chapters – Field Surveys, Field Operations, Soil and Bedrock,
Classification and Logging, Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock, Foundations Design,
Retaining Walls, Slope Stability, Laterally Loaded Foundations, and Design Examples.
Instructions
This manual supersedes the previous Foundation Exploration and Design Manual.
Contact
For more information regarding any chapter or section in this manual, please contact the
Bridge Division Geotechnical Section.

Chapter 1
Field Surveys
Contents
This chapter contains the following sections:

Section 1 — Overview .......................................................................................................... 1-3
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................1-3
Section 2 — Preliminary Soil Surveys ................................................................................. 1-4
Overview...........................................................................................................................................1-4
Office Survey ....................................................................................................................................1-4
Field Survey ......................................................................................................................................1-5
Site Inspection...................................................................................................................................1-6
Data Acquisition ...............................................................................................................................1-7
Design Feature Consideration ...........................................................................................................1-7
Bridges ..............................................................................................................................................1-7
Retaining Walls and Embankments ..................................................................................................1-8
Section 3 — Final Soil Survey.............................................................................................. 1-9
Overview...........................................................................................................................................1-9
Existing Data.....................................................................................................................................1-9
Test Hole Location and Depth ........................................................................................................1-10
Subsurface Exploration Plan ...........................................................................................................1-12
Bridge Considerations.....................................................................................................................1-13
Stream Crossings ............................................................................................................................1-13
Grade Separations ...........................................................................................................................1-14
Load Considerations .......................................................................................................................1-14
Field Exploration ............................................................................................................................1-15
Retaining Wall Consideration .........................................................................................................1-15
Foundation Soil Investigation .........................................................................................................1-16
Soil Core Borings............................................................................................................................1-16
Groundwater ...................................................................................................................................1-17
Laboratory Testing ..........................................................................................................................1-17
Illumination and Signing Considerations ........................................................................................1-18
Slopes and Embankment Considerations ........................................................................................1-18
Cut/Fill Considerations ...................................................................................................................1-19
Soil Core Borings............................................................................................................................1-19
Groundwater ...................................................................................................................................1-19
Soil Testing .....................................................................................................................................1-19
Geotechnical Manual 1-1 TxDOT 9/00

Chapter 1 — Field Surveys Section 1 — Overview

Chapter 1 — Field Surveys Section 1 — Overview
Section 1
Overview
Introduction
Field surveys are very important for obtaining information about field conditions for design.
Incorrect data or overlooked features can lead to inappropriate designs and costly field
changes during construction. Field surveys are divided into two phases:
♦ Preliminary soil surveys
♦ Final soil survey
The preliminary soil survey obtains general information about the site to guide general early
project development. The final soil survey obtains detailed soils information to be used for
final design of specific project features. The next two sections address both types of field
surveys.

Chapter 1 — Field Surveys Section 2 — Preliminary Soil Surveys
Section 2
Preliminary Soil Surveys
Overview
The following paragraphs discuss preliminary soil surveys:

♦ Survey purpose
♦ Survey need
♦ Survey goals
Survey Purpose. The purpose of the preliminary soil survey is to examine the general soil
conditions at a construction project site, which will impact any proposed features of a
project. Identifying problem soil conditions prior to schematic development will enable the
designers to produce the most efficient and cost effective design. Problem soil conditions
may even dictate a different project alignment than that initially proposed: Building a grade
separation in the middle of a swamp is not very feasible.
Survey Need. The need for a preliminary soil survey is most acute for large projects
involving multiple bridges or retaining walls. Embankments may also be critical depending
on heights and soil strengths present at the site. In coastal areas with very soft soil,
constructing as little as six feet of fill can present a problem.
Survey Goals. Preliminary soil surveys should accomplish the following goals:
1. Identify general soil and groundwater conditions at the site.
2. Delineate any areas of exceptionally soft soils.
3. Identify any soil instabilities such as slope failures or geologic faults.
4. Identify long term instabilities such as riverbed migration.
5. Assess existing soil data.
The next subsections discuss

♦ Office survey
♦ Field survey
Office Survey
The purpose of the office soils survey is to examine all information in the files and literature,
which might yield useful information for the project. This office survey discussion covers
♦ Published literature
♦ Existing data

Published Literature. Typical soils information sources are

♦ Geologic maps (UT Bureau of Economic Geology)
♦ County soil survey (USDA)
♦ Topographic maps (USGS Quadrangle Maps)
An examination of the literature gives a general idea of the soil and topographic conditions
at the site. Examination of the topography can reveal problems such as sharp bends in
stream channels subject to migration.
Existing Data. Typical existing data, which is normally available, includes

♦ Old soil borings in plans
♦ Foundation construction records from permanent records (GSD Austin)
♦ Documentation of past construction problems from files or personnel
Quite often the existing soil borings are adequate for the new construction proposed at a
location if it is similar in scope to that which currently exists. If near surface soil conditions
are important, such as for retaining wall design, consider new borings if the surface soils are
sensitive to moisture changes.
Field Survey
The purpose of the field soils survey is to determine which site conditions to consider in
project planning. Failure to consider the site condition can lead to improper project features,
which are costly or impossible to build. Figure 1-1 shows the results of failing to properly
investigate the site. Discovering problem site conditions at the time of the final soil survey
can require redesign of the project resulting in months or years of delay.

Figure 1-1. Failure to do proper field investigation
The next subsections give guidelines for these areas of field surveys:
♦ Site inspection
♦ Data acquisition
♦ Design feature considerations
Site Inspection
A visit to the proposed project site reveals such problems as

♦ Bodies of water which may need special consideration
♦ Soft soils indicated by wet areas or characteristic wet land vegetation
♦ Unstable slopes or stream banks
♦ Migrating river channels
Immediately investigate any areas found which are soft at the surface if fill is to be placed or
roadway built in the area. Core borings need to be performed with special equipment
intended for exploration in such areas. The excuse that the area is too soft for normal coring
equipment to access is unacceptable.

Data Acquisition
If a need for soil core borings is determined based on the site inspection, soil core sampling
or other appropriate testing should be scheduled. Preliminary data to be obtained from the
field normally consists of
♦ Soil strengths
♦ Compressibility (for very soft soils only)
♦ Groundwater levels
♦ Swell potential for expansive clays
Due to the preliminary nature of the investigation at this point in project development, only
obtain one or two borings at a site. A simple bridge replacement project would not warrant
preliminary borings.
Soil Strengths. Soil strengths may be determined in the field with torvane testing on
recovered cores or in place vane shear testing of soils too soft to be sampled. Texas Cone
Penetrometer tests should be performed in firm soils.
Compressibility. Samples may also be tested in the laboratory in a triaxial shear device to
determine strength or a consolidometer to determine compressibility.
Groundwater Levels. Groundwater levels are especially important for facilities to be

constructed below existing grade. Should significant groundwater be present, provisions for
removing the water must be made in the project design. If possible, gravity drainage is
preferred to a pump station. Since groundwater levels vary seasonally, several months of
observations are desirable to determine the maximum probable groundwater level.
Groundwater levels are monitored with piezometers.
Swell Potential. Swell potential for expansive clays may be evaluated using Test Method
Tex-124-E. Soils that have significant swell potential may require stabilization.
Design Feature Consideration
Design features that warrant special attention at this time are

♦ Bridges
♦ Retaining walls and embankments
While the exact location of these features may not be know at the time, their presence on a
project will be known.
Bridges
Discussion on bridges in a preliminary soil survey covers these aspects:

♦ Approach embankment height

♦ Pier location
♦ Stream channel stability
Approach Embankment Height. Bridge approach embankment height may be limited

based on soil strength and compressibility. The presence of soft soils under bridge
approaches may require that the bridge be longer than usual in order to reduce the height of
the approach embankment. In extreme cases, the bridge approach height has been limited to
approximately six feet (2m). Subsurface stabilization methods may be utilized instead of
reducing embankment height.
Pier Location. The location of bridge piers may also need to be altered to avoid unstable
stream banks. The span lengths may have to be lengthened to span such areas. Should a
bridge pier be located in an unstable area, the foundations could be sheared off by a slope
failure.
Stream Channel Stability. The location of a structure with respect to stream meanders
should be considered. As the meanders migrate downstream, the location of the main
channel can change drastically. If at all possible, locate bridges on a relatively straight
section of a stream channel.
Retaining Walls and Embankments
The next paragraphs discuss

♦ Stability considerations
♦ Groundwater considerations
Stability Considerations. Retaining walls in fill sections and embankment fills have the
same considerations as for bridge approaches. These features also exert significant vertical
loads on the subgrade soils. The result of excessive vertical loading may be settlement or
bearing capacity failure.
Groundwater Considerations. Retaining walls proposed for cut sections must be evaluated
for groundwater conditions. It is preferable that groundwater levels be observed for a year
or longer to monitor seasonal variations. If excessive groundwater volumes are suspected,
monitor well pump down tests may be performed to determine the drainage system
requirements. Pump stations should also be designed with additional small pumps to handle
base flow from groundwater.

Chapter 1 — Field Surveys Section 3 — Final Soil Survey
Section 3
Final Soil Survey
Overview
The purpose of the final soil survey is to obtain adequate data for the final design of a
project. The goal is to obtain information for all project features at the same time. The
project features for which data is necessary are
♦ Bridges
♦ Retaining walls
♦ Slopes and embankments
♦ Sign structures
♦ Illumination
♦ Sound walls
♦ Pavements
All exploration should conform to the requirements set forth in Chapter 2, Field Operations
(see Section 1, Overview. ) The next subsections offer guidelines on these final soil survey
aspects:
♦ Existing data
♦ Test hole location and depth
♦ Subsurface exploration plan
♦ Bridge considerations
♦ Retaining wall considerations
♦ Illumination and signing considerations
♦ Slope and embankment considerations
Existing Data
Review all existing data prior to determining new data requirements. Old bridge plans are
the most common source of information. Any old borings that contain strength data are
normally adequate for new construction. If the old plans predate the early 1950’s, no
strength data is present, making new borings necessary if a structure is to be replaced. Old
Texas Cone Penetrometer data typically has an additional value listed, which is the weight
of the drill stem when the test was performed. You can ignore this number and need not
show it if the old borings are shown in new plans.
If a bridge widening is proposed, the existing core data—even if only descriptive with no
strength tests—is often adequate for the widening. Typically, the foundation loads for a

widening are lower than for the initial construction. In this situation, consult the foundation
construction records to verify as-built foundation lengths. The as-built lengths are then
matched in the new construction.
Test Hole Location and Depth
The number of holes required for foundation exploration is determined by the complexity of
the geological conditions and the length and width of the structure. The minimum number of
test holes for common types of structures is illustrated in Figure 1-2. Consider this test hole
configuration the minimum, and try not to space test holes more than 300 feet (100 meters)
apart. The next paragraphs offer discussion on these test hole location and depth topics:

Figure 1-2. Minimum number of test holes for common types of structures.

♦ Test hole location

♦ Test hole depth
Test Hole Location. Locate the test hole in an accessible area. Avoid these areas when
locating test holes:
♦ Overhead power lines - always
♦ Underground utilities
Avoid these areas if possible:

♦ Steep slopes
♦ Standing or flowing water
Deviations within a 20-foot (6-meter) radius of the staked location normally would not be
excessive, but note them on the logs and obtain the correct surface elevation.
Test Hole Depth. When determining the location and depth of test holes, give careful
attention to such factors as
♦ Lowering of gradeline for an underpass
♦ Channel relocations and channel widenings
♦ Scour
♦ Foundation loads
♦ Foundation type
As a general rule, drill a test hole 15 to 20 feet (4.5 to 6 meters) deeper than the probable tip
elevation of the foundation. Make an estimate of the probable tip elevation from the results
of Texas Cone Penetrometer tests and correlation graphs (Figures 5-14 through 5-18) and
experience with foundation conditions in the area. Special attention should be paid to major
structures where very high foundation loads may be encountered. If the depth of the boring
is questionable, consult the Bridge Division Geotechnical Section for a detailed analysis of
the projected foundation loads and foundation capacities.
Subsurface Exploration Plan
The next paragraphs cover these exploration plan topics:

♦ Preliminary borings
♦ Exploration plan variations
Preliminary Borings. The proper field performance of designs can only be assured when
adequate soil borings are obtained. On major projects, a small number of preliminary
borings should be obtained to aid in preliminary project layout. Preliminary borings will
determine the influence of soils on pavement design, embankment and cut slopes, retaining

walls, and bridge lengths. Once the preliminary soil borings are evaluated based on the
design features to be constructed, the final soil boring locations can be determined and
appropriate soil testing specified. It should also be noted that the design of lighting poles
and sign bridges also require soils information.
Exploration Plan Variations. The primary purpose of a test hole is to gain as much
information as needed and economically justifiable. Make every attempt to obtain 100
percent core recovery where conditions warrant. The exploration plan varies depending on
the final use of the data. Exploration for deep foundations is different than for retaining
walls or slope stability.
Bridge Considerations
Guidelines on the following topics appear below with respect to final soil surveys for bridge
design:
♦ Stream crossings
♦ Grade separations
♦ Load considerations
♦ Field exploration
Stream Crossings
Discussion on these types of stream crossings appears below:

♦ Minor stream crossings
♦ Major stream crossings
Minor Stream Crossings. Minor stream crossings do not require core borings in the river
channel. For channels of less than approximately 200 feet (60 meters) in width, a boring on
each bank as close to the water’s edge as possible will usually suffice. Should significantly
different information be obtained from one side of the channel to the other, a boring in the
channel may be necessary.
Major Stream Crossings. Major stream crossings require core borings in the channel if no
existing data is available. The usual set-up time to prepare the equipment for drilling on a
body of water is one week. Any requests for exploration requiring drilling in a channel
should clearly state that barges are required. Approximately one month of time is required
to transport the barges to the project location. See Figure 1-3 for an example of a drill rig
loaded on a barge. In addition, a site inspection by the driller is necessary in order to
evaluate site accessibility.

Figure 1-3. Drill rig loaded on barges
Plan foundation investigations for major stream crossings during times of seasonal low
flows to allow maximum access. This is usually in the summer.
Grade Separations
The normal boring interval for grade separations is approximately 200 to 300 feet (60 to 100
meters). If the structure borings indicate soft surface soils, perform additional borings for
the bridge approach embankments. Holes drilled for embankments should concentrate on
testing the upper soft soils with Texas Cone Penetrometer tests performed at 5-foot intervals
as a minimum. Additional testing may be required when Texas Cone Penetrometer tests are
less than 5 blows per foot (300mm).
Load Considerations
Exploration for bridge and other deep foundations should consider the magnitude of the
foundation loads anticipated. Obtain an initial estimate of the anticipated loads from the
structure designer. Once the initial boring is completed in the field, check to insure that an
adequate foundation design can be performed from the boring data obtained. All too often
boring inadequacies are discovered during the final structural design rather than during the
foundation investigation. This has resulted in delays while additional core borings were
performed.
The borings should extend a minimum of ten feet below the deepest foundation depth. A 15
to 20-foot (4.5 to 6-meter) depth below the anticipated foundation depth is typical.

Field Exploration
The exploration should include

♦ Test hole spacing
♦ Texas Cone Penetrometer tests
♦ Upper soil layer tests
♦ Soil and bedrock classification
♦ Soil profile
Test Hole Spacing. Test holes near each abutment of the proposed structure plus a sufficient
number of intermediate test holes to determine the depth and location of all significant soil
and rock strata 15 to 20 feet (4.5 to 6 meters) below the probable founding elevation. A
reasonable correlation between holes should be obtained. If reasonable correlation is not
obtained, additional test holes may need to be drilled.
Texas Cone Penetrometer Tests. Perform Texas Cone Penetrometer tests should be
performed at 5 or 10-foot (1.5 to 3-meter) intervals beginning at 5 feet (1.5 meters) of depth.
When taking triaxial samples, perform a Texas Cone Penetrometer test every 10 feet (3
meters). If a cohesionless material cannot be recovered while sampling for triaxial test
samples, take a penetrometer test of each 5 feet (1.5 meters) of non-recoverable material.
When testing by Texas Cone Penetrometer only, run a test at the first indication of a material
change.
Upper Soil Layer Tests. Test soft upper soil layers at 10-foot (3-meter) intervals in case a
shallow foundation issue should arise during design. This is particularly important at
proposed abutment locations for evaluating embankment stability. If high fills are expected
or exceptionally soft soils are encountered, additional exploration may need to be performed
in accordance with the section on exploration for slope stability.
Soil and Bedrock Classification. Fill out a complete soil and bedrock classification and log
record for each test hole on THD Form 513, including all information called for to complete
the form (see Chapter 3, Section 3, Logging).
Soil Profile. For large structures, as well as structures where the formations are non-
uniform, it is recommended that, during foundation exploration, the logger plot a pencil
profile of the material with test data using standard symbols. The logger and the engineer
can use a study of this profile to help to determine where additional test holes are needed.
Retaining Wall Consideration
The next subsections discuss these aspects of investigation for retaining wall design:
♦ Foundation soil investigation
♦ Soil core borings

♦ Groundwater
♦ Laboratory testing
Foundation Soil Investigation
Perform a detailed investigation of the foundation soils for retaining walls in advance of
final design. The strength of foundation soils may severely limit the height of walls, which
can be built without costly foundation improvement. Longer bridges and shorter walls may
be more cost effective on soft soils. Additional soil testing beyond normal Texas Cone
Penetrometer (TCP) testing is often required for evaluation of wall stability. Walls in
depressed sections of roadways should be investigated for groundwater. Special details may
be necessary to accommodate groundwater in depressed sections.
Walls anticipated as drilled shaft walls due to the proximity of a right of way line might not
be feasible in low strength soils. Tiedback walls may need to be substituted with a resultant
increase in right of way required. Soft soils behind a proposed tiedback wall may require
the use of longer tiebacks, which will not fit within the right of way. This is only a small
sample of issues, which can surface after a field investigation is completed.
Soil Core Borings
Obtain soil core borings for walls greater than 10 feet (3 meters) tall in areas with
questionable soils. Walls under ten feet tall require only minimal exploration if any at all.
In areas with very firm soils, no borings at all may need to be obtained based on previous
experience or existing borings in the area. For most soils, Texas Cone Penetrometer testing
alone is adequate. Install a piezometer in at least one borehole for monitoring for cut walls.
Include the following in your exploration:
♦ Soil borings
♦ Boring depth
♦ Cut considerations
♦ Soft soil samples
♦ Other soil sampling
♦ Need for prompt sampling
Soil Borings. Obtain soil borings at approximately 100 to 200 foot (30 to 60 meter) interval
in areas with soft soils. Soft soils typically have less than 10 blows per foot by the TCP test.
In general, boring spacing should not exceed 500 feet (150 meters) in firm soils. When the
Texas Cone Penetrometer values are more than 10 blows per foot (per 300 millimeters) for a
proposed wall height of 20 feet (6 meters) or less, no additional testing is required. Taller
walls may warrant additional testing. When additional testing is deemed necessary, samples
may be obtained for triaxial testing. For soils softer than 3 to 4 blows per foot (per 300

millimeters), in-place vane shear testing may need to be performed depending on wall
height.
Boring Depth. The depth of the boring should normally be as deep as the height of the wall.
The minimum depth is 15 feet (4.5 meters) unless rock is encountered. Five-foot (1.5-
meter) penetration into rock is adequate with the boring terminated at this point. Typically,
25-foot (7.5-meter) borings are adequate for most walls. In no case should borings extend
more than five feet into rock for fill walls. Borings for cut walls may need to penetrate rock
significant distances depending on the depth of the cut.
Cut Considerations. The depth of the boring should always consider the final grade lines
taking into account any cuts to be made. Borings for walls constructed in cuts should have
adequate penetration below the bottom of the cut with ten feet being considered a minimum.
Cantilever drilled shaft walls will require the depth of boring to extend the anticipated depth
of the shaft below the cut which is typically between one and two times the height of the
wall.
Soft Soil Samples. Exploration may include undisturbed samples for triaxial tests when
foundation stability is an issue on soft soils. Very soft soils (less than five blows per foot
TCP) will often require the in-place vane shear testing to accurately evaluate the soil
strength. Sampling for triaxial testing should not normally be attempted in hard formations
or when gravel is present.
Other Soil Sampling. Soil nailed and tieback retaining walls require that the soil behind the
proposed face of wall be tested and sampled if necessary. The soil strength behind these
wall types is critical to their design.
Need for Prompt Sampling. Begin sampling or testing as soon as possible in the boring, and
in no case deeper than 5 feet (1.5 meters).
Groundwater
Groundwater can present a serious problem for roadway sections constructed below existing
grade. Groundwater seepage can create soil instability during construction, increase design
loads on temporary shoring, and create a long-term drainage problem, which must be
addressed in the project design. Special details may be necessary to accommodate
groundwater in depressed sections. Monitor groundwater levels with piezometers, weekly or
monthly, over a period of several months for any walls to be built in depressed sections.
Laboratory Testing
Tests conducted in the laboratory include the triaxial compression and consolidation tests,
described in Chapter 4, Section 4, Laboratory Tests. The triaxial test is useful for
determining the shear strength at various overburden pressures for determining wall
stability. The consolidation test is used to evaluate potential settlement of embankments.
Both tests require that undisturbed samples be obtained and carefully packaged for transport

to a laboratory for testing. Very soft samples require special packaging to minimize
disturbance during transport.
Illumination and Signing Considerations
Conduct foundation investigations for high mast illumination and overhead sign structures
when other borings are not located nearby. The depth of the boring should be approximately
25 feet (7.5 meters) for overhead sign structures in average soils. In soft soils the depth
should be 40 feet (12 meters). High mast illumination borings should be 30 to 50 feet (9 to
15 meters) deep depending on
♦ Soil consistency
♦ Height
♦ Design wind speed
Slopes and Embankment Considerations
Slope and embankment problems can seriously impair the serviceability of a facility.
Inadequate field investigations can lead to project construction delays while slope stability
issues are addressed. Slope stability generally refers to a rotational soil failure of a soil
mass. The soil mass is usually the side slope of an embankment or the side slope in a cut.
Two conditions must be examined:
♦ Short-term stability
♦ Long-term stability
Short-term Stability. Short-term stability can usually be evaluated with TCP testing of the
soil beneath the proposed embankment.
Long-term Stability. Long-term stability affects side slopes and may require laboratory
testing of undisturbed soil samples for evaluation. Proposed embankments obviously cannot
be sampled and tested, so experience with past embankments in the area must be used to
determine acceptable side slopes.
The next subsections give guidelines for these topics in regard to slope and embankment
problems:
♦ Cut/fill considerations
♦ Soil core borings
♦ Groundwater
♦ Soil testing

Cut/Fill Considerations
Constructing a fill increases the state of stress in the underlying soil. This stress increase
may lead to a stability failure or excessive settlement when the fill is built on soft soils.
Removing natural soil to lower a roadway profile reduces the state of stress in the soil. This
reduction can result in heave in expansive soils. Also, the reduction in stress can result in
softening of the sideslopes with subsequent slope stability problems.
Soil Core Borings
Obtain soil core borings for cuts greater than 10 feet (3 meters) deep or embankments
greater than 15 feet (4.5 meters) high in areas with questionable soils. In areas with very
firm soils, no borings at all may need to be obtained based on previous experience or
existing borings in the area. For most soils, Texas Cone Penetrometer testing alone is
adequate.
The exploration should include

♦ Soil under future embankments
♦ Soil in proposed cuts
Soil Under Future Embankments. Sample the soil under future embankments much as for
retaining walls. Test and sample soft soils as necessary. Based to the size of the
embankment, soil borings may need to extend deeper than 25 feet (7.5 meters) in soft soils.
Soil in Proposed Cuts. Soil may need to be sampled in proposed cuts to determine the
allowable slope angle for stability. This type of stability problem manifests itself after a
number of years as shallow mudflow type failures within the side slope. Also, determine
groundwater levels in cut sections since this will affect stability. Borings normally only
need to extend five to ten feet below the finished grade of the cut.
Groundwater
The presence of ground water in cut sections can require the use of additional drainage
features in a project. French drains may need to be installed on the outside edge of the
roadway to intercept water inflow. Pavement under drains may also be necessary to relieve
hydrostatic pressure underneath the roadway. Seepage forces in sideslopes can reduce slope
stability. As a result, knowledge of the groundwater conditions is desirable for roadway
cuts.
Soil Testing
Most slope and embankment problems are the result of long-term softening of high plasticity
clay soils. Deep-seated failures of newly placed embankments involve the short-term soil

properties of the subgrade soils. The following soil tests are appropriate for these two
conditions:
♦ Short-term property tests
♦ Long-term property tests
Short-term Property Tests. The short termed or undrained soil properties may be determined
from
♦ Texas Cone Penetrometer
♦ In Place Vane Shear
♦ Triaxial Test (UU)
♦ Direct Shear test
These tests may all be conducted quite rapidly and inexpensively.
Long-term Property Tests. The long termed or drained soil properties may be determined
from
♦ Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test ( R )
♦ Drained Direct Shear Test
These tests take days to weeks to perform and are quite expensive, while the results are
sometimes inaccurate and difficult to apply. The long-term strengths of clays soils may also
be estimated based on the plasticity index property.

Chapter 2
Field Operations
Contents

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................2-3
Section 2 — Drilling ............................................................................................................. 2-4
Overview...........................................................................................................................................2-4
Core Drill Equipment........................................................................................................................2-4
GSD Drill Rig ...................................................................................................................................2-6
Site Preparation .................................................................................................................................2-6
Access ...............................................................................................................................................2-8
Utility Clearance ...............................................................................................................................2-9
Traffic Control ................................................................................................................................2-10
Drilling Mud ...................................................................................................................................2-10
Barge Work .....................................................................................................................................2-10
Drill Hole Filling ............................................................................................................................2-11
Section 3 — Sampling Methods ......................................................................................... 2-12
Overview.........................................................................................................................................2-12
Dry Barrel or Single Wall Sampler .................................................................................................2-12
Diamond Core Barrel ......................................................................................................................2-12
Push Barrel or Shelby Tube Sampler ..............................................................................................2-12
Wash Sampling or Fishtail Drilling ................................................................................................2-13
Section 4 — Field Testing .................................................................................................. 2-14
Overview.........................................................................................................................................2-14
Field Tests and Equipment..............................................................................................................2-14
Texas Cone Penetrometer (TCP) Test ............................................................................................2-14
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) .....................................................................................................2-17
In-place Vane Shear Test ................................................................................................................2-17
Torvane & Pocket Penetrometer .....................................................................................................2-21
Monitoring Methods .......................................................................................................................2-22
Piezometers .....................................................................................................................................2-23
Piezometer Use ...............................................................................................................................2-23
Piezometer Installation Procedure ..................................................................................................2-23
Reading Frequency Guidelines .......................................................................................................2-24
Pneumatic Piezometer Alternative ..................................................................................................2-24
Inclinometers ..................................................................................................................................2-24
Inclinometer Use .............................................................................................................................2-24
Inclinometer Description ................................................................................................................2-24

Chapter 2 — Field Operations Section 1 — Overview

Chapter 2 — Field Operations Section 1 — Overview
Section 1
Overview
Introduction
Foundation exploration is one of the first steps in the design process. Procedures for
foundation exploration for sites cannot be reduced to a simple guideline to fit all existing
conditions. To acquire reliable engineering data, explore and analyze each job site
considering
♦ Subsurface conditions
♦ Specific type of proposed features
♦ Foundation loads
The engineer in charge of the foundation exploration must endeavor to furnish complete data
in order to make a study of practical design options.

Chapter 2 — Field Operations Section 2 — Drilling
Section 2
Drilling
Overview
Successful soil exploration requires careful advance planning to be conducted in the most
expedient manner. Proper drill site selection and preparation are essential to minimize drill
rig standby time and associated charges. Utility clearance is an essential item that cannot be
taken lightly or ignored. Disrupted utilities can result in a tremendous liability to the
department. The following are some detailed items to consider prior to commencing core
drill operations:
♦ Core drill equipment
♦ GSD Drill Rig
♦ Site preparation
♦ Access
♦ Utility clearance
♦ Traffic control
♦ Drilling mud
♦ Barge work
♦ Drill hole filling
Most of these items are common to either department drilling operations or the use of
drilling consultants.
Core Drill Equipment
Discussion follows on these areas of core drill equipment:

♦ Department drill rigs
♦ Drilling consultants
♦ District responsibility
♦ Special materials
♦ Rig features
Department Drill Rigs. Bridge foundation exploration is accomplished with wet rotary core
drill rigs. Figure 2-1 shows wet rotary drilling with a Falling 1500 drill rig. Three wet
rotary drill rigs operate in Texas as follows
♦ General Services Division (GSD) Austin
♦ Houston District

♦ Beaumont District
Figure 2-1. Wet rotary drilling with Failing 1500 drill rig
Drilling Consultants. Drilling consultants are used when additional drilling capacity is
needed. The terms of the individual consultant contract dictates how the contractor interacts
with department forces and what services the department must supply. Drilling consultants
use both wet rotary and continuous flight hollow stem auger drill rigs.
District Responsibility. The operation of the departmental drill rigs and the responsibility
for the personnel are the responsibility of the districts in which the rigs are located.
Generally, each rig serves some surrounding districts. Exploration work is scheduled
according to priority by mutual agreement between the districts as well as specific
assignments by the Bridge Division. The scheduling of the Austin based rig is directed by
the Bridge Division Geotechnical Section with rig maintenance and personnel furnished by
the General Services Division (GSD). The charges for the operation of the rigs are made to
the specific jobs involved.
Special Materials. The General Services Division has the responsibility of furnishing the
districts the special material listed in the Core Drill Parts Catalog. This includes
♦ Special core barrels
♦ Casing and drill stem
♦ Field testing equipment
♦ Texas Cone Penetrometer equipment
The GSD will assist the districts in any required manner with the operation and maintenance
of the equipment. The Bridge Division geotechnical engineers are available to districts to
assist with any special exploration needs or drilling problems.

Rig Features. The rotary core drill rigs are mounted on trucks. The truck engine powers
these rigs through a power takeoff mechanism that utilizes the truck transmission to give a
wide range of power and speed at the drill head. Other features of the rigs include
♦ Reciprocating type mud pump
♦ Hydraulically powered pull down
♦ Retracting drill head
♦ Portable mud pan
Each core drill unit, in addition to the rig, has a water truck. The water truck is equipped
with
♦ Storage space for
• Drill stems
• Casings
• Bits
• Other tools
♦ Water tank with a capacity of 450 to 800 gallons (1700 to 3000 liters)
♦ Vacuum water pump and hose for obtaining drilling water from any accessible source
GSD Drill Rig
Scheduling the GSD drill rig is a responsibility of Bridge Division Geotechnical Section.
Within each district, the district representative coordinates job priorities with the
Geotechnical Section of the Bridge Division. Since rain, water and mud are major
hindrances, it is normally recommended that the most difficult holes be drilled first if they
are accessible, saving the most convenient holes for last or to drill when the others can't be
reached. Normally, the GSD core drill works four ten-hour days, Monday through
Thursday.
Due to the long lead times for the Austin core drill, requests for drilling should be made six
months in advance of the time the information is needed.
In addition to the three-person crew of the GSD drill rig, the district must supply one person
to log the core borings.
Site Preparation
The next paragraphs deal with these site preparation issues:

♦ Level drill pad
♦ Overhead clearance
♦ Underground utility locations

Level Drill Pad. Drilling sites need to be prepared prior to arrival of the drill crew, since
waiting time is charged at the same rate as drilling time. The kelly and mast of the drill rig
are fixed to the truck bed and cannot swing, as some auger rigs can. The bed of the drill
truck must he leveled in order to drill a vertical hole. The truck is equipped with hydraulic
jacks that can lift the front of the truck one-foot off the ground and one-foot on either side to
accommodate uneven terrain. If the slope of the site is steeper than one foot, the district
needs to prepare a work pad 16 feet (5 meters) wide and 70 feet (20 meters) long to provide
for leveling the rig and providing a safe place for the crew to handle the drill stem. For
safety reasons, the crew is not allowed to block up the jacks to accommodate greater slope
angles. The mud pan must be level or slightly down slope. Prior to extensive site work,
consult the driller who performs the work for specific instructions. See Figure 2-2 for drill
site requirements.
Overhead Clearance. Overhead must be clear of obstructions. Trees cannot block the
raising of the mast. It is not safe to work within 25 feet (7.6 meters) of an overhead power
line. If it is necessary to work closer, the district will be asked to contact the power
company to cut the power or install insulating safety boots.
Underground Utility Locations. You must know the exact location of underground utilities
including
♦ High pressure gas lines
♦ Water lines
♦ Sewer and storm sewer lines
♦ Electrical and telephone conduits and cables
The driller will be available to inspect locations and make recommendations on site
preparation. Often it is possible to begin drilling easy sites while preparing more difficult
sites.

Figure 2-2. Drill Site Requirements.
Access
District personnel should insure that the drill crew has access to drill sites upon arrival.
Problems have arisen in the past from hostile farm animals and uncooperative landowners.
Bridges to be crossed must have a capacity of at least 32,000 pounds (14,500 kilograms)

Utility Clearance
All locations proposed for drilling must be cleared for utilities prior to arrival of the core
drill. When utilities are present, their exact location should be clearly marked by the utility
company. Figure 2-3 is an example of a general warning about the presence of utilities.
Avoid verbal communication of approximate locations. If drilling close to utilities, the exact
utility location should be marked on the ground with paint or flags.

Figure 2-3. Utility sign marking cable location
The current number to phone for utility clearance is 1-800-545-6005. Calls to this number
automatically rotate to the three notification centers. Utility clearance must be obtained at
least 48 hours and no more than 14 days prior to commencing core drilling. The three
notification centers may be contacted directly as follows:
♦ Texas Excavation Safety System (TESS) 1-800-344-8377
♦ Lone Star Notification Center 1-800-669-8344
♦ Texas One Call 1-800-245-4545
Traffic Control
The district will provide traffic control, flaggers, signs and cones when appropriate.
Associated charges will be made directly to the appropriate district account.
Drilling Mud
Drilling mud is available from the General Warehouses for use with the GSD drill rig. The
crew normally moves with five to ten bags, but resupply is expected from the District
Warehouse. Requirements vary widely with drilling conditions, but a general rule of thumb
is a bag and a half per hole.
Barge Work
When a bridge must cross large bodies of water, barges are used to obtain foundation
information. The district representative should contact the Bridge Division Geotechnical
Section core drill coordinator as soon as the need is known so use of the barges can be
planned with adequate lead-time. The district will also have to provide personnel for
assembly and launching of the barges. See Figure 1-3 for a photo of a drill rig on a barge.

Drill Hole Filling
Drill holes must be filled or plugged. This prevents injury to livestock or people in the area
and also minimizes the entry of surface water into the borehole. If surface contamination of
lower aquifers or cross contamination is a concern, backfill the hole with bentonite pellets or
grout. This is especially important in urban areas where ground contamination from leaking
underground storage tanks is a common occurrence.

Chapter 2 — Field Operations Section 3 — Sampling Methods
Section 3
Sampling Methods
Overview
This section discusses the following sampling methods:

♦ Dry barrel or single wall sampler
♦ Diamond core barrel
♦ Push barrel or Shelby Tube Sampler
♦ Wash sampling or fishtail drilling
Dry Barrel or Single Wall Sampler
The dry barrel sampler is commonly used to obtain cores for visual soil and bedrock
classification and logging. The core sample obtained is generally in a disturbed condition
due to the pressure applied when cutting the core and packing it into the barrel for recovery.
The core is extracted from the barrel by water pressure. When used for sampling in
practically all foundation materials, except very soft clays (mucks) and cohesionless sands,
the dry barrel sampler obtains a sample containing all components in the original formation.
The amount and degree of disturbance depends upon the consistency and/or density of the
material. Although this method is called the dry barrel method, circulating water is used. In
hard formations, a smaller volume of water is circulated while cutting the core.
Diamond Core Barrel
Diamond core barrels are used to obtain intact rock samples for field or laboratory tests and
classification. The diamond barrel sampler has an inner and outer barrel. The inner barrel is
slightly oversized with a spring loaded core retainer at the bottom.
Push Barrel or Shelby Tube Sampler
The next paragraphs cover these push barrel sampler topics:

♦ Push barrel sampler description
♦ Push barrel sampler procedure
Push Barrel Sampler Description. The push barrel sampler is used to obtain relatively
undisturbed soil samples for field and laboratory tests and soil classification. This device
consists of a thin walled tube 24 to 36 inches (600 to 900 millimeters) long with one end
sharpened to a cutting edge and the other end reinforced and designed for easy attachment to
the drill stem coupling. It employs the principle of steadily pushing the thin walled tube into
the formation with the hydraulic pull down of the drill rig. This sampler recovers very good

Chapter 2 — Field Operations Section 3 — Sampling Methods
undisturbed samples where it is adaptable, but its usefulness is limited to materials which it
can be forced into and which have sufficient cohesion to remain in the barrel while the
sampler is being withdrawn from the hole.
Push Barrel Sampler Procedure. A step table of this procedure appears below:
Push Barrel Sampler Procedure
Step Action
1 Force sampler into formation with slow, steady push to within 3 to 4 inches
(75 to 100 mm) of length.
2 Rotate sampler several turns to shear off core at bottom before withdrawing
it.
3 Bring push barrel to surface
3a detach barrel from coupling
3b mount barrel on the hydraulic sampler extruder
3c extrude core.
4 Cut core into 6 inch (150 mm) lengths and wrap in thin plastic (plastic wrap
for foods) to retain moisture content.
5 Place samples in cartons for transport to the laboratory for testing.
When sampling soft soils, sample disturbance can be a problem during transport to the
testing location. To insure minimum disturbance, support soft samples in their cartons. Fine
dry sand poured around the sample in the carton provides excellent support during transport.
Store samples that are not immediately tested in a moist room.
Wash Sampling or Fishtail Drilling
Although there are many methods for penetrating overburden soils, only those that offer an
opportunity for sampling and testing the foundation materials without excessive disturbance
are recommended. Therefore, do not use wash sampling or fishtail drilling, and instruct the
core driller not to utilize this method unless absolutely necessary. Attempts to classify the
soil materials by watching the wash water may lead to erroneous conclusions about the
subsurface soils being penetrated.

Chapter 2 — Field Operations Section 4 — Field Testing
Section 4
Field Testing
Overview
This section covers field tests and equipment and monitoring methods.
Field Tests and Equipment
Field tests and equipment include

♦ Texas Cone Penetrometer (TCP) Test
♦ Standard Penetration Test
♦ In-place Vane Shear Test
♦ Torvane and pocket penetrometer
Texas Cone Penetrometer (TCP) Test
The next paragraphs discuss these elements of the TCP test:

♦ Need
♦ Development
♦ First use
♦ TCP test procedure and guidelines
♦ TCP correlation graphs
♦ Old TCP data
Need. Prior to 1940, no consistent soil testing was performed to determine soil and rock
load carrying capacity for foundation design. Around this time, the Bridge Division formed
a bridge foundation soils group. This group oversaw foundation design and field load tests
of foundations for capacity verification.
Development. One of the first projects of the foundation soils group was to develop a
reliable soil test method for use in all soil and rock types with the exploration drill rigs. The
Texas Cone Penetrometer (TCP) test was then developed with cooperation from the
Materials & Tests and Equipment & Procurement Divisions. The test utilized a hardened
conical point that could be driven into soil or hard rock. This eliminated the need to obtain
samples for laboratory testing saving valuable time and money. Furthermore, the in situ test
better evaluated rock formations that are difficult to test in the laboratory under realistic
confining pressures.

First Use. During the next fifteen years, the shear strengths of various soils were correlated
with the Texas Cone Penetrometer test results. Load test data from piling and drilled shafts
was also considered in the development of the correlation factors. The Texas Cone
Penetrometer test as it exists today was first used in 1949. Texas Cone Penetrometer data
first started to appear in department plans around 1954. The test procedure and correlation
charts were first published in the 1956 edition of the Foundation Exploration and Design
Manual. (It is interesting to note that the Standard Penetration Test was developed at about
the same time.) The Texas Cone Penetrometer correlation factors were modified slightly in
1972 and 1982 based on accumulated load test data for piling and drilled shafts. Predicted
foundation capacities and field load test results continue to correlate exceptionally well.
TCP Test Procedure (Test Method Tex-132) and Guidelines. The test is performed as
follows:
TCP Test Procedure
Step Action
1 Attach penetrometer cone to drill stem.
2 Lower stem to bottom of cored hole.
3 Attach anvil to top of drill stem.
4 Place automatic hammer on top of anvil.
5 Seat penetrometer cone.
6 Make reference marks.
7 Drive cone 12 inches into relatively soft materials or 100 blows into hard
materials.
8 Make TCP test at regular intervals and changes in stratum.
1. Attach 3-inch (75-millimeter) diameter penetrometer cone to the drill stem.
2. Lower stem to bottom of cored hole.
3. Attach the anvil to the top of the drill stem.
4. Place the automatic 2' (600mm) drop tripping mechanism with the 170-pound (77-
kilogram) hammer in position on top of the anvil.
5. Seat penetrometer cone. Drive the penetrometer cone 12 blows or 12 inches (300 mm),
whichever comes first, to seat it in the soil or rock.
6. Make reference marks on the drill stem at 6-inch (150-millimeter) increments to prepare
for the test.
7. Drive cone 12 inches into relatively soft materials or 100 blows into relatively hard
materials.
7a. Drive the cone with the hammer in two 6-inch increments, a total of 12 inches (300 mm)
into relatively soft materials. (Refer to the penetrometer point and hammer in Figures 2-4

and 2-5.) Note on the log the number of blows required for each 6-inch (150-millimeter)
increment.
Figure 2-4. Penetrometer point
Figure 2-5. Penetrometer hammers (Fully automatic on left, automatic trip on right)
7b. In hard materials, the cone is driven with the resulting penetration in inches accurately
recorded for the first and second 50 blows for a total of 100 blows.

In either case, drive the penetrometer point into a formation 6 inches (150 mm) or 50 blows
for each increment, depending upon which occurs first. Experience with the Texas Cone
Penetrometer (TCP) Test indicates that the number of blows of the hammer for the first 6
inches (150 mm) and the second 6 inches (150 mm) of penetration should be recorded
separately as this is indicative of the general type of material. If the soil material is granular,
the number of blows for the second 6 inches (150 mm) is significantly greater than that for
the first 6 inches (150 mm). If it is clay, the number of blows required for the first and
second 6 inches (150 mm) are generally about the same.
8. Make TCP test at regular intervals and changes in stratum. Make the Texas Cone
Penetrometer (TCP) Test at each 5-foot (1.5 meter) to 10 foot (3 meter) interval of hole and
at each significant change in stratum.
TCP Correlation Graphs. Graphs based upon research and past experience with the TCP
Test supplement this manual. These graphs show the relationship between the test results
and the shear strength of the soils as calculated in the laboratory and the relationship
between the test results and the measured dynamic driving resistance. Chapter 5, Section 4
gives discussion on using these graphs in design.
Old TCP Data. Old Texas Cone Penetrometer data from existing plans typically has an
additional value listed that is the weight of the drill stem when the test was performed. This
number can be ignored and need not be shown if the old borings are shown in new plans.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
The Standard Penetration Test uses a 2 inch (50 millimeter) diameter pipe (split spoon)
driven with a 140 pound (63.5 kilogram) hammer at a drop of 30 inches (750 millimeters).
The test is described in ASTM procedure D 1586. This test is recommended mainly for
granular soils but has been used in cohesive soils. It cannot be used in rock. It correlates
roughly with the Texas Cone Penetrometer test as follows:
Clay: Ntcp = 1.5 Nspt
Sand: Ntcp = 2 Nspt
The general use of the Standard Penetration Test for foundation exploration is not
recommended. The test correlations presented here are intended only for approximate
evaluation of design adequacy from outside sources and not recommended for normal
foundation design work.
In-place Vane Shear Test
The next paragraphs discuss these in-place vane shear test topics:
♦ Test description and use
♦ In-place vane shear description

♦ Test procedure
Test Description and Use. The In-place Vane Shear Test is used to determine the in place
shearing strength of fine-grained soils, which do not lend themselves to undisturbed
sampling and triaxial testing. The test consists of
♦ Four bladed vane which is rotated into undisturbed material
♦ Device for measuring the torsion required to fail the cylindrical surface area of soil
being sheared by the vanes
Use this test when encountering

♦ Organic silty clays (mucks)
♦ Very soft clays
These materials, however, must be free of gravel or large shell particles, since pushing the
vanes through these obstructions would disturb the sample and probably cause physical
damage to the vanes. Use the test with extreme caution in soils that require over 20 blows
per foot (300 mm) with the Texas Cone Penetrometer.
In-place Vane Shear Description. The In-place Vane is composed of four 2 inch by 8 inch
(50 by 200 mm) stainless steel vanes welded to a stainless steel rod. See a picture of the In-
place Vane Shear, Figure 2-6, below. This rod is attached to a torque pipe which is mounted
in a housing with two tapered roller bearings spaced about two feet apart. It is designed to
resist a force in any direction. The vane assembly connects to the drill rod that extends to the
top of the ground. A splined shaft threads into the drill rod at the surface of the ground. The
splined hub of the torque pulley engages the splined shaft. The torque table assembly
attaches rigidly to the drill rig. This assembly utilizes a proving ring and strain gauge with
gearing apparatus to apply and to measure the torque necessary to test the shear strength of
the soil.

Figure 2-6: In-place vane shear
Test Procedure. The following procedure is recommended for performing the in place vane
shear test of soils that are consistently uniform and without gravel:
In-place Vane Shear Test Procedure
Step Action
1 Carefully lower vane assembly into cored hole.
2 Attach sufficient drill rods to vane assembly.
3 Attach spline rod to drill stem.
4 Slowly push vane into soil.
5 Lower torque table assembly over spline.
6 a. Adjust pulley cable
b. Inspect setup
c. Turn handle
d. Release cable
e. Adjust proving ring dial
f. Record initial reading.
7 Begin test.
8 Record reading from proving ring dial gauge.
9 Repeat steps 6 through 9, if desired.
10 Push vane further into undisturbed soil and repeat steps 6 through 9
until completing test.
1. Carefully lower vane assembly into cored hole.
2. Attach sufficient drill rods to the vane assembly to clear the rig pushdown with the vane
resting on the bottom of the cored hole and the spline rod added.

3. Attach spline rod to drill stem.
4. Slowly push vane into soil. With the drill rig hydraulic pushdown, slowly push the vane
into the undisturbed soil three vane diameters. Do not exceed 400 psi (2760kPa) pushdown
as indicated on the drill rig hydraulic gauge.
5. Lower the torque table assembly over the spline and bolt it to the spider support on the
rig.
6. Adjust the pulley cable for proper alignment and take up the slack. Inspect the setup in
general. Slowly turn the handle clockwise until tension begins to record on the proving ring
dial gauge. Release the cable to zero tension. Adjust the proving ring dial to zero reading
and record the initial torque pulley reading in degrees.
7. Begin the test by turning the handle clockwise at a rate of 20 revolutions per minute or 3
seconds per revolution. The vane will rotate at the rate of 6 degrees per minute in a
clockwise direction.
8. Record reading from the proving ring dial gauge every 10 seconds, or at each one degree
rotation of the torque pulley. Record the peak and ultimate values.
9. Repeat steps 6 through 9 to determine the disturbed or remolded strength, if desired.
10. Push the vane further into undisturbed soil three vane diameters and follow steps 6
through 9 until the test series is completed.
The formula for the design strength or one half the ultimate shear strength of the soil is:
S = (.0015264)(Dial Gage Reading) Tons/Ft2 or (.14617)(Dial Gage Reading) kN/M2
See Figure 2-7 for a photo of performing test.

Figure 2-7. Performing test
Torvane & Pocket Penetrometer
These two test devices are useful for index and classification purposes. They only yield
approximate information and are not suitable for foundation design.
Torvane. The torvane is a small, hand-held, spring-loaded device that is pressed into the
sample and turned. A scale on the knob reads the approximate ultimate shear strength of the
sample. Refer to Figure 2-8 for a picture of a torvane. The sample must be fairly cohesive
to yield accurate results. Very stiff samples often crumble rather than shear thereby yielding
lower than actual values.

Figure 2-8: Torvane
Pocket Penetrometer. Figure 2-9 shows a pocket penetrometer, a spring-loaded device,

which is pressed into a sample. The penetration resistance read on the side of the device is
the approximate ultimate compressive strength. The tester is adaptable to a wide range of
soil types and strengths. While penetration values are obtained from this device, it is of
questionable value for any design work.
Figure 2-9: Pocket penetrometer
Monitoring Methods
Piezometers and inclinometers are monitoring methods discussed below.

Piezometers
The next subsections cover

♦ Piezometer use
♦ Piezometer installation procedure
♦ Reading frequency guidelines
♦ Pneumatic piezometer alternative
Piezometer Use
Piezometers are used to measure long-term groundwater levels. They are essentially water
wells and are sometimes pumped to determine the permeability of the soil to predict seepage
volumes in excavations. Should short-term observations of water levels be desired, leave
exploration core holes open for several days to monitor the groundwater level. Cover the
hole to protect people or livestock from injury. Some typical applications for piezometers
are to evaluate groundwater levels in future depressed roadway sections and groundwater
effects on slope stability.
Future Depressed Roadway Sections. The construction of future depressed roadway

sections that are subject to groundwater infiltration can be impacted adversely by
groundwater induced liquefaction of soils. The final installation may need special drainage
features to control water inflows and provide a stable pavement section.
Slope Stability. Groundwater affects slope stability by reducing the effective stresses in the
soil through buoyancy. This applies to both side slope stability and bearing capacity of
embankments and retaining walls.
Piezometer Installation Procedure
Install piezometers with care to insure that the groundwater levels are accurately measured
without the intrusion of surface water. Inadequate sealing of the borehole may also allow
contaminates to enter subsurface aquifers. Use this procedure to install piezometers:
Piezometer Installation Procedure

Step Action
1 Drill hole.
2 Place piezometer tube in hole.
3 Place granular media in hole.
4 Seal the remaining upper portion of hole.
5 Finish the tube.
1. Drill the hole with no water if possible. If this is not possible, drill with clear water. If
hole stability continues to be a problem, add small amounts of drilling mud to the water.

2. Place the assembled piezometer tube in the hole. Either use a slotted screen, or
alternately, drill holes in a section of the tube and then wrap them with filter fabric. The
upper sections of the tube are not perforated.
3. Place the granular media in all but the upper 5 to 10 feet (1.5 to 3 meters) of the hole.
Use a fairly coarse sand or pea gravel to allow easy placement through water.
4. Seal the remaining upper portion of the hole with grout or bentonite pellets. When
using bentonite pellets in a dry hole, pour several gallons of water over the pellets for
10 to 15 minutes to start expanding the pellets to seal the hole.
5. Finish the tube in such a manner as to not be a hazard to the public. Use a locking
cover if vandalism is possible.
Reading Frequency Guidelines
Take a reading immediately and weekly thereafter until the water level stabilizes. Monthly
readings thereafter are normally sufficient unless the site exhibits large fluctuations in
readings.
Pneumatic Piezometer Alternative
In areas where access is difficult, pneumatic piezometers that may be read from a remote
location are available. These use air pressure to read the depth of water above the probe.
Inclinometers

♦ Inclinometer use
♦ Inclinometer description
Inclinometer Use
Inclinometers are used to measure horizontal movements within a soil mass over time. The
most common application is for monitoring slope failures to determine the failure plane
depth. With this information, you may perform stability analyses to confirm soil strengths
and determine the proper repair method. Other uses include monitoring ground movements
adjacent to excavations for foundations or tunnels.
Inclinometer Description
The inclinometer is a very sensitive device that measures deviations from vertical. By
recording these deviations at periodic intervals along a special casing grouted into a
borehole, the cumulative deviation of the instrument may be determined. These readings are

taken periodically to monitor movements over time. The installation of casing and data
reduction is quite complicated. It is recommended that the Bridge Division Geotechnical
Section be consulted if inclinometer measurements are required.

Chapter 3
Soil & Bedrock Classification & Logging
Contents

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................3-2
Classification Objective ....................................................................................................................3-2
Importance of Logging .....................................................................................................................3-2
Section 2 — Classification.................................................................................................... 3-3
Overview...........................................................................................................................................3-3
Bedrocks ...........................................................................................................................................3-4
Igneous Rocks ...................................................................................................................................3-4
Metamorphic Rocks ..........................................................................................................................3-4
Sedimentary Rocks ...........................................................................................................................3-5
Clastic Rocks ....................................................................................................................................3-5
Nonclastic Rocks ..............................................................................................................................3-6
Soils 3-7
Soil Variations ..................................................................................................................................3-7
Residual & Sedimentary Soils ..........................................................................................................3-7
Soil Identification .............................................................................................................................3-7
Grain Size Descriptions ....................................................................................................................3-7
Cohesive Soils...................................................................................................................................3-8
Cohesionless Soils ............................................................................................................................3-8
Section 3 — Logging .......................................................................................................... 3-12
Overview.........................................................................................................................................3-12
Logging Method .............................................................................................................................3-12
Field Equipment ..............................................................................................................................3-14
Core Description Order ...................................................................................................................3-14
Log Form ........................................................................................................................................3-18
Available Software .........................................................................................................................3-22

Chapter 3 — Soil & Bedrock Classification & Section 1 — Overview
Logging
Section 1
Overview
Introduction
This chapter deals with the material types encountered during field exploration and the
proper recording of observations made of the exploration process. The classification and
logging process is important since it is the only record of the field exploration process. The
next subsections explain
♦ Soil classification objective
♦ Importance of logging
Classification Objective
The objective of soil classification is to identify the logging terminology of the foundation
exploration through integration of soil mechanics and geology. This chapter defines the
terminology used for classifying foundation materials and illustrates the methods of logging
that supplies the information obtained in the field. In certain cases, take samples from the
field to the laboratory where they can be analyzed to supplement the field classification.
The field classification is designed to be simple and orderly so that the use of the soil and
bedrock terminology is uniform.
Importance of Logging
All loggers need to realize that a good field description of the materials encountered is very
important for the design of an economical foundation. The logger and the core driller are the
only people who witness the drilling and the material obtained. Therefore a reasonable
amount of accurate information must be logged.

Chapter 3 — Soil & Bedrock Classification & Section 2 — Classification
Logging
Section 2
Classification
Overview
This section covers the classification of both bedrocks and soils. The lists below give
bedrock and soil classifications.
Bedrock Classifications
♦ Igneous
• Granite
• Basalt
♦ Metamorphic
• Gneiss
• Schist
• Slate
• Marble
♦ Sedimentary
• Clastic
Shale (Claystone)
Siltstone
Sandstone
Conglomerate
Limestone
Glauconite
Lignite
• Nonclastic
Chert
Iron deposits
Gypsum
Halite
Soil Classifications
♦ Cohesive - Clay
♦ Cohesionless
• Silt
• Sand
• Gravel

Logging
Bedrocks
Geologists divide bedrocks into three classes:

♦ Igneous rocks
♦ Metamorphic rocks
♦ Sedimentary rocks
Sedimentary rocks make up 75% of the exposed surface area of the earth's crust while
igneous and metamorphic rocks make up the remaining 25%. Naturally, sedimentary rocks
will be emphasized, but igneous and metamorphic rocks must not be overlooked.
Igneous Rocks
Igneous rocks are found in approximately 20 counties of the Llano Uplift, South Central
Texas, and the Trans-Pecos areas. These rocks are derived from cooled and solidified
molten rock material, called magma, which was pushed up from the interior of the earth.
Magmas that cool beneath the surface form intrusive rocks and those that reach the surface
form extrusive rocks. The rate of cooling, mineral composition and mode of placement
control the type, texture, and shape of rocks.
All of these variables complicate the identification so that a background in mineralogy and
petrology is necessary to identify each properly. The igneous rocks that outcrop in Texas are
generally described as intrusive (such as granite) or extrusive (such as basalt). Information
on both these types appears below.
Granite. Granite is a very hard, generally coarse-grained rock which is light-colored (pink,
red, or gray) and heavier than most rocks. It is chiefly composed of quartz, feldspar, and
some dark minerals (usually mica). Granite has a crystalline texture and is usually even-
grained (grains equal in size).
Basalt. Basalt is a very hard, generally fine-grained rock. It is dark-colored (green, gray, or
black) with a glossy texture. Basalt is heavier than most rocks.
Metamorphic Rocks
Metamorphic rocks are formed by the alteration of preexisting rocks (igneous, sedimentary
and other metamorphic rocks) by heat, pressure, or both. These alterations develop new
textures, structures, and minerals. Some metamorphic rocks are characterized by a banded
or layered appearance and called foliated, while others are massive or granular and called
nonfoliated. Examples of the predominant type of each are as follows:
♦ Foliated
• Gneiss (irregular banding)
• Schist (regular banding)

Logging
• Slate (layered)
♦ Nonfoliated—marble
Sedimentary Rocks
There are two types of sedimentary rocks:

♦ Clastic rocks
♦ Nonclastic rocks
Clastic Rocks
Clastic rocks are formed from the accumulation of pre-existing rock fragments, or plant
material in the case of lignite. Clastic sedimentary rocks are formed by mechanical
processes such as erosion from a landmass. This erosion breaks the rock into fragments,
which in turn are transported by either wind or water and redeposited. Soluble minerals then
cement the individual grains together.
Clastic sedimentary rocks are classified according to size. The unified soil size
classification chart shows the particle sizes in millimeters and inches in relation to the
standard U.S. Sieve Sizes for clastic materials. Clastic sedimentary rocks are formed by the
cementation of individual grains of respective particle sizes. The next paragraphs describe
these clastic rocks:
♦ Shale
♦ Siltstone and sandstone
♦ Conglomerate
♦ Limestone
♦ Glauconite
♦ Lignite
Shale. Shale is composed of clay particles cemented together. Most shales in Texas are of a
marine origin. Depending on the chemical composition, some shales may degrade quickly
into clay when exposed to air and water.
Siltstone and Sandstone. These two rocks are composed of silt and sand size particles
respectively. Sandstone is much more common than siltstone. Common cementing agents
for sandstone are carbonate and iron oxides. Occasionally silica cement is encountered.
The hardness of these rocks depends on the cementing agent with iron cemented the softest
and silica cemented the hardest.
Conglomerate. This rock is composed of gravel sized and larger particles. Most
conglomerates are found in West and Central Texas. The most common cementing agent is

Logging
carbonate. Silica is also encountered occasionally. Chert gravel in conglomerates makes

this among the hardest materials encountered in the state.
Limestone. Limestone is an interesting clastic rock, composed of particles derived either by

precipitation of calcium carbonate from solution (oolites) or from the carbonate shells of
microscopic marine organisms. Limestone is considered clastic because the separate grains
are usually transported by water prior to becoming cemented. It usually occurs as a white to
light gray or bluish-gray rock varying in hardness from soft to very hard. It will effervesce
upon contact with dilute hydrochloric acid. Chalk is a very soft limestone. Dolomite is a
modified form of limestone in which a portion of the calcium has been replaced by
magnesium. Dolomite effervesces only slightly with dilute hydrochloric acid.
Glauconite. Glauconite is a greenish mineral formed in marine environments. It is a

hydrous silicate of iron and potassium and commonly occurs as a weakly cemented granular
material.
Lignite. Lignite is composed of decayed or partly decayed plant material and is a compact
brownish black initial form in the coal process. Lignite is found in the gulf coastal region
and east Texas. It is extremely light, especially when dry.
Nonclastic Rocks
Nonclastic rocks are formed by the chemical precipitation of minerals from a solution.
These chemical precipitants settle to the bottom of a body of water. When first deposited,
these sediments are loose and incoherent. In time, they are slowly hardened by compaction,
cementation, and/or re-crystallization. Nonclastic sedimentary rocks are classified
according to chemical composition. Descriptions of the following nonclastic rocks appear
below:
♦ Chert
♦ Iron deposits
♦ Evaporites
Chert. Chert is a very fine-grained crystalline silicate, which varies in color and is very hard.
It breaks smoothly and is a common constituent of gravels and conglomerates. Flint is a
gray to black variety of chert abundant in all parts of Texas.
Iron Deposits. Iron deposits vary in color according to their oxidation state (from black, red,
reddish brown to yellow). They are soft and, in some cases, the cementing agent for
bedrock, especially sandstone. Iron oxide occurs as hematite, siderite, and limonite in East
Texas. In many areas of Texas, finely disseminated iron oxide is responsible for the red
soils and bedrocks.
Evaporites. Evaporites are a group of water-soluble salts that have been precipitated upon
the evaporation of water. They are similar in physical characteristics in that they are white

Logging
or light colored, generally soft and do not react with hydrochloric acid (except calcite).
Halite and potash salts can be detected by their saline taste and are most commonly found in
West and Northwest Texas. Gypsum occurs extensively in West Texas.
Soils
The next subsections offer discussion on

♦ Soil variations
♦ Residual and sedimentary soils
♦ Soil identification
♦ Grain size descriptions
Soil Variations
Soils vary with parent material (bedrock), climate, plant and animal life, slope of the land,
and time. These factors are involved in the transfomation of an original geologic deposit
into a soil profile. The depth of soil ranges from a few inches to hundreds of feet, based on
the factors mentioned above. In some sections of the state, there is no soil at all.
Residual & Sedimentary Soils
According to their geologic origin, soils are either residual or sedimentary. Residual soils are
those that are formed in place. That is, they are a result of the weathering, disintegration, and
decomposition of the parent material. Sedimentary soils are formed from materials that have
been moved from where they originated by either wind or water. These are commonly found
in river flood plains and in arid wind blown areas.
Soil Identification
Soil is identified in the field by visual and mechanical tests. The criteria for these are
♦ Grain size
♦ Color
♦ Density or consistency
♦ Moisture content
Grain Size Descriptions
Under the major breakdown, grain size, soil is described either as

♦ Cohesive—clay

Logging
♦ Cohesionless
• silt
• sand
• gravel
Most soils consist of a mixture of these grains and organic material. Discussion follows on
cohesive soils and cohesionless soils.
Cohesive Soils
Cohesive soils (clays) are composed of extremely small mineral grains shaped like plates.
Water is attracted between the plates by electrostatic forces to varying degrees based on the
chemical composition of the clay. Clays exhibit a wide range of properties based on water
content and chemical composition. When dry, clays are hard and rigid due to the close
attraction between the grains. When clays are very wet, they exhibit an almost soupy
consistency.
Clays occur as both residual and sedimentary soils. Clays of a sedimentary origin are
initially deposited in a soup-like state. In upland areas, water evaporation rapidly removes
fresh clay deposits to produce fairly firm soils. In coastal areas, this usually does not occur
due to high ground water levels. In such an environment, the water is slowly squeezed from
the clay by the weight of subsequently deposited overlying soils. The result is typically very
soft surface clays that gradually increase in strength with depth.
Cohesionless Soils
The next paragraphs discuss these cohesionless soil topics:

♦ Grain size subdivision
♦ Apparent cohesion
♦ Cohesionless soil composition
Grain Size Subdivision. Cohesionless soils are composed of larger, more rounded particles
than clays and are subdivided based on grain size. The most commonly encountered
cohesionless soils are:
♦ silt (passes a No. 200 sieve)
♦ sand (passes a No. 4 and is retained on No. 200 sieve)
♦ gravel (passes a 3” (75mm) and is retained on No. 4 sieve)
Cobbles (3” to 12”) and boulders (>12”) are less commonly encountered. The larger sizes of
the particles cause them to interact by mechanical means. Silts are fine enough that they
exhibit some clay-like properties, but they are still considered cohesionless.

Logging
Apparent Cohesion. Pure cohesionless soils are free flowing when dry or completely
saturated. Moist silts and sands often exhibit an apparent cohesion due to negative pore
water pressures. This apparent cohesion is quite low but still can result in an excavation
face standing unsupported for some time prior to collapse.
Cohesionless Soil Composition. Cohesionless soils are usually mainly composed of

siliceous materials with minor constituents being
♦ Micas
♦ Feldspars
♦ Carbonates.
The most common siliceous materials encountered are quartz and chert. The table below
offers classifications of unified soil sizes. The next table gives characteristics of silt and
clay. Figure 3-1 shows grain size photographs.
Unified Soil Size Classification

Millimeters Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Size Particle Size
256 and above 12 and above Boulder
75-256 3-12 Cobble
19-75 ¾-3 Coarse Gravel
4.75-19 3/16-3/4 3/16”=4 Fine Gravel
2.4-4.75 3/32-3/16 3/32”=10 Coarse Sand
0.42-2.4 .42mm=40 Medium Sand
0.074-0.42 .074mm=200 Fine Sand
0.005-0.074 Silt
0.005 and below Clay

Logging
Silt and Clay Characteristics

Characteristics Silts Clays
Dilatancy (reaction to shaking) Rapid reaction. Water appears on Sluggish and no reaction. No
Movement of water in voids surface when shaken. Squeezing water appears on surface when
soil causes water to disappear. shaken.
Dry Strength (cohesiveness in dry Low to medium reaction. Powder High to very high reaction.
state) easily rubs off surface of sample. Powder does not rub off surface.
Slakes readily in water. Variable slake rate.
Toughness (plasticity in moist Plastic thread has little strength. Plastic thread has good strength.
state) Crumbles easily as it dries. Dries Dries slowly.
quickly.
Dispersion (settlement in water) Settles out of suspension in 15 to Settles in several hours or days
60 minutes. unless flocculation occurs.
Visual Inspection and Feel Some grains barely visible. Feels No individual grains observed.
slightly gritty when rubbed Smooth greasy feel when rubbed
between fingers. Dries quickly between fingers.
and dusts off easily.
Dried Coat Easily crumbled in hands. Will not crumble in hands. Dry
lumps can be broken but not
powdered.
Bite Test Gritty feeling between teeth. No gritty feeling between teeth.

Logging
Figure 3-1. Grain Size Photographs

Chapter 3 — Soil & Bedrock Classification & Section 3 — Logging
Logging
Section 3
Logging
Overview
This section offers discussion, guidelines, and/or procedure on

♦ Logging method
♦ Field equipment
♦ Core description order
♦ Log form
♦ Available software
Logging Method
The purpose of the core drill operation is to obtain foundation data and not just to drill a
hole. In order to obtain data of maximum accuracy, the logger must work closely with the
driller and consult with him as to changes in materials and coring operations while drilling.
The logger must recognize the reasons for such things as the addition of extra water, drilling
mud, or casing as needed. He should note the difficulties in drilling, such as caving,
boulders, caverns, etc. and the encountering of any groundwater. In some cases a core
cannot be recovered, but the logger can watch the color of the circulation water to see if any
change takes place and analyze the cuttings to see if the material correlates with the previous
core and subsequent cores. Reconnaissance and logging procedures appear below as
follows:
♦ Procedure prior to drilling
♦ Procedure during drilling
♦ Procedure after hole completion
The logger must follow all of these steps.

Procedure Prior to Drilling
Step Action
1 Confirm landowner's permission to enter his property if drilling on private
property.
2 Stake desired core drill hole sites and obtain ground elevations.
3 Locate any subsurface power lines, gas lines, telephone cables, sewer pipes,
etc.
4 Locate, near job site, water sources for drilling purposes and secure
permission for their use.
5 Complete all steps above prior to core drill crew and rig arrival.

Logging
Procedure During Drilling

Step Action
1 Lay out cores in succession, as obtained, and mark depth by stakes at each 5
foot interval. (see Figure 3-2)
2 Break open samples to expose fresh surfaces for accurate identification and
classification.
3 Identify, describe, and log the foundation materials and record all test data.
4 Compare all cores with previous cores.
5 Prepare any undisturbed samples for laboratory by wrapping in plastic wrap
and labeling for future identification.
Figure 3-2. Cores laid out for classification and logging
Procedure After Hole Completion

Step Action
1 Cover all uncovered core drill holes.
2 Pickup debris and clean up the area in general.
3 Repair any damaged property (fences, lawns, etc.).
4 Deliver any samples retained for testing.

Logging
Occasionally, core holes may need to be grouted or filled with bentonite pellets if the
possibility exists for contaminates to enter from the surface or from subsurface aquifers.
This is especially common in urban areas with petroleum-contaminated soils.
Field Equipment
In order to aid in an accurate description of the materials, it is recommended the logger have
the following items:
♦ Pocket knife to cut the samples for testing hardness and exposing fresh surfaces
♦ Millimeter scale to determine the size of the particles
♦ Dilute hydrochloric acid to aid in recognizing calcium carbonate materials such as
limestone, chalk, or dolomite
♦ Magnifying glass (a 10x) to make a better identification of materials by enabling closer
inspection
Refer to Figure 3-3 for a photo of the field equipment needed.
Figure 3-3. Field equipment
Core Description Order
Keep core descriptions as simple as possible. Remember that every small variation in a soil
does not necessarily warrant description on the log. The order of description is as follows:
1. Material
2. Density or consistency, hardness
3. Moisture

Logging
4. Color
5. Cementation
6. Descriptive adjectives
7. Unified Soil Classification System
8. Rock Quality Designator (RQD)
The next paragraphs offer discussion on these descriptions.
Material. A logger must first determine the major constituent in the core sample. If a
significant portion (greater than five percent) of a secondary material is present, note this
material as a modifier to the primary constituent.
Density or Consistency, Hardness. Refer to the tables below for soil density and bedrock
hardness.
Soil Density or Consistency
Density Consistency THD Penetrometer Field Identification
(Granular) (Cohesive) (blows/ft or blows/300mm)
Very Loose Very Soft 0 to 8 Core (height twice diameter) sags
under own weight
Loose Soft 8 to 20 Core can be pinched or imprinted
easily with finger
Slightly Compact Stiff 20 to 40 Core can be imprinted with
considerable pressure
Compact Very Stiff 40 to 80 Core can only be imprinted
slightly with fingers
Dense Hard 80 to 5”/100 Core cannot be imprinted with
(125mm/100) fingers but can be penetrated with
pencil
Very Dense Very Hard 5”/100 to 0”/100 (125mm/100 to Core cannot be penetrated with
0mm/100) pencil
Bedrock Hardness
Mohs’ Characteristics Examples Hardness Approximate
Hardness THD Pen Test
Scale
5.5 – 10 Rock will scratch Sandstone, Chert, Schist, Granite, Very Hard 0” - 2”/100 (0-
knife Gneiss, some Limestone 50mm/100)
3 - 5.5 Rock can be scratched Siltstone, Shale, Iron Deposits, Hard 1” - 5”/100 (25-
with knife blade most Limestone 125mm/100)
1–3 Rock can be scratched Gypsum, Calcite, Evaporites, Soft 4” - 6”/100
with finger nail Chalk, some Shale (100-150mm/100)

Logging
Moisture. If any moisture exists, note the extent present. The samples will be assumed dry if
the degree of moisture is not indicated. If free water is present, describe the soil as wet or
water-bearing.
Color. Describe the primary color and restrict description to one color. If one main color
does not exist in a sample, call it multicolored.
Cementation. Identify the degree of cementation if any is present.
Descriptive Adjectives. Use any descriptive adjectives that might further aid in the
description.
Unified Soil Classification System. This soil system is based on the recognition of the type
and predominance of the constituents, considering
♦ Grain size
♦ Gradation
♦ Plasticity index
♦ Liquid limit
It contains three major divisions of soils:

♦ Coarse-grained
♦ Fine-grained
♦ Highly organic
The group symbols for each major soil division are located on the chart. Some soils have
characteristics of two groups because they are close to the borderline between the groups
either in percentages of the various grain sizes or in plasticity characteristics. In cases like
these, use the two group symbols, connected by a hyphen, which most nearly describe the
soil. An example of this might be a SM-SC. This would be a sand, which has silt and clay
binder. Those soils that are not readily identifiable in the field and the proper soil symbol
designated necessitate sieve analysis and Atterberg limits tests. From these test results, the
proper soil symbol can be determined. The classification symbol may be placed on the log,
but it is not required. See Figure 3-4 for the Unified Soil Classification System chart.
See Figure 3-5 for a graphed plasticity chart that shows typical Atterberg limit values for
fine grained soils.

Logging
Figure 3-4. Unified Soil Classification System.

Logging
Figure 3-5. Plasticity Chart. Online users can click to see this illustration in PDF format.
Rock Quality Designator (RQD). The RQD is determined for rock cores. It is a percentage
of a core run that is composed of core pieces longer than 4" (100mm). If a core run is 24"
(600mm) and 12" (300mm) of core was in pieces longer than 4" (100mm), then the RQD
equals 50. It is recommended that the RQD be noted for any rock encountered. Always
note the RQD on logs of borings for tunnels and other excavations.
Log Form
To promote consistency, use the standard log form (Form 513 available from General
Services Division). Refer to Figure 3-6 for a sample of this form.

Logging
Figure 3-6. Log Form.

Logging
Break down the materials encountered into strata consisting of the same or similar
constituents. It is desirable to keep the number of strata to a minimum. A change from a
“slightly sandy” to a “very sandy” clay does not necessarily warrant a strata change. The
clay would simply be described as “sandy”. The key is to define strata that have whether or
not groundwater is present. Discussion follows on these parts of the log form:
♦ Heading data
♦ Elevation column
♦ Log column
♦ Texas Cone Penetrometer test
♦ Description of materials
♦ Remarks
Heading Data. Enter all heading data. Determine the station, offset, and top of hole
elevation as accurately as possible after the hole is drilled. Quite often a hole cannot be
drilled at the proposed location. Ground water elevation is optional but recommended in
certain situations. Hole coordinates may be entered in the Remarks section.
Elevation Column. Fill out this column for ground elevation and for each stratum change.
Recording these data aids in correlating the exact elevations without problems of
topography. The logger is generally more concerned with the depths, since the elevation of a
hole is not determined until after the hole is drilled.
Log Column. Show identified materials by standard symbols, which are provided in Figure
3-7.

Logging
Figure 3-7: Soil and Bedrock Symbology.
Texas Cone Penetrometer Test. Record this data to the right of the log column to indicate
exactly where the tests were taken. Record the pen test data. The entry is made at the depth
where the test is started.

Logging
Description of Materials. Soils and bedrocks have been described thoroughly in the first
sections of this chapter (see the Soil and Bedrock Classifications table at the beginning of
the chapter). Remember to keep descriptions to a minimum. Long descriptions only serve
to confuse the primary issue: What is the major soil type?
Remarks. The remainder of the log form—heading and signatures—must be filled out as
completely as possible. The logger should record any additional information that is of
importance in the Remarks column. Groundwater observations should also be recorded here.
Available Software
At the present time the Wincore program is available for producing printed logs. The
program is available from the Bridge Division, Geotechnical Section.

Chapter 4
Engineering Properties of Soil & Rock
Contents

Evaluation Methods ..........................................................................................................................4-2
Engineering Properties Determination ..............................................................................................4-2
Section 2 — Engineering Properties of Soils........................................................................ 4-3
Overview...........................................................................................................................................4-3
Permeability ......................................................................................................................................4-3
Elasticity ...........................................................................................................................................4-3
Plasticity ...........................................................................................................................................4-4
Cohesion ...........................................................................................................................................4-4
Angle of Internal Friction (Φ)...........................................................................................................4-4
Moisture Content ..............................................................................................................................4-5
Density ..............................................................................................................................................4-6
Shrink/Swell Potential ......................................................................................................................4-6
Compressibility .................................................................................................................................4-6
Grain Size Distribution .....................................................................................................................4-6
Section 3 — Engineering Properties of Rocks...................................................................... 4-8
Overview...........................................................................................................................................4-8
Density ..............................................................................................................................................4-8
Strength and Hardness ......................................................................................................................4-8
Durability ..........................................................................................................................................4-9
Joints and Faults................................................................................................................................4-9
Section 4 — Laboratory Tests ............................................................................................ 4-10
Overview.........................................................................................................................................4-10
Compression Tests ..........................................................................................................................4-10
Consolidation Test ..........................................................................................................................4-12
Direct Shear Test ............................................................................................................................4-13
Swell Test .......................................................................................................................................4-13
Moisture Content ............................................................................................................................4-14
Atterberg Limits ..............................................................................................................................4-14

Chapter 4 — Engineering Properties of Soil & Section 1 — Overview
Rock
Section 1
Overview
Evaluation Methods
The properties of soil and rock must be accurately evaluated in order to produce safe and
economical designs. This chapter deals with the methods to accomplish this goal.
Engineering Properties Determination
Engineering properties of soils are determined by

♦ Parent material
♦ Mineralogical composition
♦ Organic matter content
♦ Age
♦ Method of transportation
♦ Place of deposition
♦ Method and degree of compaction
♦ Texture
♦ Gradation
♦ Structure
Consequently, it is advantageous to classify soils and rocks into groups that exhibit distinct
engineering properties. This enables engineers in preliminary investigations as well as in
design and construction to exchange
♦ Reliable information
♦ Experience
♦ Data

Chapter 4 — Engineering Properties of Soil & Section 2 — Engineering Properties of Soils
Rock
Section 2
Engineering Properties of Soils
Overview
To the engineer engaged in the design and construction of bridge foundations, some of the
important physical and engineering properties of soils are
♦ Permeability
♦ Elasticity
♦ Plasticity
♦ Cohesion
♦ Angle of internal friction (Φ)
♦ Density
♦ Shrink/swell potential
♦ Compressibility
♦ Grain size distribution
The subsections below discuss these properties.
Permeability
Permeability is a property indicating the ease with which water flows or passes through a
material. This water movement is called percolation. The knowledge and extent of this
condition is especially important in the design and construction of underground excavations.
Soil texture, gradation, degree of compaction, and primary structure strongly influence the
relative permeability of soil. Generally, coarse-grained soils are much more permeable than
fine-grained soils, although this is easily altered by presence of fines or cementing agents,
openings, etc.
Elasticity
Elasticity is a property indicating the ability of a material to return to its original shape or
form after having been deformed by a load for a short period of time. Any load applied that
exceeds the shear strength of a soil will also exceed the elastic limit of the soil, and it will
not return to its original shape or form but will fail by plastic deformation. When a soil is
disturbed by pile driving, the elastic limit of the soil must be exceeded to advance the pile.
For this reason, the soil structure and properties in the vicinity of a pile may be radically
changed.

Rock
Plasticity
Plasticity is a property indicating the ability of a material to be deformed permanently

without cracking or crumbling.
Cohesion
Cohesion is a very important property contributing to the shear strength of a soil, and is the
capacity to resist shearing stresses as indicated by Coulomb's equation, c + wh (tan Ν).
Cohesion varies depending on water content, density, and plasticity of the soil.
Φ)
Angle of Internal Friction (Φ
The angle of internal friction is a measure of the natural angle of repose of a soil. For dry
sand, this is the angle of approximately 30 degrees observed on the sideslopes of a stockpile.
For a clayey or clay soil, this is not the case since negative pore pressures generated by the
low permeability of the soil matrix masks the expression of the frictional properties of the
soil. Moderate to high plasticity clays exhibit a typical friction angle of approximately 15
degrees when pore pressures reach equilibrium.
The angle of internal friction is also the slope of the shear strength envelope, and therefore,
represents the effect that increasing effective normal stress has on the shear strength of the
soil. Refer to Figure 4-1 for a graph of the angle of internal friction versus the Texas Cone
Penetrometer (TCP) test.

Rock
Figure 4-1. TCP test vs. cohensionless soils’internal friction.

Rock
Moisture Content
Moisture content is the ratio of the weight of water to the weight of solids in a given volume
of soil. Moisture contents can range from a few percent for rocks to several hundred percent
for very soft highly organic coastal clays. The consistency of clay may be very soft or very
hard depending upon the water content. Between these extremes, the clay may be molded
and formed without cracking or rupturing the soil mass.
Density
Dry density is the unit weight of the solid particles of soil or rock per unit volume. Wet
density is the unit weight of the solid particles and the natural moisture and is used in
computations for determining design values for foundations above the water table.
Submerged density is wet density less the unit weight of water and is used when the
foundation is below the water table. Typical values for wet density of soils range from 120
to 135 pounds per cubic foot (1920-2160 kg/m3).
Shrink/Swell Potential
Shrinking/swelling is a property of fine-grained soils, especially clays, resulting from build-

up and release of capillary tensile stresses within the soil’s pore water and the varying
degree of affinity for water that certain clay minerals exhibit. If founding in this type of
material cannot be avoided, measures should be taken to reduce adverse effects upon the
structure. Differential movement can be minimized by placing all footings with
approximately equal bearing pressures within the same material.
Compressibility
Compressibility is a property greatly influenced by soil structure and the load history of the
deposit. Drilled shafts or footings should not bear in a material that is susceptible to a high
degree of compression (consolidation).
Negative friction, in which the soil pulls down (down-drag) on the shaft or piling instead of
supporting load, often occurs in regions of incompletely consolidated soft clay, silt and
organic soil, but may also be the result of soils shrinking during extended dry periods. The
best solution is to found in a material below the point of possible moisture fluctuation, deep
enough to cancel out any negative skin friction. It is also recommended that all foundations
for a particular structure element, such as a bridge abutment, be founded at roughly the same
elevation.
Grain Size Distribution

Rock
♦ Soil permeability
♦ Soil compactability
♦ Grain size distribution chart
Soil Permeability. The grain size distribution or range of particle sizes in a sample influence
several soil properties. One of these properties is the permeability of the soil. A granular
soil with a wide range of grain sizes (Well Graded) especially in the finer ranges will be less
permeable than a granular soil with most of the particle sizes within a narrow range. As a
result, soils with low permeability drain much slower, which in turn may lead to difficulties
in obtaining proper compaction in the field.
Soil Compactability. While the compactability is indirectly influenced by permeability, it is

also directly influenced by grain size distribution. Soils consisting solely of particles within
a narrow size range (Uniformly or Poorly Graded) may be difficult to compact due the lack
of other particles to interlock with the predominate particle size. The result is that density is
difficult to achieve at the surface of the soil.
Grain Size Distribution Chart. Figure 4-2 is a grain size distribution chart showing some
typical gradations. Well graded refers to the size of the particles being distributed over a
wide range of sizes. Uniformly graded refers to the size of particles being distributed over a
narrow range of sizes. Gap graded refers to several distinct size ranges within a sample.
Figure 4-2. Typical Particle size gradations (grain size distribution chart).

Chapter 4 — Engineering Properties of Soil & Section 3 — Engineering Properties of Rocks
Rock
Section 3
Engineering Properties of Rocks
Overview
When rock is exposed to the weathering process, the rock is ultimately broken down by
physical and chemical agents into loose, unconsolidated material or soil. Therefore, the
physical properties of a rock depend to a large extent upon the degree of weathering. If the
rock is fresh or unweathered, the physical properties are affected by
♦ Constituent minerals
♦ Degree to which the grains are bound together
♦ Size and arrangement of the grains which produce such structures as banding and
foliation
♦ Degree of fracture, jointing and bedding of the rock mass
For igneous rocks, the physical properties are the least variable, excluding the effects of
fracturing. Sedimentary rocks, on the other hand, are so variable that it is difficult to
characterize their physical properties. Consequently, each deposit must be evaluated
individually. Some of the important engineering properties of rocks are
♦ Density
♦ Strength and hardness
♦ Durability
♦ Joints and faults
The next subsections cover these engineering properties.
Density
The strength of rock is in direct proportion to its crystalline makeup and compaction or
cementation. In general, the strongest rocks are the densest. However, rock with ferrous
constituents may have a high density and low strength.
Strength and Hardness
These properties are a relationship between various physical constituents that make up an
individual rock. Some of these physical properties are
♦ Density
♦ Bonding
♦ Cementation

Chapter 4 — Engineering Properties of Soil & Section 3 — Engineering Properties of Rocks
Rock
The strongest rocks are, in general, igneous or metamorphic in origin. Sedimentary rocks are
variable and range from hard to the very soft.
Durability
A rock’s physical and chemical characteristics determine its durability. The crystalline
igneous and metamorphic rocks (such as granite, basalt, quartzite and gneiss) are the most
durable. Sedimentary rock, which is the least durable, is greatly affected by weathering; a
typical example is limestone or sandstone with a carbonate cement.
Joints and Faults
The next paragraphs cover

♦ Joint description
♦ Fault description
♦ Cut stability
Joint Description. Joints are fractures in rock resulting from previous stresses to which the
rock mass has been subjected. Joints are normally nearly vertical, but they may occur at
almost any orientation. Joints differ from faults in that little or no displacement is present
along the joint. Joints typically occur at fairly regular intervals in a rock mass.
Fault Description. Faults are breaks in rock where movement has occurred. The movement
can range from a few inches (50 mm) to hundreds of feet (meters). Faults with large
displacements typically have a zone of fractured and weathered rock on each side of the
fault that is unstable and behaves more like soil than rock. They are normally not vertical
but inclined at an angle.
Cut Stability. Joints and faults impact the stability of cuts in rock. Since these features
divide the rock mass into discrete pieces, the pieces may fall out of the cut face. If these
features are inclined downward into a cut, large masses of rock can fail unexpectedly into a
cut with little warning. If these conditions occur, rock bolting or nailing to stabilize the face
should be considered.

Chapter 4 — Engineering Properties of Soil & Section 4 — Laboratory Tests
Rock
Section 4
Laboratory Tests
Overview
In conjunction with field classification of soils and bedrocks, perform laboratory tests in
doubtful cases for engineering properties. Reference is made to the Manual of Testing
Procedures 100-E Series, published by the Materials and Tests Section, which outlines with
examples the various laboratory tests and procedures. Discussion appears below on the
following tests:
♦ Compression tests
♦ Consolidation test
♦ Direct shear test
♦ Swell test
♦ Atteburg limits
Compression Tests
The compression test determines the strength of a soil sample under various stress
conditions. The sample is cylindrical and trimmed to a length roughly twice the diameter.
Soil samples for this testing are obtained with push barrel samplers. In order for the samples
to be removed from the barrels and transported to the lab for testing, some clay binder is
necessary to hold the samples together. Cohesionless sand cannot be sampled and tested in
this manner. The compression test may be broken down into the three major categories used
by the department:
♦ Unconfined compression test
♦ Confined compression test (UU Triaxial)
♦ Consolidated undrained compression test (CU Triaxial)
Unconfined Compression Test. The unconfined compression test applies stress to the
sample in the axial direction only. No confining stresses are applied to the sample. This test
is commonly used on soil and rock samples. It does not realistically model the strength of
the in situ soil, which exists under significant confinement. This test is used on rock samples
to evaluate the strength and hardness of the rock for tunneling or other excavation projects.
Use the test with caution for design purposes since it usually under estimates in situ material
strength properties. Figure 4-3 provides a photo of the test.

Rock
Figure 4-3. Unconfined compression test
Confined Compression Test (UU Triaxial). The confined compression test (Test Method
Tex-118-E) is performed in a pressure vessel (triaxial cell) where confining pressure is
applied to the sides of the soil sample as it is loaded. This test more accurately evaluates the
strength of the in situ soil than the unconfined compression test. It is performed with the
soil sample sealed so that no water can enter or escape from the sample during the test. It is
often referred to as an unconsolidated undrained (UU) test. Refer to Figure 4-4 for a diagram
of the triaxial test.
Figurer 4-4. Triaxial test (diagram).
The confined compression test best models the response of soils to loads applied over short
periods of time such as days or weeks such that there is inadequate time for drainage to
occur. Under these load conditions, some of the load is carried by increased pore water (the
water between the soil grains) pressure. When most of the increased load is carried by the

Rock
pore water pressure, the soil does not exhibit much of an increase in strength with higher
confining pressures and hence, has a low apparent angle of internal friction. For this to
occur, a sample must be totally saturated. More typically, samples are only partially
saturated. As a result, most samples tested appear to possess some angle of internal friction.
Consolidated Undrained Test (CU Triaxial). The next paragraphs discuss these
consolidated undrained test (Test Method Tex-131-E) topics:
♦ Description
♦ Method
♦ Cost
Description. This test is used to evaluate the long-term (drained) soil strength parameters
which occur over periods of months to years when the equilibration of pore water pressures
in response to load has time to take place. Under these conditions, the cohesion observed
for the typical clay sample is quite low (< 200 psf (9.6 kPa)). The angle of friction is
typically in the range of 10 to 20 degrees.
Method. To perform this test, the sample is placed in a triaxial cell with water allowed to
enter the sample over a period of several days. Once the sample is greater that 95 %
saturated, the sample is then consolidated to bring the pore water into equilibrium. After
this operation, seal the sample and shear it over a period of time determined by the previous
consolidation rate of the sample. The time to fail the sample is usually 8 to 10 hours. As the
sample is tested, the pore water pressure is measured in order to adjust the strength data for
the effects of pore water pressure. By removing the pore water effects, the drained soil
parameters are determined.
Cost. This test is considerably faster than a true drained test, which fails the sample at a slow
enough rate to allow pore water to escape. It usually takes three to four days to perform
versus several weeks for a true drained test. Because of the time required for this test, it is
quite expensive to perform.
Consolidation Test
The consolidation test is performed by placing a load on a thin soil sample. The reduction in
height of the sample versus time is monitored for various loads on the sample. From this
data, the compressibility of a sample and compression rate are determined for estimating
settlement in the field.
Due to the variable nature of soils in the field, the settlements predicted from this test are
often higher than settlements observed in the field. The consolidation testers
(consolidometers) in Figure 4-5 are of the dead weight type. More compact air actuated test
devices are available.

Rock
Figure 4-5. Consolidometers
Direct Shear Test
The direct shear test shears a soil sample along a predetermined plane. Loads normal to the
shear plane are applied. Based on the force required to shear the sample at various normal
loads, the cohesion and angle of internal friction are determined.
This test may tend to overestimate the soil strength since the failure plane is predetermined.
The triaxial test allows a failure plane to form along the weakest path and is therefore more
accurate.
Swell Test
The swell test uses the same test device as the consolidation test. A sample is placed in the
device under water. The height of the sample is monitored with load added to the sample to
counteract the swelling. The load on the sample that results in no swell of the sample is
noted. The load divided by the area of the sample is referred to as the swell pressure. Swell
pressures in expansive soils can be on the order of thousands of pounds per square foot (100
kPa).

Rock
Moisture Content
Moisture content is the ratio of the weight of water to the weight of solids in a given volume
of soil. The moisture content of a sample is an indication of how stable the soil is with
respect to strength and compressibility. Samples with very high moisture contents may
undergo large volume changes in response to applied loads. Also, soils with high moisture
contents tend to be quite weak.
Atterberg Limits
The Atterberg limits identify the moisture contents for three soil states:
♦ Liquid limit (LL)
♦ Plastic limit (PL)
♦ Shrinkage limit (SL)
Definitions of these limits and the Plasticity Index (PI) appear in the next paragraphs. The
values of these limits are affected by the interaction of the soil particles and the water
present in the sample. Because other properties such as compressibility or permeability
depend on the interaction of soil particles and water, the Atterberg limits can be related to
these other properties. All the limits are stated in the percent moisture content in the soil to
attain the specific state.
Liquid Limit (LL). The liquid limit is defined as the boundary between the liquid and plastic
states. This limit is determined based on the number of blows required to cause a groove to
close in a sample. Figure 4-6 is a photo of a liquid limit device.
Figure 4-6. Liquid limit device
Plastic Limit (PL). The plastic limit is defined as the boundary between the plastic and
semi-solid states. This limit is determined as the point at which a thread of soil of a specified
size begins to crumble when rolled.

Rock
Shrinkage Limit (SL). The shrinkage limit is defined as the boundary between the semi-
solid and solid states. This limit is the amount of water just required to fill the soil pore with
no change in volume, or the water content below which no further reduction in sample
volume occurs.
Plasticity Index (PI). The plasticity index or PI is the difference in moisture content
between the liquid and plastic limits. As the soil particles exhibit a higher tenacity for water
molecules, the liquid limit increases more rapidly than the plastic limit. As a result, the
higher the PI, the more active a soil tends to be. High PI soils are prone to significant
shrinking and swelling with a subsequent loss of strength. This loss of strength is the cause
of embankment side slope, mudflow-type failures in embankments constructed of high PI
clays.

Chapter 5
Foundation Design
Contents

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................5-3
Section 2 — Foundation Types ............................................................................................. 5-4
Overview...........................................................................................................................................5-4
Piling .................................................................................................................................................5-4
Drilled Shafts ....................................................................................................................................5-7
Spread Footings ................................................................................................................................5-8
Section 3 — Foundation Type Selection .............................................................................. 5-9
Overview...........................................................................................................................................5-9
Foundation Selection Factors ............................................................................................................5-9
Selection Guidelines .......................................................................................................................5-11
Pile Foundations .............................................................................................................................5-11
Drilled Shaft Foundations ...............................................................................................................5-12
Foundation Guidelines for Widening Structures.............................................................................5-14
Widening Structures on Piling ........................................................................................................5-14
Widening Structures on Drilled Shafts ...........................................................................................5-14
Widening Structures on Spread Footings ........................................................................................5-14
Guidelines on Foundations in Lakes and Streams ..........................................................................5-14
Section 4 — Design Guidelines .......................................................................................... 5-16
Overview.........................................................................................................................................5-16
Data Required for Design ...............................................................................................................5-16
Field, Laboratory and Related Data ................................................................................................5-17
Soil Effects......................................................................................................................................5-17
Stream Scour ...................................................................................................................................5-18
Extreme Event Evaluation ..............................................................................................................5-19
Susceptibility to Scour ....................................................................................................................5-19
Design Load ....................................................................................................................................5-20
Load Carrying Capacity Determination ..........................................................................................5-20
Foundation Design Methods ...........................................................................................................5-21
Skin Friction Capacity ....................................................................................................................5-22
Point Bearing Capacity ...................................................................................................................5-26
Available Software .........................................................................................................................5-31
Foundation Design ..........................................................................................................................5-31
Piling Design...................................................................................................................................5-31
Drilled Shaft Design .......................................................................................................................5-33
Foundation Size & Length Design Recommendations ...................................................................5-34
Piling Size and Length ....................................................................................................................5-34
Drilled Shaft Size and Length .........................................................................................................5-36
Section 5 — Load Carrying Capacity Verification ............................................................. 5-37

Overview.........................................................................................................................................5-37
Piling Load Carrying Capacity .......................................................................................................5-37
Bearing Resistance During Driving ................................................................................................5-37
Dynamic Hammer Formula ............................................................................................................5-38
Wave Equation Analysis .................................................................................................................5-38
Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA)..........................................................................................................5-39
Test Piling for Capacity Verification ..............................................................................................5-41
Test Piling Use ................................................................................................................................5-41
Embankment Guidelines .................................................................................................................5-41
Test Piling Length & Spacing .........................................................................................................5-41
Alignment Hole Guidelines ............................................................................................................5-41
Test Pile Driving .............................................................................................................................5-42
Test Pile Driving Procedure ............................................................................................................5-42
Pile Test Loads................................................................................................................................5-43
Double Tangent Method for Pile Test Loads ..................................................................................5-44
Plunging Failure Method for Pile Test Loads .................................................................................5-46
Data Interpretation ..........................................................................................................................5-46
Drilled Shaft Load Carrying Capacity ............................................................................................5-46
Double Tangent Method for Drilled Shaft Loads ...........................................................................5-46
Plunging Failure Method for Drilled Shaft Loads ..........................................................................5-49

Chapter 5 — Foundation Design Section 1 — Overview
Section 1
Overview
Introduction
This chapter introduces the various types of foundations used by the Department and
explains the proper design procedures used for each type. It covers the factors which
influence design and prescribe procedures for evaluating them. Proper foundation design
requires that adequate foundation exploration and proper soil classification be performed.
Proper field investigations assure the following:
♦ Correct foundation type
♦ Proper foundation size
♦ Minimal construction problems
♦ Minimum foundation cost
Example problems, figures, correlation curves and supporting data are given for the different
foundation designs referred to in this chapter. Methods of obtaining skin friction and bearing
strength values of soils or rock are discussed in detail. Design procedures presented are
based on extensive load test correlation and experience. Figure 5-1 illustrates a large
multiple pile footing.
Figure 5-1: Large multiple pile footing

Chapter 5 — Foundation Design Section 2 — Foundation Types
Section 2
Foundation Types
Overview
The purpose of a foundation is to transfer the structure loads to a satisfactory underlying

material in a manner that minimizes settlement. The foundation type depends upon the
nature of the soil or rock in which it is to be founded, whereas the size depends upon the
load it must support. Economic and environmental factors govern the type of foundations
selected. For instance, when selecting the foundation type in congested urban areas,
consider the effect of
♦ Noise
♦ Vibration
♦ Pollution
Under certain conditions such as in close proximity to existing structures, special

construction procedures may be required. Show these procedures on the plans or in special
provisions. The most common foundation types are
♦ Piling
♦ Drilled shafts
♦ Spread footings
Discussion on these foundation types appears in the subsections below.
Piling
Piling are long slender foundation elements driven into the ground with power hammers.
The power hammers are operated by
♦ Air
♦ Diesel
♦ Hydraulics
Old style drop hammers are inadequate for modern high capacity piling. Pile foundations are
divided into two categories:
♦ Foundation piling: piling supporting a footing (Figure 5-2)
♦ Trestle piling: piling extending above the ground directly supporting the bridge bent cap
(Figure 5-3)

Figure 5-2: Constructing pile footings
Figure 5-3: Constructing pile trestle bent
The types of piling used by the Department are

♦ Concrete
♦ Metal shell or pipe
♦ Steel H
Concrete Piling. Concrete piling are considered displacement piling because of the
relatively large volume of soil they displace during driving. Concrete piling require large
hammers to be driven efficiently due to the piling’s high mass.
Metal Shell or Pipe Piling. Closed-ended metal shell or pipe piling are considered
displacement piling because of the relatively large volume of soil they displace during
driving. Open ended metal shell or pipe piling may plug at various stages of pile driving
making their performance hard to predict. Figure 5-4 illustrates pipe pile being driven.
Steel H Piling. Steel H piling are considered non-displacement piling and are ideal for
driving into or through soils such as dense sand and gravel which are difficult to penetrate
with displacement piling. H piling are best suited for point bearing design, however they
may also be used in frictional design. H piling are not recommended for frictional design in
sands unless test piling or load tests are specified.
Figure 5-4: Driving pipe piling

Figure 5-5. Drilled shaft excavation.
Drilled Shafts
Drilled shafts are constructed by first excavating a hole with auger equipment (see Figure 5-
5) and then placing reinforcing steel and concrete in the excavation (see Figure 5-6). Casing
and/or drilling slurry may be needed to keep the excavation stable. Drilled shafts may be
constructed in any soil or rock type. Special cutting teeth or coring barrels are used in the
hardest rock formations. Casing may need to be left in place when a shaft passes through the
soft surface soils especially in coastal regions to prevent the collapse of the shaft.

Figure 5-6: Drilled shaft construction site showing completed shaft.
Drilled shafts may be used in groups to support footings or singly to support a column.
Drilled shafts are normally vertical but may be battered to satisfy structural requirements.
Avoid battered shafts if possible due to the difficulty of construction and resulting increased
cost. A single drilled shaft should have a diameter equal to or larger than the column it
supports except that the corners of square columns may be allowed to overhang the edge of
shaft. The department uses mainly straight shafts. Occasionally shafts with under-reamed
tips (bells) are used mainly to widen existing structures with belled shafts. Bells are prone to
collapse and impossible to inspect due to health and safety concerns.
Spread Footings
Spread footings support load by bearing directly on the founding stratum without the support
of piling or drilled shafts. They are generally used in stiff soils or in rock encountered at or
near the surface. Spread footings are seldom used due to considerations such as swelling or
erodible soils and lateral stability.

Chapter 5 — Foundation Design Section 3 — Foundation Type Selection
Section 3
Foundation Type Selection
Overview
Selection of foundation type (piling, drilled shaft or spread footing) is based on a

comprehensive study and analysis of
♦ Subsurface soil conditions
♦ Field and laboratory test data
♦ Environmental, structural and economic considerations
This section deals with

♦ Foundation selection factors
♦ Selection guidelines
♦ Foundation guidelines for widening structures
♦ Guidelines for foundations in lakes and streams
Foundation Selection Factors
The selection of the foundation is influenced by the following factors:

♦ Design load
♦ Subsurface formations
♦ Soil characteristics
♦ Corrosive conditions
♦ Economic considerations
♦ Aesthetics
♦ Special design requirements
Study all the available soil data and choose the type of foundation most suitable to the
existing soil conditions and the particular structure. The choice is generally between piling
and drilled shafts with the final decision based on the above factors. Spread footings are
seldom used for bridge foundations in Texas.
Design Load. The magnitude of the design load dictates the required size of the foundation
from a structural standpoint.
Subsurface Formations. The depth and strength of subsurface formations determine the
type of foundation chosen. Very hard material at of near the surface makes driven pile
installation difficult.

Soil Characteristics. Soil characteristics such as being unstable during excavation may
make excavating for drilled shafts or pilot holing for piling difficult.
Corrosive Conditions. Salts, chlorides and sulphates are detrimental to foundations. Where
these conditions exist, preventive measures should be taken. The use of Type II cement,
corrosion inhibitors, and/or epoxy coated steel is recommended. Type II cement is required
for construction in seawater or high sulphate areas of Texas as shown in Figure 5-7. See
Figure 5-8 for an example of corrosion of a steel fender system.
Figure 5-7. This map represents known areas of possible corrosion due to sulphate soils or
salt water.

Figure 5-8: Severe fender system corrosion
Economic Considerations. Economics is considered in the final selection. Cost comparisons

of the foundation types should be made. The cost of a drilled shaft foundation, for instance,
may be less than piling. It may be feasible to use fewer piling at higher design loads, or
fewer drilled shafts with larger diameters to maximize economy.
Aesthetics. Aesthetics of certain structural features sometimes affect foundation type

selection. A good example is a trestle piling type versus a column footing type. Not only do
aesthetics affect type selection, but it also has a direct effect on design. Longer spans and
fewer columns raise design loads and may require larger and/or more foundation elements
per column.
Special Design Requirements. Special designs are sometimes necessary to straddle another
structure or utilities and may require a different type of foundation than that for the rest of
the structure.
Selection Guidelines
The next subsections provide guidelines for selecting

♦ Pile foundations
♦ Drilled shaft foundations
♦ Spread footing foundations
Pile Foundations
Discussion on these pile foundation topics appear below:

♦ Displacement piling
♦ Metal shell piling
♦ Concrete piling

♦ Steel H piling
Displacement Piling. Displacement piling are generally considered for friction conditions;
however, they perform well in point bearing or any combination of the two methods of load
transfer. Their size should be governed by the design load and the method of load transfer to
the surrounding soil at an economical penetration. Trestle piling size may be governed by
unsupported height and vertical and lateral loads. Trestle bents taller than 20’ (6m) will
probably require the use of piling larger that the standard 16” (400mm) square concrete
piling. Displacement piling generally reach refusal in soils harder than 100 blows / 12”
(300mm) TCP. Thin layers of hard material may be penetrated by punching through the
layer. Thick hard layers can only be penetrated by first pilot holing through the material.
Metal Shell Piling. Do not use metal shell piling in corrosive environments without
protective measures. Also avoid using them where very hard driving conditions are
anticipated without the use of pilot holes or jetting in order to obtain minimum acceptable
penetration.
Concrete Piling. Concrete piling are very difficult to build up. Use them cautiously in
variable soils. Concrete piling may be used in many different types of soil conditions.
Construction techniques may have to be varied according to the nature of the founding
material to obtain the desired penetration. During driving, concrete piling are subject to high
stresses which can be detrimental to the piling. Be aware of conditions conducive to such
damage to be able to specify protective measures for use in construction. Dangerous driving
conditions for concrete piling are very soft and very hard soils. Very soft soils can cause
high tensile stresses resulting in tension cracking. Reduced pile driving energy may be
needed. Very hard soils can cause high compressive stresses resulting in compressive failure
of the concrete. Pilot holes or jetting may be required.
Steel H Piling. Steel H piling are excellent for point bearing but are also subject to
corrosion. They may be specified when difficult or erratic driving is anticipated in the upper
materials, which must be penetrated for stability, etc. Ease of buildup or cut-off makes them
especially desirable. Steel H piling are not recommended in loose to medium density sands
due to the difficulty in obtaining driving resistance.
Drilled Shaft Foundations
Generally, a drilled shaft is the same diameter as the column it supports directly but may be
of any size when used to support a footing. In the past, any additional end area necessary to
support the load was supplied the addition of a bell (generally a maximum diameter of three
times that of the shaft). Bells are seldom used today. Today, larger shafts are supplied if
additional capacity is required. The primary advantage of drilled shafts is the very high
capacity of each shaft installed. If the design load is so large that one shaft cannot effectively
carry it, a footing with two or more shafts may be the best design approach. Drilled shafts
are best suited for hard soils that stand open during the drilling process. Conditions that
should be considered when selecting drilled shafts are
♦ High ground water
♦ Soft overlying soils

High Ground Water. High ground water that requires the use of casing or slurry
construction techniques. Shaft construction under these conditions is warranted if good
founding material is present.
Soft Overlying Soils. Very soft overlying soils may require that casing be left in place. Very
soft soils may not be strong enough to support the lateral pressure of the fresh concrete
causing lateral loss of concrete during casing extraction resulting in shaft defects.
Spread Footing Foundations
Spread footings are generally used in hard materials such as stiff clay, shale, or rock that is
located near the ground surface. The founding material must not be subject to scour or
heaving or shrinkage due to moisture fluctuation. Observe the following precautions for
spread footings:
1. Do not use in streambeds except in solid nonerodible rock.
2. Do not use on expansive clays.
Most shales, while being quite hard, are subject to long-term degradation and as a result,
make unsuitable founding strata for stream crossings. Spread footings are designed using
the same allowable bearing pressures as point bearing drilled shafts. Footings should
normally be keyed into the founding stratum a minimum of two feet except for extremely
hard rock such as granite where dowels may be drilled and grouted into the rock to insure
lateral stability. For additional information on footing design, see the AASHTO Standard
Specification for Highway Bridges. Figure 5-9 summarizes the foundation selection process.
Figure 5-9. Foundation selection process.

Foundation Guidelines for Widening Structures
Study test-boring data along with any available information regarding the existing
foundation. Usually, the old test boring data is adequate for widening the structure. In
widening structures, consider special designs to prevent differential movement between the
new and the old foundations. This is normally accomplished by founding the new
foundations at approximately the same elevation as the existing foundations. This is not
always practical, such as in the case of widening a structure on spread footings with drilled
shafts. In a case such as this, evaluate the soil for possible shrink/swell potential. Avoid the
use of piling in widening structures founded on spread footings because of the possibility of
vibration induced settlement of the spread footings. The next subsections discuss
♦ Widening structures on piling
♦ Widening structures on drilled shafts
♦ Widening structures on spread footings
Widening Structures on Piling
Widen structures on piling with piling tipped in the same stratum. Since the pile loads for
piling supporting the widened portion of the structure are usually lower than loads for the
original construction, the new piling are normally tipped at the same elevation as the
existing piling. Avoid extreme variations between the new and existing tip elevations if
possible to minimize differential movement.
Widening Structures on Drilled Shafts
Widen structures on shafts with shafts approximately at the same tip elevations. Quite often,
existing structures with belled shafts may be widened with straight shafts tipped at the same
elevation due to the more recent higher allowable soil design loads.
Widening Structures on Spread Footings
The most critical situation occurs when widening a structure founded on spread footings. If
the existing footings are less than 6 feet (2 meters) below natural ground, it may be desirable
to widen with spread footings at the same elevation. For abutment and interior bents on deep
spread footings, widening with drilled shafts is usually more economical with the shafts
founded very near the existing footing elevation.
Guidelines on Foundations in Lakes and Streams
Foundations constructed in standing water require special consideration when designing the
structure and preparing the construction plans. Keep pile footings supporting columns above
water if possible. Footings constructed below the surface require cofferdams to allow
construction in the dry. Cofferdams add significant cost to a project. Also, remember that
multi-pile footings constructed above water might tend to snag significant amounts of debris

during floods requiring removal by maintenance forces. Debris accumulation may also cause
increased scour.
Locate the tops of drilled shafts one to two feet (300-600mm) above the normal water
elevation. Allow casing required for construction to remain in place at the option of the
contractor. Typically, casings left in place do not detract from the appearance of the
structure.

Chapter 5 — Foundation Design Section 4 — Design Guidelines
Section 4
Design Guidelines
Overview
These design procedures cover all types of foundations, taking into account pertinent site
conditions and structural considerations. It should be reemphasized that an adequate
program of foundation exploration, data collection and soil classification is imperative since
all foundation design values, probable construction procedures and anticipated performance
of the foundation materials must be known in advance. The application of field and
laboratory data obtained from foundation exploration insures the selection of the proper type
of foundation. Good foundation design depends upon
♦ Evaluation of soil characteristics of the founding materials
♦ Adequacy and interpretation of the field and laboratory test data derived from
subsurface explorations
♦ Engineering skill
♦ Experience
♦ Judgment
Major controlling factors in the design of a foundation are the nature of the soil penetrated
and the interaction of the foundation soil system under the design load. The design
procedures presented here are based on proven theoretical methods, correlation of field and
laboratory test data with actual load tests, and experience gained from structure
performance.
The design guidelines in this section pertain to

♦ Data required for design
♦ Stream scour
♦ Design load
♦ Load-carrying capacity determination
♦ Foundation load transfer
♦ Foundation size and length design recommendations
Data Required for Design
Collection of pertinent data for foundation design is very important and should never be
neglected. Subsurface conditions and size of structure should be the controlling factors in
deciding the amount of data that can be utilized to full advantage with resultant savings in
design and construction costs. The next subsections give guidelines on these data required
for design:
♦ Field, laboratory and related data

♦ Soil effects
Field, Laboratory and Related Data
The foundation exploration drilling log is the basis for field data interpretation. Fill out the
log completely in the field as the drilling is taking place. This field data must include a soil
and/or rock description and thickness, penetrometer test results at each five or ten-foot
interval of depth, and any and all drilling problems encountered. Data obtained in the field
generally consists of a combination of the following:
♦ Soil classification for soil profile
♦ Water table
♦ Texas Cone Penetrometer Tests (TCP), (TxDOT Test Method Tex-132-E)
♦ InPlace Vane Shear Tests (IVS)
The Texas Cone Penetrometer is the basic test run in the field during foundation exploration
drilling. Results from this test are interpreted as shear and/or bearing strength and forms the
basis of the design curves. Undisturbed samples taken during foundation exploration may be
tested in the laboratory by triaxial or unconfined compression test to determine the shear
strength of the material (TxDOT Test Method Tex-118-E or ASTM D 2850). Tests for
moisture content and Atterberg limits are also usually performed in conjunction with the
testing of undisturbed samples.
Soil Effects
Investigate any of the following soil effects and consider them in design, if applicable:
♦ Downdrag
♦ Lateral displacement
♦ Swelling and shrinking
Downdrag. Downdrag is an additional force acting on a pile or drilled shaft foundation,

which tends to drag the foundation downward. Such forces typically develop by
consolidation of soft soils underneath embankments. As soil consolidation progresses, shear
stresses (“drag” forces) are induced between the relatively “fixed” pile or shaft and the
adjacent, downward moving embankment soil. Sufficient penetration into natural soil is
required to counteract all of the anticipated negative friction plus dead and live load forces.
Disregard all fill material, through which the foundation is placed, for load carrying capacity
including several feet of the natural soil in order to compensate for the weight of the fill
imposed on the load carrying strata. Figure 5-10 shows an abutment wingwall, which has
been pulled down by downdrag on a short pile foundation.

Figure 5-10. Downdrag of short wingwall piling
If the design load of the foundation is roughly equivalent to the downdrag force, additional
foundation penetration may be required to prevent foundation settlement. Whenever
embankments are constructed on soft soils, tip all foundations supporting a structural
element (e.g. an abutment) at or near the same elevation to prevent structural damage due to
differential settlement.
Lateral Displacement. Foundations may be displaced by lateral forces due to unbalanced

weight of the adjoining fill or reduction of subsoil pressure caused by adjacent excavation.
Soft soils are susceptible to such lateral movement. Displacements may be rapid or
progressive over a long period of time. Where lateral displacement can be anticipated, batter
the foundation and take it deep enough to counteract the lateral forces. If the forces are high
enough, the structure and proposed ground lines may need to be reconfigured to reduce the
lateral forces.
Swelling and Shrinking. If the soil below finished grade is subject to swelling and shrinking
due to moisture fluctuation, which can cause differential movement, place the foundation
below the moisture-affected zone. Most soils are subject to some shrinkage upon drying. For
this reason, the upper 10’ of soil is normally disregarded in foundation design.
Stream Scour
The effects of stream scour influence the foundation depths and the permissible load
distribution along the embedded length of pile or shaft. To determine the extent of possible
scour, review
♦ Gage records
♦ Cross sections of the channel at low and peak flow
♦ Soil materials in the stream and their resistance to scour

♦ Comparison of aerial photographs at the vicinity of the crossing to determine any

stream migration
The Hydraulics Section of the Design Division will assist in determining the probable
magnitude of scour and other stream flow characteristics. Figure 5-11 is an example of the
effect stream scour has on drilled shafts, which are exposed in a migrating stream channel.
Figure 5-11: Drilled shafts exposed in migrating stream channel
The next subsections discuss these stream scour data:

♦ Extreme event evaluation
♦ Susceptibility to scour
Extreme Event Evaluation
When evaluating a structure for the extreme 500-year scour event, the safety factor for
foundation capacity may be reduced to 1.0. That is, the allowable soil friction (SF = 2.0)
may be doubled for analysis of the extreme event. The same holds true for allowable point
bearing.
Susceptibility to Scour
All materials are subject to scour. Even the hardest of rocks are slowly degraded in stream
channels over periods of thousands of years. The key factor to keep in mind for the extreme
500-year event is the time factor. This event is assumed to occur in a span of days to weeks.
In this case, weathering effects on soils are not considered. Refer to the table below for
assumptions in assessing susceptibility to scour:

Material Susceptibility to Scour

Material Subtype Texas Cone Susceptibility
Penetrometer
Rock Hard (Granite, Less than 4"/100 blows Not susceptible
Limestone, Shale) (100mm/100 blows)
Soft (Shale) Less than 12"/100 blows Mildly susceptible, but
(300mm/100 blows) not considered over time
span of one flood event
Clays Hard (Redbed, Shaley Less than 12"/100 blows Mildly susceptible, but
Clays, Very Stiff Clays) (300mm/100 blows) not considered over time
span of one flood event
Soft to Medium Greater than 12"/100 Susceptible to scour at a
blows (300mm/100 moderate rate
blows)
Sands All All Very susceptible
Shales present a unique problem when exposed to repeated wetting and drying. They tend to
break down and disintegrate. This is major problem in northeast Texas where head cutting in
the Sulphur river basin has resulted in the channels down cutting into the shale. The typical
rate of degradation of the shale in this situation is on the order of inches a year. As a result,
most shales are not considered susceptible to scour during a single flood event, but should
be monitored for long term degradation.
Design Load
The design load is the load derived from a combination of live and dead loads and the
effects of stream flow, wind, and other lateral forces. When significant negative friction is
anticipated, the design load may need to reflect the amount of the negative friction loading.
Most of the time, however, negative friction is not considered. Most negative friction forces
are adequately accommodated by the safety factor of two used for design.
The design load is applied at the top of the foundation. Normally the weight of the
foundation element is neglected since the weight of the foundation is close to the weight of
the soil displaced. An exception to this rule might be for foundations in deep water where a
significant portion is above the mudline.
Load Carrying Capacity Determination
For a given load, the design of a pile, shaft, or spread footing depends on the ability of the
adjacent soil or rock to support loads. Prior to design, good foundation exploration and
laboratory or other test data are essential in evaluating the load carrying capacity of
foundation material. The load carrying properties of a material depend on its shear strength.
Determine these properties by one or more of the following tests:
♦ Texas Cone Penetrometer Tests (TCP), (TxDOT Test Method Tex-132-E)
♦ Triaxial Tests (TAT), (TxDOT Test Method Tex-118-E)

♦ Unconfined Compression Test, (TxDOT Test Method Tex-118-E with no confining

pressure)
Data, at least from one and sometimes all of these tests, are usually available for use by the
designer in preparing accumulative skin friction graphs. TCP tests are normally used to
determine allowable shear values for design purposes. Static capacity equations, based on
TAT and Unconfined Compression test data, provide another approach to determine
foundation capacity. However, laboratory tests for determining soil strength are often
omitted in routine subsurface investigations because of the expense. When both TCP and
TAT tests are available, compare the results from the tests for consistency. Sometimes, the
TAT tests underestimate the soil strength due to presence of secondary soil structures. The
TCP test is an empirical test method. The test has been calibrated over the years based on
comparison with triaxial tests and field load tests. The consistency of the results is well
established. The next subsections discuss these aspects of load carrying capacity
determination:
♦ Foundation design methods
♦ Skin friction capacity
♦ Point bearing capacity
♦ Available software
Foundation Design Methods
The following paragraphs describe the two methods used to determine foundation capacities:
♦ Foundation design based on soil classification and TCP data
♦ Foundation design based on triaxial data
The methods may be used separately or combined based on the availability of data.
Foundation Design Based on Soil Classification & TCP Data. Soils are grouped into one
of four categories when designing with TCP data. Different correlation factors apply to each
category. The categories are
TCP Data Soil Group Categories

Category Soil
CH High plasticity clays, LL ≥ 50
CL Low plasticity clays and silt clay mixtures, LL < 50
SC Sand – Clay mixtures
OTHER All other soils and rocks
Once the soil is classified (CH, CL, SC, OTHER) the design charts may be used to
determine skin friction and point bearing values for use in design. Based on these values, the
accumulative skin friction with depth can be determined. Normally, this is done on a strata
by strata basis, however, should the TCP values for one part of a strata vary significantly

from those in another, the strata should be subdivided into similar TCP values for design
purposes. For soils, the top five to ten feet of resistance is neglected. Then, through an
iterative process, the tip elevation is determined where the accumulative skin friction plus
point bearing equal the design load.
Foundation Design Based on Triaxial Data. Once the laboratory testing is completed, the
data must be analyzed. This consists of correcting the raw data for strain induced
enlargement of the failure cross section. Typically, analysis is done by the laboratory as part
of the data reduction. The next step is to determine the angle of internal friction and the
cohesion. Historically, this has been done by plotting the test results on a Mohr Circle plot in
Figure 5-12. The failure envelope is then drawn as a best fit line for the circles as shown.
Figure 5-12. Angle of internal friction and cohesion test results on Mohr Circle plot.
Numerical analysis may also be used to analyze the data, however, plotting the data allows
the designer to disregard test data that does not correlate well with the other test results for a
soil strata. Once the cohesion and frictional parameters are determined, Coulomb’s formula
may be used to determine the frictional resistance for each stratum. A safety factor of two
should be used for frictional resistance determined by this method. Allowable point bearing
capacity may be assumed to be five times the Coulomb shear strength, c+wh (tanΝ), with
this strength calculated for soil one foundation diameter below the foundation tip elevation.
If softer layers exist below this level, the lower strengths should be used to avoid a punching
type point-bearing failure into the softer soil layers.
Skin Friction Capacity
The following aspects of foundation capacity by skin friction appear below:

♦ Skin friction
♦ Groundwater consideration
♦ Accumulative friction graph
♦ Group action consideration

Skin Friction. Long, slender foundations such as piling and long drilled shafts gain a
significant portion of their load carrying capacity from friction between the outside “skin” of
the foundation element and the soil (Fr). While pure friction actually only occurs in granular
soils like sands or silts, the term skin friction is applied to any soil resistance encountered
along the vertical sides of a foundation.
In cohesive soils such as clay, the resistance is partly due to friction and cohesion (soil
adhering to the side of the foundation). Depending on the clay, friction may play an
insignificant role in soil resistance. The total ultimate (safety factor = 1) skin friction
(shearing strength) observed is the sum of the frictional and cohesive components of the soil
resistance as per Coulomb’s equation, c + wh (tan Ν). The wh term accounts for the normal
(perpendicular) stress on the surface of the foundation resulting from the overlying soil
(overburden).
Groundwater Consideration. The influence of groundwater must be considered since soil

below the water table weighs less due to the buoyant effect of the water displaced by the soil
particles. This is referred to as the “effective stress” of the soil. If the location of the water
table is not well known or stable, assume the groundwater surface at or near the ground-line.
The Texas Cone Penetrometer (TCP) test does not require consideration of groundwater
since it is conducted in the ground (in situ). The TCP values may be used without correction
to determine the shear strength of the soil for foundation design as shown in Figure 5-13 and
Figure 5-14.

Figure 5-13. Piling & drilled shaft foundation design – skin friction design (<100
blows/12”).

Figure 5-14. Piling & drilled shaft foundation design – skin friction design (<100 blows/300
mm).

Accumulative Friction Graph. After determining the shearing strength of the soil layers,
prepare an accumulative friction graph of soil profile. The y axis is in terms of elevation or
depth and the x axis in terms of accumulative frictional resistance, (ΣFr), expressed in tons
per foot of foundation perimeter (summation of products of layer thicknesses times shear
strength). This dimensional unit allows the accumulative friction graph to be used with any
diameter of foundation. A second line is commonly shown on this graph which is the
reduced accumulative friction for drilled shaft design discussed under Drilled Shaft Design
in this section.
Group Action Consideration. Group action must be considered when placing multiple
foundation elements in close proximity to one another such as under multiple pile or drilled
shaft footings. The evaluation of group action involves summing the perimeters of the
individual foundation elements and comparing this value to the outside perimeter of the
group. If the outside perimeter of the group is less than that of the individual elements,
either increase the foundation spacing or use the perimeter of the group for the design.
Point Bearing Capacity
The bearing capacity of a soil is governed by

♦ Shear strength
♦ Soil type
♦ Overburden above the foundation level
For deep foundations, the depth of overburden is not considered since the failure mode is by
the displacement of the soil to the side of the plunging foundation tip. For shallow
foundations, the failure mode is by inelastic displacement of the soil at the surface, hence the
effect of depth of overburden. Shallow foundation bearing capacity is discussed in the
Bearing Pressure subsection of Chapter 6, Section 7. Point bearing (Pb) is normally
neglected for piling due to the small area of the tip. Point bearing for piling larger than 24
inch should be considered. Point bearing is considered in all drilled shaft design. Allowable
point bearing from TCP data may be determined from the point bearing charts shown in
Figures 5-15 through 5-18.
Figures 5-17 and 5-18 are used mainly for drilled shaft design. These figures may be used
for piling design with caution. Piling generally cannot be driven more than a few feet (1 m)
into soils harder than 100 blows/12” (100 blows/300mm).

Figure 5-15. Piling & drilled shaft foundation design – point bearing design (<100
blows/12”).

Figure 5-16. Piling & drilled shaft foundation design – point bearing design (<100
blows/300 mm)..

Figure 5-17. Piling & drilled shaft foundation design – point bearing & skin friction design
(<100 blows/12”).

Figure 5-18. Piling & drilled shaft foundation design – point bearing & skin friction design
(<100 blows/300 mm).

Allowable point bearing from TAT data is normally assumed to be five times the allowable
shear strength as determined from Coulomb’s equation. Average shear strengths or TCP data
for point bearing design over a distance of two foundation diameters below the foundation
tip. Averaging strengths in this manner should account for soft layers below the foundation
tip; however, this should not outweigh sound engineering judgment. When foundations are
tipped in hard strata (< 3" (75mm)/ 100 blows) such as shale, limestone, very stiff clay, or
very dense sand, the frictional resistance of the upper softer soil layers is usually neglected
in capacity calculations. This is due to the small amount of movement needed to develop
point-bearing resistance. This small movement is not adequate to allow the development of
frictional resistance in the softer upper layers.
Available Software
At the present time the Wincore program is available for performing foundation design. The
program is available from the Bridge Division Geotechnical Section.
Foundation Design
The next subsections discuss these foundation design topics:

♦ Piling design
♦ Drilled shaft design
Piling Design
Piling transfer the load into the underlying strata by skin friction, point bearing or by a
combination of the two. The resistance to movement developed between the pile surface and
the adjacent soil is termed skin friction, where load capacity is developed by transferring the
load to the various strata along the embedded length. The load is distributed downward and
outward into the surrounding soil materials. A typical example is a displacement pile driven
through relatively soft strata without founding in a firm material. The resistance to
movement developed at the tip of the pile is termed point bearing, where the pile transmits
most of its load by bearing on a firm stratum. A typical example is a steel H pile driven
through soft materials to a firm seating in a stratum of either
♦ Rock
♦ Shale
♦ Dense sand
♦ Hard clay
A combination of skin friction and point bearing is present to varying degrees in all piling
with part of the load distributed into the upper strata and the remainder on the material at the
pile tip. Test loads of instrumented test piling have proven that virtually no point bearing
exists until skin friction has been mobilized.
The load capacity of a pile depends on a number of factors:

♦ Clay (cohesive) soils

• shear strength
• soil sensitivity
♦ Sand (cohesionless) soils
• relative density
• soil dilatancy
Discussion of both cohesive and cohesionless soils appears below.
Cohesive Soils. The next paragraphs cover these cohesive soil topics:
♦ Dynamic driving resistance
♦ Pile point bearing
♦ Maximum skin friction
♦ Allowable frictional values
Dynamic Driving Resistance. In clay soils, dynamic driving resistance differs from the soil
resistance determined by a static test load. The soil shear strength at the pile surface
decreases due to the remolding of the soil during driving. The skin friction, immediately
after driving, is the product of the shear strength of the remolded soil and the surface area of
the pile. The ratio of the intact strength to remolded strength of the soil is referred to as the
"sensitivity" of the soil. Following a period of hours to days after driving, the remolded soil
regains considerable shear strength due to its reconsolidating around the pile (“soil setup”).
This increases the load capacity of the pile with time. The strength regained eventually
corresponds to some percentage the product of the original shear strength of the soil and the
surface area of the pile. Hard to very hard clays reconsolidate less around a pile than soft to
medium clays. Therefore, expect that the increase in pile capacity to depend on the
sensitivity and shear strength of the soil. Quite commonly during construction when initial
driving resistance indicates inadequate bearing capacity, it is common practice to leave a
pile several feet above grade for redriving after several days.
Pile Point Bearing. The point bearing of a pile depends on the magnitude of the skin friction
resistance. The majority of a small load is carried by skin friction, while the larger part of a
higher load is carried by point resistance. The skin friction resistance of a relatively short
constant diameter pile is often less than 30 to 40 percent of the total bearing capacity, while
for longer piling it is frequently 80 to 90 percent.
Maximum Skin Friction. The maximum recommended skin friction for displacement piling
is approximately 1.4 tons per square foot. Piling driven through hard soils exhibit less set up
and therefore do not achieve full capacity after driving. This limit may not be true for non-
displacement piling such as H piles. These piling can penetrate very hard soils with a
minimal disruption of the soil structure. The evaluation of skin friction under these
conditions should be based on test-driven or test-loaded piling if possible.
Allowable Friction Values. For design purposes, take the allowable frictional values from
Figure 5-13.

Cohesionless Soils. Cohesionless materials show little or no soil setup, although they are
greatly affected by consolidation and densification by the pile driving operations. In isolated
cases, they may exhibit relaxation due to pore pressure dissipation with a consequent
decrease in piling load capacity with time. The capacity of piling driven into cohesionless
soils depends primarily on the relative density of the soil. During driving, the relative
density increases near the pile surface due to vibrations and imposed stresses for a distance
of 7 to 12 pile diameters from the friction surface and 3 to 5 pile diameters below the pile
point. Investigations have also shown that the zone of influence and increase in relative
density caused by the driving operation is larger for loose sand than for dense sand. In
cohesionless materials, “setup” is not a significant factor but, instead, “dilation” is a factor.
This is the tendency to lose load capacity after driving due to pore water pressure
dissipation.
Drilled Shaft Design
The next paragraphs give guidelines on

♦ Shaft point bearing and skin friction
♦ Drilled shaft design
♦ Point bearing and skin friction design
♦ Belled shafts
Shaft Point Bearing and Skin Friction. A drilled shaft transfers load into the underlying
strata by point bearing and skin friction. A point bearing shaft is designed to transmit the
total load by bearing on a high strength soil or rock. Friction in the overlying softer soils is
disregarded because the point bearing material is so much stiffer than the overburden (strain
compatibility). A friction and point bearing shaft is designed to transmit part of its load to
the various strata through skin friction and the remainder by bearing at its tip. In this type of
load transfer, the majority of the load is often resisted by skin friction. The length of the
shaft is a function of the design load with the allowable friction resistance of the soils acting
on its accumulative perimeter and the allowable bearing strength at the tip.
Drilled Shaft Design. When a hard strata (TCP <2"-3"/100 (50-75mm/100)) is present close
to the surface, drilled shafts are typically designed to carry their entire load in point bearing.
When founding in a hard stratum, skin friction in the softer overburden is not considered.
When founding in softer shales (TCP 4"-6"/100 (100-150mm)), belled shafts have been used
to increase the point bearing area of the shaft. Bells are generally not recommended, and
should be used cautiously and only when a dry hole can be assured. Bells cannot be
constructed in sands or slicken-sided clays that are prone to collapse.
Point Bearing and Skin Friction Design. Most drilled shaft designs are a combination of
point bearing and skin friction. The design for skin friction is similar to piling, except for the
addition of a soil reduction factor, Sr. The skin friction values for drilled shaft design are
reduced by the soil reduction factor for TCP values softer than 12”/100 (300mm/100). The
reason for this is disturbance of the soil during drilling. A soil reduction factor is not applied
to soils harder than 12"/100 blows (300mm/100).

In the past, values of the soil reduction factor between 0.5 and 0.7 have been used depending
on construction method. Based on a substantial load test history, a value of 0.7 is now used
for all drilled shafts. Design in moderate strength soils considers skin friction contribution
along the entire length of the shaft. Normally the first five feet or one shaft diameter of soil
is disregarded in friction computations in consideration of moisture fluctuations,
disturbance, etc. Design in hard soils at depth must consider strain compatibility between the
hard lower strata and the softer overburden soils. Typically when the founding strata is
harder than 3”/100 blows (75mm/100), the softer overlying layers are disregarded. In this
case, skin friction is calculated in the harder founding layer only.
Belled Shafts. A point bearing belled shaft is designed to spread the design load in point
bearing over a larger area to keep the unit bearing pressure on the founding soil within
allowable values and for economy by transferring the load by means of a relatively small
and/or shorter shaft. Belled shafts are used when the founding stratum cannot support the
design load on a straight shaft in point bearing alone. Bells are seldom used due to difficulty
of construction and inspection. Only specify bells when it is certain that a dry hole can be
drilled. A shaft with a bell may be designed to transmit a portion of its load in skin friction
with the remainder being transferred in point bearing. The height of the bell and one shaft
diameter above the bell is normally disregarded for skin friction capacity.
Foundation Size & Length Design Recommendations
The minimum size of a foundation is determined by the structural considerations of load and
unsupported height. While this is the minimum structural size, this size foundation may not
be able to resist the applied load within a reasonable penetration into the ground or within
the depth for which soils data is available. A normal maximum length for drilled shafts is
around 100 feet (30m); however, this is dependent on shaft diameter. Drilled shafts 18
inches (450mm) in diameter are difficult to construct deeper than 40 feet (12m); however,
96 inch (2400mm) shafts may easily be constructed to depths much in excess of 100 feet
(30m).
The following subsections address normal maximum design loads for foundations and other
design considerations for
♦ Piling size and length
♦ Drilled shaft size and length
Piling Size and Length
The fact that piling are driven into the ground dictates that the ground be soft enough to
drive the piling through. Piling cannot be driven through very stiff clays or dense sands.
When these materials are encountered, techniques including pilot holes or jetting are used to
aid in driving the piling to the foundation elevations. Installing piling with pilot holes can be
difficult with shallow groundwater and sandy soils. Jetting can be difficult if encountering
clay layers. The next paragraphs discuss these piling topics:
♦ Maximum lengths

♦ Point bearing piling

♦ Minimum penetration
Maximum Lengths. The maximum lengths for piling are governed by handling
considerations. The structural designer should be consulted about the suitability of
maximum piling size/length combinations. The table below lists the maximum
recommended lengths and structural loads for piling. The loads may need to be increased or
decreased based on the performance of a detailed structural analysis. The ability of the
foundation to develop these capacities for the specific site soil conditions should be verified
prior to final structural design.
Maximum Allowable Pile Service Loads

Size Maximum Length Abutments & Trestle Footings (per pile)
Bents (per pile)
14" & 15" (350 & 375mm) 80' (24m) 60 tons (535kN) 100 tons (890kN)
16" (400mm) 85' (26m) 75 tons (665kN) 125 tons (1110kN)
18" (450m) 95' (29m) 90 tons (800kN) 175 tons (1555kN)
A general rule of thumb is that piling may be driven through soils of less than 12”/100 blows
(300mm/100) as determined by the TCP test. Soils harder than this will probably require
pilot holes or jetting for penetration.
Point Bearing Piling. Point bearing piling are founded in material harder than 12"/100
(300mm/100). Piling will normally penetrate such hard strata several feet prior to reaching
refusal. The exact penetration prior to refusal will depend on the pile type and strata
hardness. Nondisplacement piling, such as H piling, penetrate farther than displacement
piling into hard strata. Piling lengths are determined as described previously. Once the
lengths are determined, they should be plotted on layouts for examination against the soil
core borings. Two key items to look out for are
♦ Piling founded in zone of decreasing strength
♦ Piling tipped above hard strata
Piling Founded in Zone of Decreasing Strength. Piling founded in a zone of decreasing

strength may reach capacity during driving but lose capacity when encountering such a
zone. If the zone of decreasing strength is soft enough, settlement could also be an issue.
Piling Tipped Above Hard Strata. When a foundation design determines a founding
elevation within a short distance of a hard layer, it is desirable to lengthen the foundation to
insure ample capacity and eliminate the possibility of build-ups.
Minimum Penetration. A minimum pile penetration is sometimes specified if stream scour

or some other anticipated future condition is envisioned to jeopardize structural stability. In

such a case, a note on the plans should state that the piling tip elevations shown are to be
considered as a minimum penetration with no piling cutoffs above this elevation allowed.
Drilled Shaft Size and Length
Drilled shafts may carry load in point bearing, or a combination of point bearing and skin
friction. Drilled shaft lengths are determined based on TCP or TAT data. The Maximum
Allowable Drilled Shaft Service Loads table lists the maximum recommended structural
loads for drilled shafts. The loads may need to be increased or decreased based on the
performance of a detailed structural analysis. The ability of the foundation to develop these
capacities for the specific site soil conditions should be verified prior to final structural
design.
Maximum Allowable Drilled Shaft Service

Size Load
30" (750mm) 275 tons (2445kN)
36" (900mm) 400 tons (3560kN)
42" (1050mm) 525 tons (4560kN)
48" (1200mm) 700 tons (8005kN)
54" (1350mm) 900 tons (8005kN)
60" (1500mm) 1100 tons (9785kN)
The minimum length of a foundation is determined by lateral stability considerations. Of

special consideration is the temporary condition during construction when no superstructure
is in place to brace the bents. A very short shaft in rock could suffer a rotational failure
under wind or construction loads resulting in collapse of the bent. These paragraphs give
rules, which should be applied to short drilled shaft foundations when stream scour is of no
concern:
♦ Rock at depth
♦ Rock at surface
Rock at Depth. When rock is present more than two drilled shaft diameters below the
surface and adequate shaft capacity cannot be developed in the overlying soils, a minimum
penetration of one diameter into rock should be specified on the plans. This penetration may
need to be increased if additional skin friction is required to safely transfer the shaft load to
the rock. A typical note on the bridge layout would read: “Drilled shafts shall be founded a
minimum of one shaft diameter into hard shale.”
Rock at Surface. When rock is present at or near the surface, load carrying capacity should
be considered along with stability of the superstructure on the foundation. For this situation,
a minimum shaft length of three diameters is recommended. This does not necessarily mean
a three diameter penetration into rock, but only a three diameter shaft length minimum. A
typical note on the bridge layout would read: “Drilled shafts shall be founded at the
elevations shown or deeper as necessary to obtain a minimum of one shaft diameter
penetration into hard shale.”

Chapter 5 — Foundation Design Section 5 — Load Carrying Capacity
Verification
Section 5
Load Carrying Capacity Verification
Overview
Conditions are often such that the foundation design must be proven. Sometimes, special
consideration must be given to achieve the most economical foundation, and one or more of
several methods are generally used. The theoretical load carrying capacity of piling can be
correlated to
♦ Bearing resistance obtained during driving
♦ Test pile data
♦ Test load data
The theoretical carrying capacity of drilled shafts is correlated to test load data. A good
correlation generally indicates that foundation exploration, laboratory work, and design
procedures were performed satisfactorily. Designers also specify some methods as a basis
for adjusting plan lengths. This section covers the following load carrying capacity
verification aspects:
♦ Piling load carrying capacity
♦ Drilled shaft load carrying capacity
Piling Load Carrying Capacity
Generally, the anticipated bearing values, calculated during design, correlate well with the
methods used in the field to determine bearing values. Occasionally there are wide
differences that produce large variations in pile lengths that can be costly or detrimental to
the foundation. These variations can result from a particular combination of soil conditions,
driving equipment and type of piling. If they can be anticipated, a suitable method can be
specified to properly evaluate them during construction.
The next subsections cover these piling topics:

♦ Bearing resistance during driving
♦ Test piling for capacity verification
♦ Pile test loads
Bearing Resistance During Driving
Bearing resistance is estimated during driving by either

♦ Dynamic hammer formula
♦ Wave equation analysis

Verification
♦ Pile driving analyzer
Discussion on these tests appears in the next subsections. The simplest methods of verifying
the load carrying capacity of a pile are by hammer formula or by wave equation analysis.
Usually, these two methods are all that is required. However when driving resistances are
erratic or very low, large variations in pile lengths can occur. In such cases, other methods,
such as pile test loading, must be used to determine the true capacity of the foundation to
avoid excessive costs or possible failure of the foundation.
Dynamic Hammer Formula
The Engineering News (ENR) formula determines the bearing resistance of piling. This
formula uses the energy developed by the hammer and the penetration of the pile to
determine pile capacity. Hammer formulas can be used to compare driving characteristics of
individual piling. However, experience indicates that dynamic hammer formulas regardless
of complexity do not consistently and accurately predict load carrying capacity for all the
combinations of soil conditions, type, size and length of piling and driving equipment. The
safety factor in the bearing values they yield varies. By the use of test loading and other
methods, designers can modify hammer formulas to yield values that correlate well with
actual static bearing capacities.
Wave Equation Analysis
The next paragraphs discuss these wave analysis topics:

♦ Advantages
♦ Description and use
♦ Large hammer effect
♦ Computer analysis
Advantages. While dynamic hammer formulas consider only hammer energy, the wave
equation method takes into account other pertinent effects of the hammer as well as
cushioning, pile type and mass and soil conditions. Computer software makes possible the
use of the wave equation analysis. The static bearing resistance of piling at the time of
driving can be determined more accurately by wave equation analysis than by any other
presently available method. However, accurate soil, pile and hammer data are necessary.
The advantages of the wave equation over the dynamic hammer formula are its flexibility
and ability to include the majority of the variables that affect a pile during driving. These
variables are incorporated in an available computer program and can be varied within the
program to simulate actual driving conditions.
Description and Use. The wave equation program is an analysis by which a dynamic
bearing value is computed and converted into a static bearing value. This analysis takes into
account the quake and the damping of the soil. Quake is the elastic rebound of the soil and
represents the amount the pile will rebound once the impact force of the hammer has

Verification
dissipated after each blow. Damping is the dissipation of energy by the soil that reduces the
effective energy for driving the pile. Quake and damping are well known for sand soils.
Quake and damping may vary greatly in clays. As a result, wave equation analysis works
best in sands.
Large Hammer Effect. The wave equation method may be specified when the designer
anticipates that bearing requirements cannot be obtained at plan length with the hammer
formula due to soil conditions, pile type, or a combination of both. Large hammers result in
conservative dynamic bearing values when using the hammer formula. Since the design load
and total pile weight control the minimum requirements for hammer size, the designer
should be aware of the possible use of a large hammer. The wave equation is also useful to
determine the maximum compressive and tensile stresses that the pile will be subjected to
during driving.
Computer Analysis. After the project is let, the contractor selects a hammer that meets
specification requirements. The required information for use of the wave equation is listed in
the Standard Specifications. A computer analysis of the data determines a bearing graph that
relates blow count per foot versus bearing resistance in tons. Pile driving is then monitored
using the bearing graph. Piling must be at approximate design depth as analyzed for wave
analysis to apply. The accuracy of the Wave Equation Analysis method is only as reliable as
the input data. The results of the computer output data have been and will continue to be
checked against actual pile load tests.
Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA)
The pile driving analyzer is an instrument which monitors the force and acceleration at the
pile head during driving through the use of strain gages and accelerometers attached to the
pile. From this data and certain assumptions about the dynamic soil properties, the ultimate
capacity of the pile may be predicted. For clay soils, this prediction is not always accurate.
Experience shows that the best use of the pile driving analyzer is for checking the
performance of the driving hammer. Figures 5-19 and 5-20 show typical PDA equipment.

Verification
Figure 5-19: PDA data acquisition
Figure 5-20: Force-time plot

Verification
Test Piling for Capacity Verification

♦ Test piling use
♦ Embankment guidelines
♦ Test piling length & spacing
♦ Alignment hole guidelines
♦ Test pile driving
♦ Test pile driving procedure
Test Piling Use
Test piling are used primarily with concrete piling to verify that the required bearing will be
developed with the lengths shown on the plans. They are used to correlate design values
with those determined by hammer formula or wave equation analysis. If any wide
discrepancy exists, plan lengths are generally adjusted on the basis of the test pile data. This
permits pile fabrication to appropriate lengths and avoids excessive cut-offs or build-ups
during construction.
Embankment Guidelines
Do not drive test piling through embankments since additional bearing resistance will be
developed in the fill. If test piling must be driven through an embankment, specify oversize
pilot holes through the fill so the friction resistance developed therein will not adversely
affect the length of any interior bent piling governed by the test.
Test Piling Length & Spacing
Test piling are normally 10 feet (3m) longer than the tip elevation indicated by design
capacity calculations and spaced at approximately 500 ft (150m); the subsurface soil
conditions govern the spacing.
Alignment Hole Guidelines
On bents with footings, the alignment hole should be provided only to the bottom of the
footing to eliminate all skin friction above that elevation. Alignment holes up to five feet
below the footing may be permitted under special conditions to account for scour, possible
channel deepening, moisture fluctuations, etc.

Verification
Test Pile Driving
There are two distinct operations, which must each be performed properly to obtain valid
information from a test pile:
♦ Initial driving
♦ Redrive
Never stand immediately next to a pile during driving. Record the blow counts from a safe
distance with the aid of a transit, etc. Occasionally pieces of piling will break off during
driving. The next paragraphs cover these test pile driving topics:
♦ “K” factor
♦ Schedule of piling
K Factor. The “K” factor is developed based on the ratio of the initial driving resistance and
the average resistance for the first foot of the redrive. Due to the disturbance and remolding
of soil during driving, the dynamic pile driving formula resistance at the time of initial
driving does not necessarily reflect the final capacity of a pile after the soil has had time to
reconsolidate after driving. The ratio of the initial driving resistance to the final resistance is
referred to as the “K” factor. This factor is applied to subsequent initial pile driving
resistances. This is always subject to some engineering judgement. The Bridge Division
Geotechnical Section may be contacted for assistance.
Schedule of Piling. After all test pile driving is completed, a Schedule of Piling is prepared
which reflects the pile lengths approved for construction. These approved lengths are used
for fabrication of piling which are driven to authorized tip elevations or deeper as necessary
to obtain the required bearing resistance as determined by the hammer formula, or wave
Equation bearing graph.
Test Pile Driving Procedure

Test Pile Driving Procedure
Step Action
1 Drive test piling initial distance.
2 Wait 7 days for soil setup to occur.
3 Redrive test pile.
a. Record blow counts for each inch of 1st 3 feet.
b. Record blow counts for each foot of remaining
10 feet.
4 Analyze data.
1. Drive test piling initial distance. Drive test piling to 3 feet (1m) above grade of other
regular piling in the immediate foundation. This is 13 feet (4m) above the test pile tip
elevation if it is 10 feet (3m) longer than the regular piling. Blow counts should be
recorded for each foot of the pile driven.
2. Wait 7 days for soil setup to occur.

Verification
3. Redrive test pile. Redrive the test pile after 7 days have elapsed since initial driving.
4. Record the blow counts for each inch (25mm) of the first 3 feet (0.9m) of the redrive. A
straight edge or wire is strung across the pile to provide an accurate reference. Record
the hammer stroke and blows per inch for the first three feet of the redrive. After the
pile is driven three feet, the stroke and blows per foot are recorded for each foot (300
mm) thereafter.
5. Record blow counts for each foot (300mm) of the remaining 10 feet (3m).
6. Analyze data to determine regular piling lengths and appropriate “K” for use on the
project.
Pile Test Loads
See Figure 5-21 for an example of a pile test load. Pile test loads are used to
♦ Determine the true load carrying capacity which is derived from the proven static
design load
♦ Determine the relationship between the proven static bearing capacity and that
determined by hammer formula or wave equation bearing graph
♦ Verify the ability of the pile-soil system to develop the required bearing capacity at a
predetermined elevation
Figure 5-21: Pile test load
The cost of test loads is easier to justify on large projects, but they should be used on any job
where a definite need for them exists. Test loading of piling is performed in accordance with
the Item, “Foundation Test Load” of the Standard Specifications. The Maximum Safe Static
Load as interpreted from the Load-Settlement Graph indicates gross settlement in inches

Verification
against load in tons and should provide an adequate factor of safety, and provide reasonable
assurance that long term settlement is kept within tolerable limits.
The next subsections cover these pile test load topics:

♦ Double Tangent Method for pile test loads
♦ Plunging Failure Method for pile test loads
♦ Data interpretation
Double Tangent Method for Pile Test Loads
When evaluating by the Double Tangent Method, the Maximum Safe Static Load shall be 50
percent of the load indicated by the intersection of two lines, one drawn tangent to the initial
flat portion and the other to the steep portion of the gross settlement curve. This method
involves the following steps for determining the Maximum Safe Static Load:
1. Plot the load-settlement graph (see Figure 5-22) using a horizontal scale of one inch
equals twenty tons (1mm = 7kN) of load and a vertical scale of one inch equals two
tenths inch of settlement. (These scales may be doubled to fit the load and settlement
requirements.)
2. Plot one line originating at zero load and settlement, tangent to the initial flat portion
and slope of the gross settlement curve. (This line is generally drawn to the same slope
as the recovery line.)
3. Plot the second line tangent to the downward slope of the gross settlement curve where
the rate of settlement approaching plunging failure exceeds 0.05 inch per ton for the last
increment of load applied. (For the recommended scale and scales of the same ratio, this
is an angle of 11.3Ε measured off the vertical.)
4. The Maximum Safe Static Load is 50 percent of that load indicated by the intersection
of the two tangents plotted on the Load-settlement graph, Figure 5-22. The Maximum
Safe Static Load will be the value used to establish a “K” Factor to be used with the
hammer formula during construction.

Verification
Figure 5-22. Pile test load interpretation.

Verification
Plunging Failure Method for Pile Test Loads
Use this method as a check of the Double Tangent Method. In this method, the Maximum
Safe Static Load proven by test load shall be the Plunging Failure Load divided by a factor
of 2.3 which is a combination safety and correction factor, provided the Load-Settlement
Graph shows a definite break to plunging failure.
Data Interpretation
The Maximum Safe Static Load and the hammer formula resistance determine a “K” factor,
which is applied to the hammer formula as a multiplying factor for computing the resistance
of all regular piling.
The "K" factor is defined as follows: K = L/P, where:
K = Pile Test Load "K" factor
L =Maximum Safe Static Load by test load in accordance with interpretation covered herein,
P = Dynamic driving resistance determined by the appropriate hammer formula. The

hammer formula modified by the "K" factor yields bearing values that conform to the
Maximum Safe Static Load and is used to determine the driving resistance of all regular
piling in the structure or within the test load limits of influence.
Drilled Shaft Load Carrying Capacity
The only method of verifying the capacity of a particular shaft soil system is by test load.
This is done in the same manner as for piling but larger loads must be applied and a heavier
and stronger test load set-up is required. The method of evaluation is also slightly different.
The next subsections discuss these drilled shaft topics:
♦ Double Tangent Method for drilled shaft loads
♦ Plunging Failure Method for drilled shaft loads
Double Tangent Method for Drilled Shaft Loads
The Maximum Safe Static Load shall be 50 percent of that load indicated by the intersection
of two lines, one drawn tangent to the initial flat portion and the other to the steep portion of
the gross settlement curve. The method involves the following steps for determining
Maximum Safe Static Load:
1. Plot the Load-settlement graph (see Figure 5-23) using a horizontal scale of one inch
equals one hundred tons of load and a vertical scale of one inch equals 4 tenths inch of
settlement. (The scale may be doubled to fit the load and settlement requirements).

Verification
2. Plot one line originating at zero load and settlement, tangent to the initial flat portion
and slope of the gross settlement curve. (This line is generally drawn to the same slope
as the recovery line).
3. Plot the second line tangent to the downward slope of the gross settlement curve where
the rate of settlement exceeds one hundredth inch per ton for the last increment of load
applied. (For the recommended scale, and others using the same ratio, this is an angle of
21.8° measured off the vertical).
4. The Maximum Safe Static Load is 50 percent of that load indicated on the Load
Settlement Graph by the intersection of the two tangent lines, provided gross settlement
at the selected design load is not more than one half inch. Use the Maximum Safe Static
Load to establish a test load soil factor to modify the foundation design.

Verification
Figure 5-23. Drilled shaft test load interpretation.

Verification
Plunging Failure Method for Drilled Shaft Loads
The Maximum Safe Static Load is the Plunging Failure Load divided by a factor of 2.3,
which is a combination safety and correction factor, provided the gross settlement at design
load is not more than one half inch. Use this method as a check of the Double Tangent
Method.

Chapter 6
Retaining Walls
Contents

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................6-3
Section 2 — Retaining Wall Types....................................................................................... 6-4
Overview...........................................................................................................................................6-4
Fill Walls ..........................................................................................................................................6-4
Spread Footing Walls........................................................................................................................6-4
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls ....................................................................................6-6
Cut Walls ..........................................................................................................................................6-9
Tiedback Walls .................................................................................................................................6-9
Nailed Walls ...................................................................................................................................6-12
Drilled Shaft Walls .........................................................................................................................6-13
Sheet Pile Walls ..............................................................................................................................6-14
Section 3 — Retaining Wall Selection ............................................................................... 6-16
Overview.........................................................................................................................................6-16
Wall Selection Criteria ....................................................................................................................6-16
Cut or Fill Determination ................................................................................................................6-16
Constructability ...............................................................................................................................6-20
Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................6-20
Alternate Walls ...............................................................................................................................6-21
Section 4 — Retaining Wall Layouts ................................................................................. 6-23
Overview.........................................................................................................................................6-23
Preliminary Retaining Wall Layouts...............................................................................................6-23
Layout Content ...............................................................................................................................6-25
Plan View........................................................................................................................................6-25
Elevation View ...............................................................................................................................6-25
Typical Section ...............................................................................................................................6-26
General Notes .................................................................................................................................6-26
Section 5 — Temporary Shoring ........................................................................................ 6-28
Overview.........................................................................................................................................6-28
Temporary Slopes ...........................................................................................................................6-28
Roadways ........................................................................................................................................6-28
Railroads .........................................................................................................................................6-28
Temporary Shoring .........................................................................................................................6-28
Traffic Surcharge ............................................................................................................................6-29
Railroad Surcharge .........................................................................................................................6-29
Section 6 — Design Considerations ................................................................................... 6-32
Overview.........................................................................................................................................6-32
Wall Layout Considerations ...........................................................................................................6-32

Embankment Side Slopes ...............................................................................................................6-32
Widening Fill Sections....................................................................................................................6-33
Depressed Sections .........................................................................................................................6-33
Bridge Abutments ...........................................................................................................................6-33
Structures Behind Wall ...................................................................................................................6-33
Stability ...........................................................................................................................................6-34
Sliding and Overturning..................................................................................................................6-34
Eccentricity .....................................................................................................................................6-35
Bearing Pressure .............................................................................................................................6-35
Rotational Stability .........................................................................................................................6-37
Settlement .......................................................................................................................................6-37
Section 7 — Design Procedures.......................................................................................... 6-39
Overview.........................................................................................................................................6-39
Earth Pressure Distribution .............................................................................................................6-39
Internal Analysis .............................................................................................................................6-39
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls ..................................................................................6-40
Tiedback Walls ...............................................................................................................................6-40
Drilled Shaft and Sheet Pile Walls ..................................................................................................6-40
External Analysis ............................................................................................................................6-40
Sliding and Overturning..................................................................................................................6-41
Eccentricity .....................................................................................................................................6-41
Bearing Pressure .............................................................................................................................6-41
Rotational Stability .........................................................................................................................6-42

Chapter 6 — Retaining Walls Section 1 — Overview
Section 1
Overview
Introduction
The Department has traditionally been one of the largest users of retaining walls in the
country and a leader in the research and development of retaining wall technology. As a
result, the Department has helped pioneer several of the wall types in use today. The
Department utilizes a variety of retaining wall types, with each type individually suited for
different field situations. Some wall types are better suited for fills, while others are better
used in cuts or in limited right-of-way situations.
Figure 6-1 is an example of tiedback and MSE walls.
Figure 6-1. Tiedback and MSE walls

Chapter 6 — Retaining Walls Section 2 — Retaining Wall Types
Section 2
Retaining Wall Types
Overview
Retaining walls are generally divided into fill walls and cut walls. Fill walls are constructed
in conjunction with fills such as bridge approach embankments. Cut walls are associated
with facilities built below existing grade. A typical application for a cut wall would be a
depressed section in an urban environment.
Fill Walls
While fill walls can be constructed in a cut situation, temporary shoring is required as well
as space for the excavation in which to construct the wall. The two common types of fill
walls are
♦ Spread footing walls
♦ Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls
Spread Footing Walls
Spread footing walls resist the forces of soil pressure by using the weight of the wall to keep
the wall stable. Spread footing walls are divided into two types:
♦ Gravity walls
♦ Cantilever walls
Gravity Walls. Gravity walls resist overturning and sliding by the weight of the wall itself.
These walls are usually constructed of solid concrete or rock rubble mortared together.
These walls are not usually reinforced with steel since the massive nature of these walls
develops little or no tension in the mass. Gravity walls are seldom constructed any more
because of the development of more economical wall types.
Cantilever Walls. The next paragraphs discuss these cantilever wall topics:
♦ Description
♦ Standard designs
♦ Standard details
♦ Applications
Description. Cantilever spread footing walls are composed of a footing and stem which are
typically made of cast in place concrete. The footing is poured first. Forms are then placed
on the footing so that the stem can be cast. This wall got its name from the stem, which acts
as a cantilever structural element. The footing and wall stem are relatively thin and heavily

reinforced to resist the bending forces present. The weight of the soil above the heel helps
keep the wall stable.
Standard Designs. The cantilever spread footing retaining walls used by the department can
be grouped into two categories:
♦ High footing pressure designs
♦ Low footing pressure designs
The low-pressure walls use larger concrete footings to distribute soil loads over a large area,
thus reducing the maximum pressure applied to the soil. The high-pressure walls use smaller
footings, but as a result apply greater loads to the underlying soils and therefore require
higher soil strengths.
Figure 6-2 shows a cantilever wall stem under construction.
Figure 6-2. Cantilever wall construction
Standard Details. Standard detail sheets are available for both high and low footing pressure
walls. The English standard sheets cover wall heights of up to 32 feet (10m), level
surcharges of up to 7 feet (2m), and sloped surcharges as steep as 1.5H to 1V
(horizontal:vertical). The metric standard sheets cover wall heights of up to 10m, level
surcharges of up to 0.6m, and sloped surcharges as steep as 2.5H to 1V. For a given wall
height and surcharge condition, the wall designer can look to the standard sheets and find
♦ Required footing and stem dimensions
♦ Required reinforcing steel

♦ Maximum footing pressure applied to the underlying soil
Applications. Spread footing walls are used mostly in fill situations since considerable room
is required behind the walls for forming, constructing, and backfilling the footings and
stems. The use of spread footing walls in cuts requires over excavation and possibly shoring
of the cut material. Although at one time the vast majority of the retaining walls the
Department constructed were spread footing, new technologies have almost completely
replaced this type of wall. Spread footing wall construction is generally limited to small
applications or specialized situations, such as the construction of sidewalls and partitions for
storm water detention basins.
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls
Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls are the most economical and, therefore, the most
common wall type constructed. MSE walls are composed of a mass of select fill held
together by reinforcements to which a face is attached. The reinforcements can be either
metallic or plastic. The select fill is a granular material capable of engaging the
reinforcements through friction. The original MSE walls developed by the Reinforced Earth
Company were constructed with a metal face to which reinforcing strips were attached. The
metal face was soon replaced by concrete panels, which provided better appearance and
durability. Later, small concrete blocks with interlocking plastic reinforcements entered the
market to compete with the larger panel walls.
MSE walls are also referred to as proprietary walls since they are designed and supplied by
outside suppliers. All of the systems are covered by one or more patents held by the
suppliers. The internal design of the wall is performed by the supplier. The Department must
only design the general geometry and check for wall stability. MSE walls are divided into
three categories depending on the facing elements:
♦ Panel walls
♦ Concrete block walls
♦ Temporary earth walls
Panel Walls. MSE panel walls use large reinforced concrete facing elements, which are
mechanically attached to the soil reinforcements. The area of each panel ranges from 25
square feet (2.3m2) to a maximum of 50 square feet (4.6m2). The panel shape and size varies
depending on the supplier. Panel type MSE walls are the most common walls built in Texas.
See Figure 6-3 for a photo of a panel type MSE wall.

Figure 6-3. Panel type MSE wall
Concrete Block Walls. Concrete block walls are constructed of small blocks that have a
surface area of approximately one square foot. The reinforcements are usually plastic
geogrids, although fabric and metallic reinforcements have been used. The reinforcements
are laid between courses of blocks and depend on friction between the blocks or on a
mechanical device for anchorage. These walls are usually built on a batter, which varies
between 1:6 (horizontal:vertical) and 1:48. Figure 6-4 shows an example of terraced
concrete block walls.
Figure 6-4. Terraced concrete block walls

Temporary Earth Walls. Temporary earth walls are utilized when a fill will be constructed
in two or more stages. These walls have a wire mesh face backed with filter fabric to retain
the fill. The wall is then buried by subsequent stages of embankment construction. These
walls are approximately one third the cost of panel type MSE walls and cheaper than sheet
piling for temporary shoring. See Figures 6-5 and 6-6 for photos of temporary earth walls.
Figure 6-5. Temporary earth walls – IH 35 San Marcos

Figure 6-6. Temporary earth walls – IH 35 San Marcos (cont.)
Cut Walls
Cut walls are constructed in areas where the finished grade will be substantially below
existing grade. Cut walls are constructed with a top down construction sequence, which
eliminates the need for temporary shoring. The cost saved by eliminating the temporary
shoring can offset the higher cost of cut type walls. Some of the wall types are more
sensitive than others, with respect to the top of wall extending above the existing ground.
The various types of cut walls are
♦ Tiedback walls
♦ Nailed walls
♦ Drilled shaft walls
♦ Sheet pile walls
Tiedback Walls
These walls consist of a vertical structural element, which is anchored back into the existing
ground with tension elements. The tensile force may be provided by either a deadman
anchor or a prestressed ground anchor. Tiedback walls can be either

♦ Deadman anchored walls

♦ Prestressed ground anchor walls
Deadman Anchored Walls. Deadman anchors consist of bars or cables which pass through
the face of the wall which are anchored to a large object buried behind the wall referred to as
a “deadman,” which is usually either concrete or sheet piling. The force holding the wall
back is generated by passive soil pressures acting on the deadman. The deadman must be
located far enough behind the wall so that the active failure zone and the passive resistance
wedge in front of the deadman do not overlap.
Prestressed Ground Anchor Walls. The next paragraphs deal with these prestressed ground
anchor wall topics:
♦ Description
♦ Construction procedure
♦ Top of wall consideration
♦ Tieback length consideration
Description. Prestressed ground anchor or tiedback walls consist of vertical structural

elements tied back with tension elements embedded in the earth behind the wall. The
vertical elements are most commonly soldier piling, which are installed first, and may be
either reinforced concrete drilled shafts or double channels backfilled with cement stabilized
sand. (See Figure 6-7) The double channel soldier piling are preferred because of the ease of
installing additional tiebacks as required. The vertical element is sometimes composed of
sheet piling.
Figure 6-7. Double channel soldier piling

Construction Procedure. The prestressed ground anchors or tiebacks consist of high-

strength bar or strand grouted into an inclined hole drilled behind the face of the excavation.
Figure 6-8 depicts hole drilling. The tiebacks are installed and tensioned as the excavation
progresses downward. Lagging is installed between soldier piling as necessary to control
soil raveling. If sheet piling are used for the face, the tiebacks are anchored to wale beams
running along the face of the wall. Once the excavation is complete, the permanent facing is
attached to the soldier piling. Figure 6-9 shows preparations for attachment of permanent
facing.
Figure 6-8. Drilling tieback holes

Figure 6-9. Installing stud anchors & filter fabric
Top of Wall Consideration. Tiedback walls are very sensitive to the location of the existing
ground line and the top of wall. If the top of wall is more than three feet above the existing
ground line, problems can occur during tieback tensioning. Backfill placement behind the
wall prior to stressing may not totally solve this problem.
Tieback Length Consideration. Another consideration for tiedback walls is the distance the
tiebacks extend behind the wall. Minimum tieback length is 25 feet (7.6m) and more typical
lengths are in the 40-50 foot range (12-15m). Tiebacks cannot cross the right-of-way line
unless a permanent easement is obtained. Tiedback walls may be installed in rock; however,
nailing may be more economical.
Nailed Walls
These walls consist of a large number of reinforcing elements drilled and grouted into the
ground. Nails are installed as the excavation progresses downward. As each level of nails is
completed, reinforcing mesh and gunnite are applied to the face of the excavation to insure
temporary stability. Once the excavation is complete, the permanent facing is attached to the
nails. Either soil or rock may be nailed. Nails in rock are shorter and more widely spaced

than nails in soil. Nailed walls are designed for the specific ground conditions at each
location. Nailed walls are commonly used for constructing turnarounds at existing structures
when part of the header bank must be removed. See Figure 6-10 for an example of soil
nailed walls.
Figure 6-10. Soil nailed wall with gunnite applied.
Drilled Shaft Walls

♦ Description
♦ Cost and utilities considerations
♦ Existing and proposed grades
Description. These walls consist of drilled shafts installed in the ground behind the face of
wall on as much as 10 foot (3m) centers or as little as one foot clear between the shafts;
depending on wall height, loading, and soil conditions. The shaft excavation is accomplished
with rotary drilling equipment. After installation of the shafts and completion of the
excavation, the facing is attached to the shafts, as shown is Figure 6-11.

Figure 6-11. Facing attached to drilled shafts.
Cost and Utilities Considerations. The shafts typically penetrate one to two times the height
of the wall below grade depending on the ground conditions. As a result, these walls can be
quite expensive. Because of the possible close spacing of the shafts, storm sewers or culverts
passing through the wall below grade may create serious design problems. While it is
possible to design a wall to accommodate a small pipe passing through the wall, a large pipe
or culvert may prove impractical to design around.
Existing and Proposed Grades. Drilled shaft walls are not sensitive to the relation of the
existing and proposed grades. Shafts may be extended above existing grade as columns to
which the facing is attached and the wall then backfilled. Carefully control the placement of
backfill to minimize wall movements due to compaction equipment loads.
Sheet Pile Walls
These next paragraphs cover

♦ Description
♦ Steel sheet pile use
♦ Concrete sheet pile use
♦ Existing and proposed grades
Description. These walls are constructed with either steel or prestressed concrete sheet
piling. The piling are driven into the ground with either impact or vibratory hammers.

Because the piling are driven, the ground must be soft enough to allow the piling to
penetrate with reasonable driving effort. The piling are typically embedded 1.5 to 2 times
the wall height below grade.
Steel Sheet Pile Use. Steel sheet piling are used for either temporary or permanent walls.
When used for permanent walls, the sheet piling is either painted, galvanized, or contain a
concrete facing attached to provide corrosion resistance. Steel sheet piling are
nondisplacement piling and therefore, may be driven into relatively hard soil (softer than
12"/100 (300mm/100) Texas Cone Penetrometer).
Concrete Sheet Pile Use. Prestressed concrete sheet piling are used only for permanent
walls. These piling offer excellent performance in highly corrosive environments. Hard
ground can be difficult to penetrate because they are displacement piling. Penetration
through sands by jetting is discouraged due to possible unpredictable disturbance of the soil
causing excessive deflections of the piling under load. Generally, avoid driving through soil
harder than 50/12" (50/300mm) Texas Cone Penetrometer.
Existing and Proposed Grades. Sheet pile walls are not sensitive to the relation of the
existing and proposed grades. The placement of backfill should be carefully controlled to
minimize wall movements due to compaction equipment loads.

Chapter 6 — Retaining Walls Section 3 — Retaining Wall Selection
Section 3
Retaining Wall Selection
Overview
The selection of the most appropriate wall type for a location can have profound effects on
the project cost and constructability. Consider the total cost of construction for a particular
wall type. An MSE wall that is relatively inexpensive may require temporary shoring
equaling the cost of the wall. The total cost of the wall and shoring should always be
compared to the costs of other wall types.
Once a difference in grade has been identified in the design process, the decision must be
made to construct a slope or a retaining wall. If adequate space exists, consider a slope. A
retaining wall is required if adequate space is not available. The maximum slope steepness is
dictated by the quality of fill soils available and whether or not the slope will be protected
with riprap to eliminate the need for mowing and other maintenance. This section deals with
♦ Wall selection criteria
♦ Alternate walls
Wall Selection Criteria
The following criteria are considered in wall selection:

♦ Cut or fill determination
♦ Constructability
♦ Aesthetics
Cut or Fill Determination
The first criterion in wall selection is to determine whether a wall will be built in a cut or fill
situation. Use fill type walls in fill situations. While fill walls can be built in cuts, the
opposite is not true for all cut walls. The construction of fill walls in cuts will require
additional excavation behind the face of wall and possibly, temporary shoring depending on
the space available for excavation. When building fill walls in cuts, the cost of the wall,
excavation, and shoring can possibly exceed the cost of a more suitable cut wall.
These wall installation conditions determine the wall type selected:

♦ Fill condition
♦ Cut/fill condition
♦ Cut condition
Fill Condition.

The two fill conditions normally encountered are

♦ Fill on level ground
♦ Fill on slope
Fill on Level Ground. This condition is best represented by at-grade crossings that are
upgraded to grade separations by raising one roadway above the other. This is accomplished
by placing fill for the approach to the new, elevated structure. Approach retaining walls are
commonly needed in urban areas due to the lack of available right of way for side slopes.
The most common fill walls used in this situation are
♦ Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE)
♦ Concrete block
If the total quantity of wall on a project is quite small (<1000 SF or <100 M2), it may be
desirable to include cast in place spread footing walls as an option in the plans. For small
quantities, the engineering and transportation expenses for MSE or concrete block may out-
weigh the added cost of a spread footing wall.
Fill on Slope. Fills placed on slopes require special consideration. Regular fill walls, such as
MSE or concrete block built on slopes, will require that a bench be cut into the slope for
wall construction. The back of the bench must either be sloped up at 1:1 maximum or
supported with temporary shoring.
Other wall types may need to be considered if the fill will extend into water. MSE and
concrete block walls can be built if the water can temporarily be lowered or a cofferdam
easily and economically constructed. This assumes that shoring will not be needed for the
excavation back into the slope for the wall construction. Consider the costs of other wall
types, such as sheet piling, if cofferdams or temporary shoring are required for construction.
See Figure 6-12 for a diagram of fill on slope.
Figure 6-12. Fill on slope diagram.
Cut/Fill Condition.

This condition consists of placing fill on the upper portion of a slope and removing the
lower portion of the slope. This condition is typically encountered when upgrading
controlled access facilities when both the main lanes and frontage roads are widened. See
Figure 6-13 for a diagram of a cut/fill condition.
Figure 6-13. Cut/fill condition.
Consider the following wall types for this situation:

♦ MSE or concrete block walls
♦ Drilled shaft walls
♦ Tiedback walls
♦ Sheet pile walls
♦ L-shaped spread footing
MSE or Concrete Block Walls. These wall types require that adequate space be available to
excavate into the slope. The back of the bench must either be shored or sloped the same as
for fill walls on slopes. Other wall types may be more economical if temporary shoring is
necessary. See Figure 6-14 for a diagram of MSE or concrete block.

Figure 6-14. MSE or concrete wall diagram.
Drilled Shaft Walls. Depending on the location of the wall on the slope, the drilled shafts
may be constructed in one or two stages. If the wall is closer to the top of the slope,
temporary fill may be placed to allow the shafts to be constructed in one stage. If temporary
fill is not used, the portion of the shaft below the existing ground line is constructed first,
then the portion above ground is formed and poured as a column. In firm soils or rock,
drilled shaft walls can be an economical alternative.
Tiedback Walls. Only use these walls in a cut/fill situation when the wall is closer to the top
of the slope than the bottom. Any fill should be placed prior to soldier pile installation and
well compacted. Typically tiedback walls are economical only when significant quantities
are used on a project.
Sheet Pile Walls. Sheet pile walls have occasionally been used in a cut/fill situation. The
ground must be soft enough to a depth of one to two times the wall height to allow the piling
to be driven. These walls are the usually the most expensive choice for this situation.
L-shaped Spread Footing. This wall type is commonly used when a small cut is made at the
base of a slope. The lack of a heel minimizes the excavation required behind the wall.
Cut Condition.
In this condition, the primary operation is removing ground with little or no fill placed. The
wall choices for this condition are similar to those for the cut/fill condition. The same
considerations apply, except that tiedback and drilled shaft walls are easier to construct in a
mainly cut situation. See Figure 6-15 for a diagram of a cut condition. An additional wall
type to be considered here is soil nailed walls.

Figure 6-15. Cut condition diagram.
Soil Nailed Walls. These walls may be constructed in any cut situation, but are best suited
for low headroom situations under structures. This is the wall of choice for turn around wall
construction under bridges. The top of wall should be no more than 2' to 3' (600-900mm)
above the existing grade.
Constructability
The next selection criterion to consider is constructability. Drilled shaft and tiedback walls
require the drilling of a vertical hole in the ground. This dictates that adequate overhead
clearance be available for drilling equipment. If clearance is not available, low headroom
drilling equipment may be used and shaft reinforcement or soldier piling members spliced as
it is inserted in the hole. These operations will increase costs considerably. In a low
headroom situation, a nailed wall is the first choice.
Horizontal clearance is a consideration for tiedback and nailed walls. Tiebacks are often
installed with a continuous flight auger somewhat longer than the depth of the hole, which
means 50+ feet (15+m) of horizontal clearance, is desired. Sectional augers may be used in
limited clearance areas. Nails, being shorter, typically need around 20 feet (6m) of clearance
for installation. Because of the minimum size of common drilling equipment used, 20-foot
(6m) horizontal and 6 foot (2m) vertical should be considered minimum clearances.
Aesthetics
The final criterion to be considered is aesthetics. This is a difficult area to address since
opinions on what is desirable will vary quite widely. Suffice it to say that within reason,
most aesthetic treatments can be accomplished independently of wall type. Some walls such
as concrete block walls, however, have an appearance so unique that it cannot be duplicated
by another wall type. However, a possible compromise would be to use concrete block
facing elements with another type wall to accomplish the aesthetic goal. The Design
Division Geotechnical Section should be contacted for assistance in design aesthetic
treatments for walls. The aesthetic treatment of retaining walls may involve items such as

♦ Form liners to produce various surface finishes

♦ Paints, stains or colored concrete to color surfaces
♦ Various wall geometries to accommodate landscaping
The next paragraphs discuss these aesthetic topics:

♦ Cost
♦ Public interaction
♦ Landscaping Considerations
Cost. Depending on the treatment selected, cost may not be significantly affected. The use of
simple form liners can be very economical while colored concrete can be quite expensive.
Furthermore, normal field surface finishing of colored concrete can yield variable colors.
Public Interaction. Another item to be considered is the amount of interaction, which will
occur between the motoring public and the aesthetic treatment. A complicated graphic next
to a high-speed roadway will most likely be a blur to passing motorists, who might only be
able to view the graphic for tenths of a second. In this case, a simple form liner might be a
more appropriate treatment. If a wall faces a park or other public area, more elaborate
treatments may be warranted.
Landscaping Considerations.. Aesthetic treatments with landscaping in conjunction with

retaining walls should be done carefully. If extensive watering of landscaping is anticipated,
additional drainage measures may be needed to insure that excessive pressures do not build
up behind walls.
Alternate Walls
It is sometimes difficult to pick the most suitable wall for a cut or cut/fill condition. Very
often, the designer cannot evaluate factors that a contractor considers important, such as
equipment availability or haul cost for excavated soil for MSE wall construction in a cut. In
such instances, it is best to include several wall types in the plans so that the contractor can
determine the most economical choice. When dissimilar wall types are included in the plans
for a single wall, present the wall types as alternates so that the appropriate bid items may be
included in each alternate. A MSE wall alternate in a cut must include an item for temporary
shoring, whereas the tiedback alternate would not need a shoring item. See Figure 6-16 for a
wall selection flow chart.

Chapter 6 — Retaining Walls Section 3 — R e t a i n i n g W a l l S e l e c t i o n
Figure 6-16. Wall selection flowchart.

Chapter 6 — Retaining Walls Section 4 — Retaining Wall Layouts
Section 4
Retaining Wall Layouts
Overview
Retaining wall layouts must be carefully prepared to clearly present the geometric
information. Poorly prepared layouts can result in misinterpretation of alignments or grades
by the designer. Such mistakes in design will carry over into construction and result in
contractor claims. The need for clear, concise, and accurate wall layouts is very important
since wall construction has become a significant portion of the work in many contracts. For
information on wall layout design, see Section 6, Design Considerations.
This section contains information on

♦ Preliminary retaining wall layouts
♦ Layout content
Preliminary Retaining Wall Layouts
Preliminary wall layouts are prepared for review by various offices to evaluate potential
problems such as:
♦ Wall stability on weak soils
♦ Drainage structure conflicts with the wall
♦ Utility impacts
♦ Inadequate right of way
♦ Need for temporary or permanent construction easements
♦ Potential geometric problems such as sight distance
Preliminary layouts should contain adequate information to evaluate the potential problems
stated above. Figure 6-17 shows a sample preliminary wall layout.

Figure 6-17. Sample preliminary wall layout.

Layout Content
Retaining wall layouts consist of

♦ Plan view
♦ Elevation view
♦ Typical section
♦ General notes
The subsections below discuss these topics. The final layouts should also contain a quantity
table and applicable general notes.
Plan View
The plan view should contain the following items:

♦ Beginning and ending wall points by station, offset, and roadway alignment
♦ Additional points as necessary to describe relationship of wall alignment to roadway
alignment(s)
♦ Indicate which side is the “Face of Wall”
♦ Horizontal curve information, if applicable for wall alignment
♦ Location of soil borings
♦ Drainage, signing, lighting, etc. that is mounted on, or passing through wall
♦ Subsurface drainage structures or utilities which could be impacted by wall construction
Elevation View
The elevation view should contain the following items:

♦ Existing ground line along wall alignment
♦ Finished grade line at face of wall
♦ Top of retaining wall grade line
♦ Soil boring information shown at the correct elevation and scale
♦ Drainage, signing, lighting, etc. as noted above
♦ Drainage structures and utilities as noted above
♦ Groundwater levels for walls in cut sections
Top of wall profile lines may be described as vertical curves, or by giving elevations at fixed
intervals, typically 20' or 25'. In general, vertical curves will produce a smoother top of wall
profile. Ground lines may be given as vertical curves, or more typically at fixed intervals.

The interval for ground lines is often longer, as ground lines tend to vary less than top of
wall lines.
Although drainage, signing, and lighting systems are typically detailed in other areas of the
plans, it is highly desirable to show locations of items which will require special retaining
wall details. The most common of these items are
♦ Storm water inlets
♦ Lighting assemblies
♦ Overhead signing
It is not necessary to provide complete details for a conflicting item, but the designation and
location should be noted to allow the retaining wall designer to find the detailed information
elsewhere in the plans.
Estimated Quantity Table. The estimated quantity table should contain the following items:
♦ Area of retaining wall
♦ Linear footage of railing on wall
♦ Miscellaneous quantities associated with wall (riprap, etc.)
Typical Section
A typical section is not required, but is desirable. It can be helpful in showing the
relationship of roadways, railing type, riprap mow strips, etc. Also note any slopes above or
below the wall. Slopes can have a significant impact on stability and analysis during design.
General Notes
The Standard Specifications adequately cover measurement and payment of MSE retaining
walls; however, many districts continue to include the notes shown on the sample layout as a
reminder.
A note must be added if a MSE wall embedment other than one foot (300mm) is to be
required. For instance, if a two-foot (600mm) embedment is required, a note should be
added stating this, as well as a note stating that the wall area is measured between top of
wall and two feet below finished grade. Figure 6-18 shows a sample final retaining wall
layout.

Figure 6-18. Sample final retaining wall layout.

Chapter 6 — Retaining Walls Section 5 — Temporary Shoring
Section 5
Temporary Shoring
Overview
All too often, temporary shoring is not considered concurrently with wall layout and design.
The finest wall design is not very useful if the wall cannot be constructed in an economical
way or in some cases, constructed at all. In some extreme cases, the cost of temporary
shoring required to construct a wall can exceed the cost of the permanent wall due to poor
planning and improper wall selection.
This section covers the following temporary shoring topics:

♦ Temporary slopes
♦ Temporary shoring design
Temporary Slopes
The next subsections discuss

♦ Roadways
♦ Railroads
Roadways
When possible, a temporary slope is the best way to accommodate an excavation for a
retaining wall. When the quantity of soil to be removed for the temporary slope becomes to
great, consider temporary shoring.
A 1:1 slope will normally stand for a reasonable period of time in average soils. Weaker
soils will require flatter slopes.
Railroads
Temporary slopes adjacent to railroads usually can start no closer than approximately 12' to
15' (3.66m to 4.57m) from the centerline of the tracks. The maximum slope angle allowed is
approximately 1.2 horizontal to 1 vertical. The maximum slope angle depends on the
individual railroad policy.
Temporary Shoring
The following subsections deal with

♦ Traffic surcharge

♦ Railroad surcharge
Temporary shoring must be designed much like a normal retaining wall. Active soil
pressures that act on the wall must be determined. The effect of surcharges or slopes behind
the shoring must also be considered. Due to the impermeable nature of some shoring such as
sheet piling, water pressure may also need to be considered.
Traffic Surcharge
Traffic surcharge is normally considered to be equivalent to two feet of soil (240 psf
(11.5kPa)). The horizontal pressure exerted on the wall is then a function of the coefficient
of active earth pressure.
The only limitation to the distance between a roadway and temporary shoring is the space
required to place a barrier to prevent vehicles from leaving the roadway and falling into the
excavation. A safe assumption for this distance is 5’ when concrete barriers are used.
Railroad Surcharge
The paragraphs below cover these railroad surcharge areas:

♦ Loading pressure
♦ Design difficulties
♦ Shoring submittal
Loading Pressure. Railroad surcharge is normally evaluated for Cooper E80 loading. This
loading produces a loading of approximately 2000 psf (96Kpa) across the base of the ballast
(8'-6" (2.6m)). The effect of this pressure must be evaluated by elastic soil methods as
described in the American Railway Engineering Association (A.R.E.A.) Specifications
chapter on Flexible Bulkheads.
Design Difficulties. Due to the extreme magnitude of this loading, railroad shoring is very
difficult to design. It is strongly encouraged to eliminate shoring when other avenues are
available for construction. When absolutely necessary, locate the shoring as far away from
the track as possible to minimize the pressures and height of wall required. The minimum
distance required by railroads between a track centerline and face of shoring is usually 12
feet (3.66m). Based on this requirement, the minimum distance between a permanent track
centerline and a shoofly (temporary construction trackage) centerline is 22 to 24 feet (6.7-
7.3m). See Figure 6-19 for an example of sheet pile shoring.

Figure 6-19: Sheet pile shoring
Shoring Submittal. Shoring within the approximate zones shown in the following diagram
must be submitted to the railroad for approval. While Figure 6-20 shows a diagram for the
Union Pacific railroad, other railroads have similar requirements.

Figure 6-20. Railroad shoring requirements.

Chapter 6 — Retaining Walls Section 6 — Design Considerations
Section 6
Design Considerations
Overview
Many issues must be considered in the design of retaining walls. An adequate preliminary
site investigation must be performed to determine the feasibility of a design. Other features
of a project should also be considered such as construction phasing, temporary construction
conditions, and drainage features. These are only a few of the items, which need to be
considered to insure that a correct design is accomplished.
This section discusses the design considerations listed below:

♦ Wall layout considerations
♦ Stability
Wall Layout Considerations
Carefully consider the location of retaining walls. The location of a wall can affect the wall
quantity significantly. The considerations discussed below are
♦ Embankment side slopes
♦ Widening fill sections
♦ Depressed sections
♦ Bridge abutments
♦ Structures behind wall
Embankment Side Slopes
The first situation to consider is a typical grade separation where inadequate right of way
requires the use of retaining walls along the embankment side slopes. In this situation, the
wall can be placed at the edge of the upper roadway at the top of the embankment or at the
bottom of the embankment thereby eliminating the toe. Placing the wall at the top of the
embankment requires an expensive concrete rail on top of the wall, eliminates any
possibility for a future widening of the upper roadway, but simplifies embankment side
slope mowing. Placing the wall at the bottom of the embankment allows the use of a guard
fence next to the upper roadway and plain coping on top of the wall. It also allows future
widening of the upper roadway, but complicates mowing of the side slope or requires that
the side slope be riprapped if mowers do not have access.

Widening Fill Sections
Fill sections that are being widened present special considerations. Typically some soil must
be excavated to allow construction of an MSE wall. Placing the face of wall as close to the
toe of existing slope as possible minimizes excavation and temporary shoring. Placing the
wall close to the existing top of embankment presents serious and expensive temporary
shoring problems and also impacts traffic control during construction.
Depressed Sections
In depressed sections, consider additional width for the lower roadway to allow for future
lane additions. Once retaining walls are in place, they cannot be moved to accommodate
future width requirements.
Bridge Abutments
Place retaining walls a reasonable distance in front of bridge abutments to allow adequate
clearance for wall construction. For most retaining walls, the face of the wall should at least
1.5 to 2 feet (0.45-0.6m) in front of the face of the abutment cap. For tiedback and MSE
walls, this is especially critical because the tiebacks and wall reinforcements may need to be
skewed around the abutment foundations. To improve the appearance of walls, control of the
top of wall profile with vertical curves rather than discreet elevations at specific points
results in a much smoother top of wall.
Structures Behind Wall
Also, consider the proximity of a retaining wall to structures behind the wall. MSE walls are
usually placed at least one to two feet in front of foundation to allow space for attachment of
the reinforcements to the facing panels and skewing of the reinforcements. See Figure 6-21
for a sign support foundation behind a MSE wall.

Figure 6-21. Sign support foundation behind MSE wall
Stability
Unlike foundation failures, which can occur slowly over a period of years, retaining walls
can fail in stability very rapidly and with catastrophic results. The failure of retaining walls
can close a transportation facility just as quickly as a bridge failure. As a result, thoroughly
investigate retaining wall stability. Areas of primary concern in evaluating stability are
♦ Sliding and overturning
♦ Eccentricity
♦ Bearing pressure
♦ Rotational stability
♦ Settlement
Sliding and Overturning
Sliding involves the lateral translation of a wall due to inadequate resistance to movement at
the base of the wall. Past failures have involved marginal soils at the base of walls. A safety
factor of 1.5 is considered adequate. Overturning does not involve the soil under the wall,
but only the mass of the wall to resist the soil driving forces behind the wall. Since the

driving forces are applied to the wall at roughly two-thirds the wall height above the base,
there is a tendency for the wall to overturn if the wall mass or geometry is inadequate. A
safety factor of 2.0 is considered adequate. See Figure 6-22 for an example of spread footing
wall-sliding failure.
Figure 6-22. Sliding failure of spread footing wall
Eccentricity
The combination of vertical and horizontal loads on a wall combine to produce a resultant
force at the base of a wall, which is not at the middle of the footing. The distance between
the middle of the footing and the location of the resultant is the eccentricity. The location of
the resultant is limited to the middle third of the footing to insure that the rear part of the
footing does not lift off the ground.
Bearing Pressure
As a result of the weight of the wall mass and the active driving forces behind a wall,
pressure is exerted on the foundation soil along the base of a wall. The pressure is greatest at
the toe of the wall. Should the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil under the toe of the wall
be exceeded, the toe of the wall can plunge down into the foundation soil. The result is a
local distortion of the wall face. A safety factor of 2.0 in bearing capacity is recommended.
See Figure 6-23 for a photo of settlement from bearing failure and Figure 6-24 for a photo of
wall distress from bearing failure.

Figure 6-23. Settlement from bearing failure

Figure 6-24. Wall distress from bearing failure
Rotational Stability
Rotational failures of walls encompass the entire wall as well as a portion of the retained
soil. This type of failure is not dependent on the wall design specifically, but more on the
strength of the foundation and retained soil. Computer programs are used to evaluate
rotational stability. A safety factor of 1.25 or higher is usually considered adequate.
Settlement
Settlement can be significant when walls are constructed on soils softer than approximately
5/12" TCP (5/300mm). Settlement is mainly a problem in the coastal areas of the state where

soils softer than 2/12" (2/300mm) occur to depths of 20 to 50 feet (6-15m). If a bridge
approach embankment is constructed over soils subject to significant settlement, make
attempts to either allow as much settlement to occur prior to completing the approach or to
support the embankment with a foundation improvement such as stone columns. Settlement
can be accelerated by installing vertical drains through the compressible subsoil.
Construction of embankments on very soft soils is also likely to result in rotational stability
failures during construction if no precautions are taken. When encountering significant
layers of soft soils, obtain samples for consolidation testing to determine potential
settlement. Note that data obtained from consolidation testing is only approximate.
Predictions of total settlement based on such data are commonly higher than observed in the
field, and the time predicted for such settlement to occur can be incorrect by an order of
magnitude. Any values calculated for settlement should be tempered by previous experience
in the area. When significant settlement is anticipated, the best solution may be to lengthen
the bridge and thereby, reduce the height of the approach. This is often the most economical
and practical solution. See Figure 6-25 for a photo of an approach embankment settlement.
Figure 6-25. Approach embankment settlement

Chapter 6 — Retaining Walls Section 7 — Design Procedures
Section 7
Design Procedures
Overview
The design of retaining walls requires a thorough knowledge of structural and geotechnical
engineering. This does not mean that one person has to design every aspect of a retaining
wall. Quite often design loads and allowable pressures recommended by a geotechnical
engineer are later used by a structural engineer to design the wall structure. The following
design procedures are intended to convey general methods and not be all encompassing for
every design situation.
This section covers the following design procedure topics:

♦ Earth pressure distribution
♦ Internal analysis
♦ External analysis
Earth Pressure Distribution
The pressure applied by the soil upon a retaining structure is determined by different
methods depending upon the wall type. The soil behind walls, which are free to deflect or
move in response to the applied loads, is considered to achieve the active state. For this
condition, the earth pressure is calculated based on Rankine’s or Coulomb’s methods. The
pressure distribution is triangular in shape with the maximum pressure occurring at the
bottom of the wall. This is considered to be the case for spread footing, MSE, drilled shaft
and sheet pile walls. Usually, soil pressure is assumed to increase downward at a rate of 40
psf per foot of depth.
Structures such as tiedback walls or braced excavation shoring are considered more or less
fixed and therefore, unable to achieve the active state. For this condition, an earth pressure
distribution as proposed by Terzaghi and Peck is used. The pressure distribution is in the
shape of a trapezoid.
Internal Analysis
Internal analysis refers to the design of the wall structure to resist the stresses induced by the
earth pressure applied to the wall. This aspect of design comprises mostly structural
engineering. The various elements of the wall must be designed to carry the stresses
generated so that an adequate factor of safety is attained. The major wall types to be
analyzed are
♦ Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls
♦ Tiedback walls

♦ Drilled shaft and sheet pile walls
The subsections below analyze each of these wall types.
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls
The internal design of MSE walls involves checking the earth reinforcements for allowable
stresses and anchorage into the mass of select fill behind the face. Allowances for metal
section loss on the reinforcements are made when computing tensile stresses. By altering the
reinforcement density and size, proper stresses and anchorage are attained. The overall
dimension of the reinforced mass is governed by external stability. See Chapter 9, Section 4,
MSE Wall Design Example, for diagrams of MSE wall design.
Tiedback Walls
The internal design of tiedback walls involves the analysis of a continuous beam (soldier
pile) to determine the support reactions (tieback loads) for an applied load diagram (earth
pressure. The tieback loads determined by the continuous beam analysis are corrected to
account for the anchor inclination. A soldier pile is selected which will adequately resist the
maximum bending moments from the continuous beam analysis. The last step is to design
the wall facing which spans between the soldier piling. This is analyzed as a simple beam to
support the maximum soil pressure. Lastly, the facing-soldier pile connection is designed.
The typical soil loading is trapezoidal with a maximum intensity of 36H psf (where H is the
wall height in feet—5655H Pa, for H in meters). Walls supporting rock are designed for a
25H psf (3927H Pa) trapezoidal pressure distribution. Design pressures higher than 36H
may be justified if walls are constructed in expansive soils. See Chapter 9, Section 6,
Tiedback Wall Design Example, for diagrams of tiedback wall design.
Drilled Shaft and Sheet Pile Walls
The design of these walls involves the analysis of a continuous beam on nonlinear supports.
The nonlinear supports model the soil in which the beam is embedded. This approach
accounts for the bending stiffness of the shaft or pile foundation unlike other methods,
which consider the foundation to be infinitely stiff. The method of analysis is the computer
program COM624. The program is used to determine the foundation response to the applied
load for a range of embedment depths. A foundation length is determined by examining the
embedment-deflection relationship for a suitable deflection either at the ground line or the
top of wall.
External Analysis
The external analysis of walls examines whether walls stay where built. A number of
failures of walls and embankments are proof that external stability is just as important as

internal design. External stability is routinely evaluated for fill type walls. Cut type walls are
not routinely checked for external stability due to the different approaches to their design.
However, should exceptionally soft soils be present, the various aspects of external stability
should be checked for cut type walls. As always, sound engineering judgment should
prevail.
The primary areas of analysis for external stability are

♦ Sliding and overturning
♦ Eccentricity
♦ Bearing pressure
♦ Rotational stability
Sliding and Overturning
Sliding of a retaining wall occurs when the active driving forces from the soil behind the
wall exceed the frictional or cohesive forces along the base of the wall and the passive
resisting force in front of the wall. Whether or not to include passive forces in front of a wall
is debatable due to uncertainty of whether that soil will be present during construction or at
some future date. For most calculations, the subsoil is assumed to be cohesionless with an
angle of friction of 30 degrees. While this is probably not accurate for soils encountered in
the field, this has traditionally been the assumption used. The resistance to sliding is the
weight of the wall and soil comprising the wall times the tangent of 30 degrees (0.58).
Unless soil borings indicate this is not conservative, this assumption can be used. When a
questionable soil is present, triaxial testing may be utilized to determine the cohesion and
angle of friction, which can then be used to determine sliding resistance. Overturning occurs
when the active driving forces exceed the gravitation resisting forces of the wall mass. The
mass of the wall is considered the reinforced volume for an MSE wall or the weight of the
concrete and soil above the heel for a spread footing wall. The safety factor is determined by
summing moments about the toe of the wall.
Eccentricity
The eccentricity is the summation of the moments of the forces acting at the base of the wall
divided by the summation of the vertical forces. The moments are normally calculated at the
rear of the base of the wall.
Bearing Pressure
Bearing capacity failures under walls involve the displacement of soil from under the wall.
Bearing capacity equations are used to determine the ultimate capacity of the foundation
soil. These equations require cohesion and friction values determined by triaxial testing. If
this data is not available, Texas Cone Penetrometer data can be used to obtain allowable

bearing pressures from the drilled shaft and spread footing design chart. The classical
bearing capacity equation for the ultimate soil pressure is
qu = cNc + γDfNq + 1/2γBNγ
where Nc, Nq, Nγ are theoretical factors based on the geometry of the failing mass of soil
beneath a footing, c is the soil cohesion, and γ is the density of the soil. A safety factor of
two is typically required for bearing capacity. Figure 6-27 gives these factors.
Figure 6-26. Chart showing relation between Ν=& bearing capacity factors.
Rotational Stability
Rotational stability of walls is a special case of slope stability. The limits of the wall affect
where a potential failure surface can develop. The failure surface for a rotational failure can
be either circular or noncircular depending on the stratification of the foundation soil. For
walls on uniform soft clay, the failure surfaces tend to be circular. If the soft zone is fairly
thin, the failure surface tends to be noncircular following the soft zone. The department uses
both the STABL and UTEXAS computer programs to analyze for stability. While the
subsoil can be tested in advance to obtain strength data for analysis, the future embankment
material properties are unknown. Since normally about half of the failure surface passes

through the embankment behind a fill wall, an accurate answer is difficult to obtain. Local
experience may provide some insight into the strength of the proposed fill. If no local data is
available, cohesion of 1000 psf (48kPa) may be assumed for clay embankments or an angle
of friction of 30 degrees may be assumed for a predominately sand embankment. While
computer programs are used to evaluate wall stability, an approximate hand check of the
results may be performed by the method of slices. A more detailed description of rotational
stability is presented in Chapter 7, Slope Stability.

Chapter 7
Slope Stability
Contents:

Section 2 — Analysis and Design....................................................................................... 7-11
Section 3 — Slope Repair ................................................................................................... 7-15

Chapter 7 — Slope Stability Section 1 — Overview
Section 1
Overview
Introduction
Slope stability addresses the tendency of soil masses to attain an equilibrium state between
the strength of the soil and the force of gravity. Extremely strong soils can stand vertically
for years while very weak soils cannot support short fills with gentle slopes for even a few
days. This is best observed in the coastal region of the state where the topography is
relatively flat and the soils fairly weak. Attempts to build embankments with the native soft
soils often fail as the soil attempts to resume its natural relatively level state.
Areas considered here under the purview of slope stability are

♦ Slopes, whether they be cut or fill
♦ Retaining walls which are the special case of a locally stable vertical slope
Figure 7-1 is an example of large embankment failure.
Figure 7-1: Large embankment failure
This section offers a brief discussion on:

♦ Soil properties
♦ Slope external and internal stability

♦ Slope considerations
♦ Failure modes
♦ Slope protection
Soil Properties
Soils possess a number of properties that can be measured in the laboratory. These
properties include index properties that describe the character of the soil (Atterberg limits),
grain size distribution, and strength parameters.
Atterberg Limits
The Atterberg limits define the transitions between the liquid, plastic, and solid states. These
limits are:
♦ Liquid limit
♦ Plastic limit
♦ Plasticity index
The liquid limit (LL) is the transition from liquid to plastic states, and the plastic limit (PL)
the transition from plastic to semi-solid states. The plasticity index (PI) is the difference
between the liquid and plastic limits. All the limits are stated in the percent moisture content
in the soil to attain the specific state.
The plasticity index is a commonly used indicator for the long-term stability of a soil. Sand
exhibits a zero or a very low plasticity index and is very stable with time. Sand would be a
very good construction material if not for a lack of cohesion. This leads to a very high
potential for erodibility. Clays may exhibit plasticity indices well in excess of 100. The
highest values typically found in Texas are in the upper eighties. Soils with high plasticity
indexes exhibit poor slope stability and high shrink-swell potential. Sand or silt clay
mixtures typically exhibit plasticity indexes in the 10 to 40 range. Soils with plasticity
indexes of less than 25 tend to be relatively stable.
Grain Size Distribution
The grain size distribution for a soil is found by sieving a soil sample to determine the
distribution of particle sizes present. The portion of a sample, which passes the 200 sieve,
can be subjected to hydrometer testing to determine the size distribution for the silt and clay
sized particles. For slope stability, this fine fraction is very important. If more than 50
percent is passing the 200 sieve, the soil exhibits clay-like properties and may be unstable.

Strength Parameters
The strength of a soil is the combination of the cohesion between the soil particles and the
frictional interaction of the particles. These two components are time dependent for fine-
grained soils such as clays. When fine-grained soils are rapidly loaded, the low permeability
of the soil matrix does not allow water in the pore spaces to escape. As a result, when a fully
saturated clay is rapidly loaded, the cohesion is the primary component of strength since the
elevated pore water pressures do not allow increased intergranular contact pressures. The
rapid loading enhances the cohesive strength (c) of the soil due to the buildup of negative
pore pressures. The condition of rapid loading produces an undrained strength response in
the soil. The angle of friction (φ) measured under these conditions is usually quite low for
saturated samples and higher for unsaturated samples. While the undrained strength is fine
for modeling such conditions as the construction of an embankment over several weeks or
months, the long-term conditions after construction allow for a different response in the soil.
The drained strength of a soil is the strength measured when load is applied to a sample
slowly enough to allow water to drain from the pore space between soil particles. The result
is that increased intergranular contact occurs and the increased frictional strength is
measured. For clays, this long-term or drained angle of friction (φ′) is typically between 15
and 25 degrees. The long-term cohesive component (c′) typically ranges from 0 to 150 psf
(0-7kPa) since no negative pore pressures are generated. While this is a greatly
oversimplified explanation that does not address the chemical or electrostatic forces at work,
it is functionally correct.
Slope External and Internal Stability
External and internal stability for slopes is similar to those for retaining walls. The next
subsections discuss
♦ External stability
♦ Internal stability
External Stability
The rapid placement of a fill on a fine-grained foundation soil can produce temporarily
elevated pore water pressures in the foundation soil. The result can be that the unbalanced
force of the fill cannot be resisted by the shear strength of the foundation soil with the result
being a slope failure which encompasses all or a significant portion of the slope. This is
generally referred to as an external failure. If the fill is placed slowly enough to allow the
pore water pressures to dissipate, the fill can be safely placed without danger of failure. The
rate at which such drainage or dissipation of pore pressures occurs is based on the
permeability of the soil and the length of the drainage path (usually the thickness of the
layer). If the soil is confined between two sand layers, the length of the drainage path is one-
half the layer thickness. The rate of dissipation is determined by consolidation testing. The

testing determines the length of time for the pore water to drain from a sample for an applied
load as well as the volume of water (settlement).
Internal Stability
During the construction of a fine-grained soil embankment, the fill material is placed at the
optimum moisture content. Due to the compactive effort used in placing the fill, the final fill
is not in an equilibrium state. The upper region of the fill exhibits high negative pore
pressures as a result of the compaction pressure being greater than the overburden pressure.
Depending on the height of the fill, the lower regions of the fill may have neutral or positive
pore pressures. Upon the completion of a fill, the action of climatic cycles begins to bring
the outer regions of a fill into equilibrium. Repeated wetting and drying cycles soften and
create fissures in the outer portions of a fill. This softening results in a layer with a relatively
higher permeability over one of low permeability. The low permeability under lying soil
allows water to accumulate in the pore spaces resulting in a substantially saturated surface
layer in the fill. This process usually takes at least 15 years to occur. The result is that the
effective stress soil parameters are achieved with the resultant stability implications. For
instance, a 3:1 slope (18.4 degrees) built with a clay with φ1 = 15 degrees and c1 = 50 psf
(2.4kPa) will not be stable since the slope angle exceeds the angle of friction of the fill. This
type of slope failure is usually fairly shallow occurring within the side slope and is
considered internal. This type of failure is also commonly referred to as a mudflow-type
failure due to the consistency and jumbled appearance of the failed material. These failures
mostly occur after periods of heavy rainfall that results in increased soil pore pressures that
reduce the effective shear strength. Figure 7-2 is a photo of mudflow failure.
Figure 7-2. Mudflow failure

Slope Considerations
The next subsections deal with these slope considerations:

♦ Fill slopes
♦ Cut slopes
♦ Slope angle
♦ Submergence
Fill Slopes
Fills are constructed from material supplied by the contractor. Unless properties such as
plasticity index or liquid limit are specified in the plans, the contractor supplies the most
economical material, which may be the worst possible soil from the standpoint of long term
stability. Base the best maximum values for plasticity index or liquid limit to specify should
be based on the materials available locally. Should suitable materials not be available,
consider either flatter slopes or soil stabilization of some kind.
Cut Slopes
Soils in cuts are similar to fills in that, immediately after excavation, the soil is not in an
equilibrium state. After removal of the overburden, the soil begins to absorb water and
swell. The magnitude of swell depends on the plasticity index. This can be a particular
problem for the long-term ride smoothness of a roadway in a cut. Another problem with cuts
can be groundwater seepage on the cut slopes and up through the subgrade. Seepage
pressures and associated high water levels in the slopes can further reduce long-term
stability by reducing intergranular stresses (effective stresses) between soil particles.
Slope Angle
The angle of a slope determines how stable it will be. Maintenance is also a consideration,
since slopes steeper than 2:1 are very difficult to mow. Slopes constructed from high
plasticity index clays should not be steeper than 3:1 and, more preferably, 4:1. Even slopes
constructed at 4:1 have failed after 20 to 25 years of service.
The use of riprap on steep slopes is of questionable stabilizing value. The use of riprap
causes moisture to accumulate in the fill, since the evaporation rate is reduced. The only
possible benefit of the riprap is the elimination of severe moisture fluctuations in the
embankment material, possibly resulting in a longer service life before failure.

Submergence
Evaluate slopes subjected to inundation for stability. As previously mentioned, the effect of
submergence is to reduce the effective stress between soil particles, thereby reducing shear
strength. Another consideration is the duration of submergence. Analyze slopes that are
temporarily submerged for the drawdown condition where the slope is totally saturated
without the benefit of submergence to reduce the driving forces for instability.
Failure Modes
Slope failures are often difficult to assign to a single failure mode. Several failure modes
often occur simultaneously, such as a rotational failure accompanied by a sliding failure of
the lower portion of the slope. The following subsections discuss these most common failure
modes encountered:
♦ Bearing capacity
♦ Rotation
♦ Settlement
♦ Undercutting
Bearing Capacity
Fill placed on very soft foundations may undergo a rapid vertical settlement with an
associated horizontal displacement of the foundation soil from under the fill. This condition
is typically encountered in coastal areas where fills are constructed over recent marine or
marsh sediments. Bearing capacity is sometimes desired when the construction method
intends to displace a thin soft layer, thereby allowing the fill to found directly on a deeper
firm layer of soil. This is often impractical in coastal areas where very soft soils may extend
to depths as great as 60 to 80 feet. Another drawback to this construction method is the
possible failure to displace all of the soft material with subsequent uneven settlement of the
roadway.
Rotation
Rotation failures result in a noticeable rotation of a portion of a fill with the resultant
formation of a scarp at the back edge of the failed area. Most classical depictions of this
failure mode portray a single mass of soil bounded by a circular failure plane. In reality, the
rotating soil mass is often sheared into numerous discreet blocks because of the large
deformation. The soil mass is typically bounded by an irregular failure plane. Purely circular
failure surfaces are not usually observed in the state due to the lack of relatively deep
deposits of uniform moderate strength materials necessary for this type of failure. Thinner
layered foundation soil profiles favor the formation of noncircular failures.

Settlement
Quite often, foundation soils are firm enough to allow successful embankment construction
without an immediate failure. In these cases, the long-term load on the foundation soil
results in the consolidation of the foundation soil with the resulting settlement of the
embankment. In coastal areas, two to three feet (.6-1 m) of settlement have been observed
for embankments only eight feet tall (2.5 m) over a period of years.
Post-construction settlement can be minimized by consolidating soft foundation soil rapidly

during construction by the use of vertical drainage paths such as sand or wick drains.
Vertical drains are sometimes supplemented with a soil surcharge to accelerate settlement.
For fairly permeable soils, surcharge alone may produce an acceptable rate of consolidation
to suit the construction schedule. The most desirable situation is to build embankments over
highly compressible foundation soils well in advance of final roadway construction. Provide
ample time for settlement to occur, since the rate of settlement is difficult to accurately
predict.
Figure 7-3: Undercut slope failure
Undercutting
A phenomenon associated mainly with cuts in rock is called undercutting or undermining.

This is when a hard layer overlies a weaker material. Weathering of the softer lower soil
layer results in erosion of the layer, resulting in instability of the harder upper layer. A

common example would be a limestone layer over a shale. The best solution to this type of
failure is to protect the lower layer with riprap or gunnite. Figure 7-3 shows an example of
undercut slope failure.
Scour can also cause undercutting of a slope. Closely monitor any signs of instability. A
typical example of distress might be cracks in a bridge column. Figure 7-4 shows the results
of a slope failure under a bridge.
Figure 7-4: Bridge collapse due to slope failure
Slope Protection
Slope protection can reduce or eliminate soil erosion. This is especially important for slope
composed of granular materials that are easily eroded. The following subsections cover
these aspects of slope protection:
♦ Riprap
♦ Natural cover
Riprap
Either rock or concrete riprap may be applied to slopes. Rock riprap is flexible and may
deform without showing distress.

Concrete riprap, on the other hand, is rigid and impermeable. The idea that concrete riprap
improves slope stability by reducing moisture infiltration into a slope may not be completely
true. The impermeable nature of concrete riprap does not allow water to evaporate and may
actually cause soil under the riprap to have higher moisture content. Figure 7-5 is an
example of rock riprap.
Figure 7-5. Rock riprap
Natural Cover
The establishment of vegetation on a slope will reduce or eliminate erosion. Certain plants
establish deep roots, which also remove water from the soil, thus increasing the soil strength.

Chapter 7 — Slope Stability Section 2 — Analysis and Design
Section 2
Analysis and Design
Overview
The analysis and design of earth slopes for stability is an inexact science at best. The
realities of widely spaced soil core borings coupled with the scarcity of detailed triaxial test
data make analysis difficult. Furthermore, economics dictates safety factors in the 1.3 to 1.5
range. Under these conditions, there is always the possibility of failing to detect an
exceptionally soft area in the field, with the subsequent result being less than superior
performance. Unlike deep foundation design, which tends to average soil strengths over a
considerable depth with the result being very predictable performance, slope stability can
depend on relatively thin soil layers near the surface which are far more variable than the
deeper, more uniform, soils.
This section discusses the following analysis and design topics:

♦ Strength parameters
♦ Groundwater
♦ Geometry
♦ Safety factor
Strength Parameters
The strength parameters used for analysis and design are cohesion (c) and angle of internal
friction (φ). These parameters may either be the undrained or drained parameters as
discussed previously in the Soil Properties subsection of Chapter 1. Triaxial testing
determines these parameters. Deep-seated failures are normally rapid in nature and, because
of the lack of time for pore pressures to reach equilibrium, are analyzed using undrained soil
parameters. Shallow side slope (mudflow) failures occur over long periods of time. While
the actual soil movement may occur over several days, the development of the drained
condition in the soil requires years to occur. The next subsections cover
♦ Time frame compatibility
♦ Embankment strength
Time Frame Compatibility
The soil parameters used in a slope stability analysis must be compatible with the time frame
anticipated. Deep-seated failures which occur rapidly (usually during construction) depend
on the undrained soil parameters. It is inappropriate to use drained embankment parameters

in such an analysis for the embankment material. The drained condition will not exist in the
embankment fill for at least 10 years after construction. As a result, do not use drained and
undrained soil parameters together in an analysis.
Embankment Strength
Since the embankment material is supplied by the contractor, advance testing of the material
is not practical. As a result, a strength must be assumed for the material. For mostly clay
embankments, c = 1000 psf (48kPa) and φ = 0 degrees is usually a safe assumption. This
strength would also apply to sandy clay or silty clay soils. Lower assumed strengths for
cohesive embankments may be justified if triaxial testing is performed. For sand
embankments, c = 0 psf and φ = 30 degrees is a reasonable assumption.
Ground Water
Ground water affects the shear strength of soil by the reduction of intergranular stresses due
to the buoyancy effect of submergence. For fill situations, the most conservative assumption
is that the ground water level is at the surface of the natural ground. For a more exact
analysis, the ground water levels can be observed during and after obtaining soil core
borings. Normally the water level in a borehole is checked several days after the boring is
completed.
For slopes in cut sections, ground water is much more important. For this type of
installation, monitor ground water levels over a long period of time to observe any seasonal
changes. Piezometers are installed for long term observation of water levels. Design
depressed section drainage systems considering the anticipated base flow from ground
water.
Geometry
The overall geometry is crucial to the accuracy of slope stability analysis. Changing the
height of a retaining wall several feet can have a dramatic effect on stability. Also, changing
slope angles can significantly affect stability. In one case, an existing 3:1 slope had been
stable for years, but the temporary 1:1 slope for construction failed in a matter of months. It
is always important to consider the temporary as well as final geometry of a project.
Computer Analysis
The only practical method for quickly evaluating slope stability is with a computer program.
Slope stability programs judge slope stability by evaluating thousands of potential failure
surfaces. The failure surface with the lowest factor of safety is considered the most critical.
This may not be the case. Sometimes the search parameters the user inputs to aid the
program in the search for the most critical failure surface may cause the program to not find
that surface. The next subsections deal with

♦ Failure surface shape

♦ Other search parameter input
♦ UTEXAS analysis program
♦ STABL analysis program
♦ Method of slices
Failure Surface Shape
One of the most important inputs by the user after the soil strengths is the shape of the
failure surface. Failure surfaces are analyzed as either circular or noncircular. As previously
mentioned, the noncircular failure is commonly the most critical. It is normal practice to
analyze both circular and noncircular failure modes.
Other Search Parameter Input
Other inputs in the slope stability programs include ground water (piezometric surface),
surcharge pressures from live loads, depth of cracks in cohesive soils, whether to allow
negative pore pressures, analytical methods to use, limits for searches, and numerous other
inputs. Succinctly put, slope stability is a very specialized field with no easy answers. Sound
engineering judgment should always come into play when determining if an answer looks
reasonable.
UTEXAS Analysis Program
Dr. Stephen G. Wright, of the University of Texas at Austin, developed the UTEXAS
program. The program uses a search routine to find the most critical failure surface. This
search routine may or may not find the most critical surface based on the initial start point
for the search and other search parameters. It is important to remember that several critical
failure surfaces may exist which are significantly different. For detailed instructions on the
use of the UTEXAS program, consult the program manual.
STABL Analysis Program
Ronald A. Siegel of Purdue University developed the STABL program. This program
analyzes specific failure surfaces generated between designated limits input by the user.
These limits should be carefully monitored to make sure that the critical failure surface does
not begin or end near one of the limits. Also, adjustment of the limits can significantly
impact the critical surfaces generated. As a result, various limits should be tried in an effort
to determine the most critical failure surface. For detailed instructions on the use of the
STABL program, consult the program manual.

Method of Slices
A simple method to perform approximate evaluations of slope stability is the method of

slices. This method is not nearly as rigorous in satisfying all equilibrium conditions as in the
computer programs. It is, however, a good way to approximately verify computer output.
This method is easily adapted to spreadsheet programs for parametric studies to determine
parameter sensitivity.
Safety Factor
The safety factor is the ratio of the resisting forces to the driving forces for a given failure
configuration. A typical minimum factor of safety of 1.3 is considered adequate. Higher
minimum safety factors are sometimes required. A minimum safety factor higher than 1.5 is
not recommended.

Chapter 7 — Slope Stability Section 3 — Slope Repair
Section 3
Slope Repair
Overview
Numerous slopes have been constructed in the state with unstable materials. These slopes
are prone to failure, especially after heavy rains. After a slope fails, a method must be
selected to repair the failure. In the cases where the failed material is simply pushed back
into place, the repair may last several weeks to several months. Obviously, a more
permanent repair must be undertaken. Also, it must be considered whether to modify the
slope beyond the failed area to avoid the inevitability of future failures in adjacent parts of
the slope. The following are some of the choices available for stabilizing failing slopes:
♦ Recompaction
♦ Removal and replacement
♦ Strengthening
♦ Slope angle reduction
Recompaction
The simplest and fastest repair for a failed area is to remove the failed part of the slope, dry
the soil to the optimum moisture content for maximum density, then recompact the soil to
the original slope configuration. While this method repairs the failed area, it does nothing
for the adjacent portions of the slope. Removal and recompaction is not recommended for
use on adjacent unfailed parts of a slope because better, more permanent stabilization
techniques should be applied to large-scale side-slope stabilization.
Removal and Replacement
Failed areas of a slope or entire sideslopes can be removed and replaced with a different
more stable soil. Normally a layer of soil is removed from the sideslope at least five feet
deep. A deeper excavation may be warranted if previous failures have extended to greater
depths.
Strengthening
Failed portions of slopes or entire slopes may be strengthened by the addition of various
materials to the soil. The materials added to the soil change the properties of the soil by
chemical strengthening or mechanical strengthening.

Chapter 7 — Slope Stability Section 3 — Slope Repair
Chemical Strengthening
Lime is the most common modifier added to poor quality clay soils. The lime reacts
chemically with the clay particles over a period of days to weeks. The chemical reaction
reduces the plasticity of the soil. Quick lime may be added to fairly wet soils to speed up the
drying process.
Mechanical Strengthening
Slopes may be mechanically strengthened. The most common reinforcement materials are
synthetic polymers, and the most common forms are
♦ Fibers
♦ Geogrid
Fibers. One form of polymer reinforcement is short fibers that are thoroughly mixed into the
soil as the soil is placed in the slope. The mode of action of this reinforcement is to increase
the tensile strength of the soil on a very small scale. The long-term performance of
reinforcement fibers is uncertain at this time.
Geogrid. The other common form of polymer reinforcement is geogrids. These are placed
horizontally between lifts of soil. These grids add stability to the slope by providing a tensile
force component along the potential failure plane. This method of reinforcement is more
easily analyzed and has more predictable long-term performance.
Slope Angle Reduction
When adequate space is available, slopes may either be laid back by removing soil from the
top of the slope, or the toe may be extended outward by adding fill to the lower part of the
slope. In high PI clays, a slope should be 4:1 (4 horizontal to 1 vertical) or flatter for long-
term stability. Note that 4:1 slopes have failed in the past in relatively high PI soils.
The issue of slope drainage should also be addressed when repairing slopes. The slopes near
bridge ends commonly receive all of the water flowing from the structure. Methods to keep
water from bridges off slopes are inlets and curbs to keep water from flowing down the
slope. The slope should also have a smooth surface with no ruts from construction or
mowing equipment to collect water.

Chapter 8
Laterally Loaded Foundations
Contents

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................8-2
Section 2 — Lateral Loads.................................................................................................... 8-4
Overview...........................................................................................................................................8-4
Earth Pressure ...................................................................................................................................8-4
Water Pressure ..................................................................................................................................8-4
Wind Loads .......................................................................................................................................8-4
Bridges ..............................................................................................................................................8-5
Sound Walls ......................................................................................................................................8-5
Lighting, Signing, and Towers..........................................................................................................8-6
Vessel Impact Forces ........................................................................................................................8-6
Design Impact Angle ........................................................................................................................8-6
Design Impact Force .........................................................................................................................8-7
Section 3 — Analysis ............................................................................................................ 8-8
Overview...........................................................................................................................................8-8
Soil Structure Interaction ..................................................................................................................8-8
Discrete Element Analysis ................................................................................................................8-8
Member Stiffness ..............................................................................................................................8-9
Fixity Conditions ..............................................................................................................................8-9
P-Y Curves........................................................................................................................................8-9
Computer Analysis ...........................................................................................................................8-9
COM624 .........................................................................................................................................8-10
FRAME51.......................................................................................................................................8-10
Deflections ......................................................................................................................................8-10
Prediction Difficulties .....................................................................................................................8-10
Ground Line Deflections.................................................................................................................8-11
Stiffness Values ..............................................................................................................................8-11
Section 4 — Structural Design............................................................................................ 8-12
Overview.........................................................................................................................................8-12
Concrete Members ..........................................................................................................................8-12
Allowable Stress Design .................................................................................................................8-14
Load Factor Design .........................................................................................................................8-14
Reinforcement .................................................................................................................................8-14
Steel Members ................................................................................................................................8-15
Slenderness Effects .........................................................................................................................8-15

Chapter 8 — Laterally Loaded Foundations Section 1 — Overview
Section 1
Overview
Introduction
This chapter deals with foundations that mainly resist lateral loads but also carry some
vertical loads. The vertical loads are low and normally do not control design. The
foundations discussed in this chapter are
♦ Retaining walls
♦ Sound walls
♦ Illumination
♦ Signing
♦ Marine fender systems
Foundations for these structures are typically drilled shafts or piling. The use of shafts
allows for accurate placement of anchor bolts for attaching aboveground structural elements
such as poles or trusses. Piling require the construction of footings when used for
illumination or signing. Marine fender systems are usually installed in soft soils. Piling are
the best choice for this application.
See Figure 8-1 for a photo of improperly designed temporary shoring.

Chapter 8 — Laterally Loaded Foundations Section 1 — Overview
Figure 8-1. Improperly designed temporary shoring

Chapter 8 — Laterally Loaded Foundations Section 2 — Lateral Loads
Section 2
Lateral Loads
Overview
This section deals with the following lateral loads:

♦ Earth pressure
♦ Water pressure
♦ Wind loads
♦ Vessel impact loads
Earth Pressure
Earth pressures produce some of the highest lateral loads to be resisted. The earth pressure is
generated by
♦ Weight of soil
♦ Live loads (surcharge)
♦ Soil angle of friction & cohesion
Surcharges generated by normal vehicle traffic produce relatively minor increases in design
forces on walls.
Surcharges generated by railroad loading either for temporary shoring or permanent walls
can greatly exceed the pressures from the soil alone. For this reason, locate retaining walls
as far as possible from any railroads. When possible, temporary shoring situations for
railroads should be avoided. For detailed information on calculating earth pressures, refer to
the Earth Pressure Distribution subsection in Chapter 6, Section 7.
Water Pressure
Water pressure may need to be considered when high water tables are present and the earth
retaining structure does not allow for drainage. An example is a steel sheet pile retaining
wall. In such cases, include the water pressure in the design loads. Water pressure increases
downward at a rate of 62.4 psf per foot of depth.
Wind Loads
Wind can produce significant loads when applied to structures with large surface areas such
as signs or sound walls. Since wind loads are short-term loads, lower safety factors are
typically used. Allowable deflections at service loads are also much higher than for bridge
foundations. The loads applied to a structure depend on

♦ Wind velocity
♦ Drag coefficient
♦ Height coefficient
The next subsections cover wind loads on

♦ Bridges
♦ Lighting, signing and towers
Bridges

♦ Wind effect on low bridges
♦ Wind effect on high bridges
♦ Wind pressure
Wind Effect on Low Bridges. Bridge structures primarily resist dead loads from the
structure and live loads from vehicular traffic. Wind produces relatively minor loads on
normal height (20' - 25' (6-7.5m)) bridges with multiple column bents.
Wind Effect on High Bridges. Wind loads are more significant for tall bridges such as
ramps and especially single column bents. The wind-induced, overturning forces are resisted
by either lateral resistance for multiple column bents or primarily vertical force couples for
multiple pile or drilled shaft footings. For footings, the lateral response of the foundation is
normally neglected due to the size of the footing and foundations, and the relatively low
magnitude of the shear force at the top of the footing.
Wind Pressure. Wind loads for a wind speed of 100 mph (161 kph) are roughly assumed to
be 50 psf (2.4kPa) perpendicular to the axis of the structure acting on the surface traversing
the structure. A 100 plf (0.44kN/m) wind force is assumed to act on traffic on the structure.
For detailed design guidelines, consult the Bridge Design Guide and the AASHTO Standard
Specification for Highway Bridges.
Sound Walls
Sound walls are usually fairly short and subjected to relatively low wind loads. The typical
design load for a wind speed of 100 mph (161 kph) is approximately 35 psf (1.7 kPa). For
detailed design guidelines, consult the Bridge Design Guide and the AASHTO Guide
Specification for Structural Design of Sound Barriers.

Lighting, Signing, and Towers
Wind loads are the main loads for these structures. The formula for calculating the wind
pressure on exposed areas is:
P = 0.00256(1.3V)2CdCh
(P = 0.0473(1.3V)2CdCh)
where: P is the pressure in psf (Pa)
V is the wind velocity in mph, typically 80 to 100 mph (kmph)
Cd is the drag coefficient, usually between 1.2 and 1.5
Ch is the height coefficient, usually between 1.0 and 1.4
For details on the design loads on these structures, consult the AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, And Traffic Signals.
Vessel Impact Forces
Marine fender systems are designed to stop or deflect a vessel from striking a bridge
structure. The load applied to a fender depends on the following factors:
♦ Vessel weight
♦ Vessel velocity
♦ Hydrodynamic mass coefficient
The next subsections deal with

♦ Design impact angle
♦ Design impact force
Design Impact Angle
The determined load, based upon these factors, is resolved into components from the design
impact angle for the vessel. Due to the size and weight of most vessels, direct (90-degree)
impacts cannot normally be withstood by structural fender systems. For this design
condition, a large mass strategically placed in the vicinity of the bridge substructure is
constructed. These large masses are either soil filled sheet pile cofferdams or artificial
islands.
Typical fender systems are composed of vertical piling and horizontal wale beams, which
serve to keep vessels from becoming lodged between the piling and to distribute forces
between the piling.

Design Impact Force
Vessel impact forces are expressed in terms of kinetic energy. The formula for the kinetic
energy of a vessel is
KE = W(V)2Ch/29.2
(KE = W(V)2Ch/64.4)
where: KE is the kinetic energy in kip-ft (kg-m)
W is the vessel displacement tonnage (metric tons—2205lbs—both English and metric)
V is the vessel speed in feet per second (meters per second)
Ch is the hydrodynamic mass coefficient, between 1.05 for large underkeel

clearance, > .5xDraft and 1.25 for clearance < .1xDraft
The kinetic energy absorbed by a fender system in a collision event is evaluated by

determining the area under the force-deflection curve for the system. Typical deflections for
fender systems during collisions are one to two feet (.3-.6 m). Such large deflections require
adequate clearance between the bridge pier and fender system.
For details on the design loads for vessels, consult the AASHTO Guide Specification and
Commentary for Vessel Collision Design of Highway Bridges.

Chapter 8 — Laterally Loaded Foundations Section 3 — Analysis
Section 3
Analysis
Overview
This section discusses the following in regards to analysis and structural design:
♦ Soil structure interaction
♦ Discrete element analysis
♦ Deflections
Soil Structure Interaction
A structural member embedded in the ground interacts with the soil when subjected to loads.
The interaction is the reaction of the soil to the load imposed by the structural member and is
referred to as “Soil Structure Interaction.” Typically, the structural member deforms within
the elastic portion of the member’s stress strain characteristics. The soil however, because of
its lower strength, deforms in both the elastic and non-elastic areas of its stress strain
characteristics.
The key to the analysis of soil structure interaction is to properly evaluate the stiffness
characteristics of the structural member and the soil, and then arrive at a solution to the
loading that brings the deflections/loads along a member’s length into equilibrium. The
advantage of this type of analysis is that the elastic properties of the structural member are
fully considered. Crude methods of analysis that assume the member to be infinitely stiff
yield incorrect results. It should be realized that a 30 inch (750mm) diameter drilled shaft 60
feet (18m) long is a very flexible member, not an infinitely stiff one.
Discrete Element Analysis
This analytical technique analyzes the structural member as a series of rigid elements
connected by springs that represent the member’s stiffness. The soil is represented as
elastic/plastic springs that react to element displacements. Different soil properties along the
length are represented by different soil spring values. Differing member stiffness is
represented by changing spring values between elements. Although this process may sound
very complicated, computer programs make the solution to such a complicated problem very
easy.

♦ Member stiffness
♦ Fixity conditions

♦ P-Y curves
Member Stiffness
The member stiffness used for the analysis is the product of the modulus of elasticity times
the moment of inertia of the member (EI). For steel members, this is quite simple to
determine. For concrete members, the cracking of the cross section complicates the
determination of the stiffness. Experience has shown that using the uncracked (gross)
moment of inertia produces valid results. Using the cracked section properties results in
greater lateral deflections that have not been observed under field conditions.
Fixity Conditions
The restraints at the top of a member will affect the deflection and, thus, bending stress. A
member embedded into a footing is analyzed as fixed at the top and unable to rotate. A
member supporting a single column or illumination pole is analyzed as free to rotate. This
leads to greater deflections, and in the case of heavily loaded bridge foundations, increased
flexural stresses from secondary bending (eccentricity effects).
P-Y Curves
The stress-strain response of soil in lateral loading is commonly referred to as the P-Y
response of the soil and is described by a load deflection curve where the y-axis is the load
P, and the x-axis is the deflection Y. The shape of this curve varies depending on soil type.

♦ Clay soils
♦ Sands
Clay Soils. Clay soils are modeled by a stress-strain curve that is initially linear, which
gradually becomes nonlinear, and finally plastic, when the soil totally fails. The plastic state
is reached at approximately one inch of deflection for medium stiffness clay.
Sands. Sands never attain a truly plastic state within the normal range of deflections for
structures other than fender systems. Sands also develop lateral resistance at a much slower
rate than clays. As a result, laterally loaded foundations in sands require either longer or
larger diameter foundations than similar foundations in clays.
Computer Analysis
Computer analysis greatly speeds up the process of laterally loaded foundation design.
Depending on the specifics of the computer program, the required input may be quite simple
or quite complex. Two computer programs have been used extensively to model laterally
loaded foundations:

♦ COM624
♦ FRAME51
COM624
The COM624 program was developed at The University of Texas for the Department. The
program is designed specifically to analyze vertical structural members embedded in the
ground. The structural member is assumed to be linear elastic. P-Y curves are generated
within the program based on strength data and soil type input. Input loads are analyzed with
the resultant deflections and moments output.
Normally, a foundation is evaluated under the working or applied loads and then evaluated
for successively higher loads, to determine that an adequate factor of safety is present for a
given embedment. In addition, various foundation depths are evaluated to determine the
influence of embedment on deflections. In general, a foundation embedment is selected such
that, for additional embedment at working load, no additional significant deflection is noted.
The approach minimizes additional foundation embedments, which produce no
improvement in lateral load performance for the foundation.
FRAME51
The FRAME51 program was developed at The University of Texas, also. The program is
not as user friendly as COM624, but has greater capabilities. The program can analyze
frames as well as individual members. Member material properties can also be input as
linear elastic or nonlinear. As a result, structures can be analyzed into the plastic range,
which is crucial for fender system evaluation. The program requires the user to input all P-Y
curves as well as any member stress-strain curves.
Deflections

♦ Prediction difficulties
♦ Typical deflections
♦ Stiffness values
Prediction Difficulties
Deflections of concrete structures are difficult to predict, especially on nonlinear supports.

Additionally, lower bound soil strengths are normally used in analysis so as to be
conservative, which leads to more uncertainty about working deflections.

Ground Line Deflections
Based on these considerations, a ground line deflection of 0.5 inches (13mm) at service load
is normally considered acceptable. This deflection at the ground line would produce 1” - 2”
(25-50mm) top deflections for 20’ - 25’ (6-7.5m) tall structures. This is a predicted
deflection only. Field observations of structures reveal lower deflections. It is safe to say
that field deflections are normally less than those actually calculated.
Stiffness Values
The calculated deflections depend on the stiffness values input for a member. For steel
members, the moment of inertia and modulus of elasticity are known. For concrete
members, the values for these properties are less certain. As previously stated, the use of the
uncracked-section properties appear to yield valid results. The modulus of elasticity is
normally calculated based on the design concrete strength. Since actual concrete strengths
are higher than the design strengths, the modulus is normally underestimated. This could
partially explain the higher calculated deflections.

Chapter 8 — Laterally Loaded Foundations Section 4 — Structural Design
Section 4
Structural Design
Overview
The design of structural members should conform to the requirements of the AASHTO
Standard Specification for Highway Bridges. The effects of axial and bending stresses must
be considered. In all but extremely soft soils, the soil provides adequate support to prevent
buckling. For this reason, most evaluation of frames can assume fixity for the columns at
some arbitrary depth below the surface (usually 10 feet).
This section covers the following structural design topics:

♦ Concrete members
♦ Steel members
♦ Slenderness effects
Concrete Members
Both concrete piling and drilled shafts are subject to lateral loads. Piling are associated with
bridge structures which are supported by trestle piling. Drilled shafts, in addition to
supporting bridges, are used to support signing, illumination, and sound walls. Prestressed
piling are usually evaluated by allowable stress methods. Conventionally reinforced drilled
shafts are evaluated by load factor design methods. See Figure 8-2 for an example of an
illumination pole on a drilled shaft foundation.

Figure 8-2: Illumination on drilled shaft foundation

♦ Allowable stress design
♦ Load factor design
♦ Reinforcement

Allowable Stress Design
Allowable stress design of prestressed piling considers the effective prestress, axial loads,
and bending moments to evaluate the cross section. The basic formula is
fc = Fp/A + P/A +/- Mc/I
where: fc = concrete stress
Fp = prestress force after losses
A = cross sectional area of member
P = axial load
M = bending moment
c = distance from centroid to extreme fiber
I = moment of inertia
Based on the above formula, the stresses in the member are evaluated against the allowable
stresses stated in the applicable section of the specifications.
Load Factor Design
Load factor design of drilled shafts considers the interaction of the reinforcement and
concrete. The cross section is evaluated as cracked with no concrete in tension. The capacity
of the cross section is evaluated for the condition of the most extreme reinforcement at yield.
The capacity thus evaluated is compared to the capacity required by the factored loads.
Consult the applicable specification for the specific load factors.
Reinforcement
Laterally loaded foundations for certain structures do not receive load equally from all
directions. Retaining walls are loaded from one direction only. Sound walls are loaded from
two directions predominately, with load being reduced as the wind incidence angle to the
line of the wall is reduced.
Under these specific load conditions, the placement of the reinforcement in a concrete
member may be optimized if the savings are justified. The downside of unsymmetrical
placement of reinforcement in members is the possibility that the reinforcement will not be
placed in the excavation in the orientation that the designer intended. Symmetrical
reinforcement eliminates this problem.

Steel Members
Steel members are used extensively in fender systems. Occasionally, retaining walls are
constructed with steel sheet piling. Steel members are evaluated using the allowable stress
method. Allowable stress design considers the axial stress and bending stress in a member.
The formula for evaluating the member stress is
fs = P/A +/- Mc/I
where: fs = steel stress
P = axial load
A = cross sectional area of member
M = bending moment
c = distance from centroid to extreme fiber
I = moment of inertia
Since steel members are usually symmetrical, the tension and compression stresses are of
the same magnitude, but opposite sign. Based on the above formula, the stresses in the
member are evaluated against the allowable stresses stated in the applicable section of the
specifications.
Slenderness Effects
Slenderness effects can be critical when laterally loaded foundations undergo significant
lateral deflections. This is especially important when evaluating bridge structures for scour.
It is normally safe to assume that for the 500-year scour event, if the height of the exposed
column is less than 15 times its diameter in feet or 20 times its width in feet for a square
member, the structure is assumed stable. A detailed structural analysis will normally prove
these values to be adequate for the 500-year event when checked for a safety factor of 1.0 or
better. A higher safety factor for a 500-year event is not currently deemed necessary.

Chapter 9
Design Examples
Contents

Section 2 — Drilled Shaft Design Example ......................................................................... 9-3
Section 3 — Pile Design Example ........................................................................................ 9-9
Section 4 — MSE Wall Design Example ........................................................................... 9-16
Section 5 — Spread Footing Wall Design Example ........................................................... 9-18
Section 6 — Tiedback Wall Design Example .................................................................... 9-20

Chapter 9 — Design Examples Section 1 — Overview
Section 1
Overview
This chapter contains various design examples illustrating the methods used by the
department.

Chapter 9 — Design Examples Section 2 — Drilled Shaft Design Example
Section 2
Drilled Shaft Design Example
The following drilled shaft design examples illustrate two common scenarios encountered.
The first four examples, Figures 9-1 through 9-4, are for a drilled shaft, which is founded in
relatively soft soil.

Figure 9-1. Drilled shaft design, example 1.


Figure 9-3. Drilled Shaft Design, example 3. Point bearing calculations.



Chapter 9 — Design Examples Section 3 — Pile Design Example
Section 3
Pile Design Example
The following design example illustrates a typical pile design in medium strength soils.
This design example is presented in both English units (Figures 9-6 through 9-8) and metric
units (Figures 9-9 through 9-11).

Figure 9-6. Pile design, example 1.



Figure 9-9. Pile design, example 1 (metric). Unit skin friction calculations.

Figure 9-10. Pile design, example 2 (metric). Unit accumulative skin friction calculations.

Figure 9-11. Pile design, example 3 (metric). Total capacity calculations.

Chapter 9 — Design Examples Section 4 — MSE Wall Design Example
Section 4
MSE Wall Design Example
This design (Figure 9-12) presents the basic calculations for the analysis of stability of an
MSE wall.The detailed calculations for internal stability of the MSE mass with regard to
reinforcement stresses and required length for pullout are not addressed here. For current
information in this area, see the AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway Bridges.

Chapter 9 — Design Examples Section 4 — MSE Wall Design Example
Figure 9-12. MSE wall design example.

Chapter 9 — Design Examples Section 5 — Spread Footing Wall Design
Example
Section 5
Spread Footing Wall Design Example
This design example (Figure 9-13) illustrates the analysis of a spread footing wall for
stability. The structural design of the wall is not addressed here. For information on
structural design, see the AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway Bridges.

Chapter 9 — Design Examples Section 5 — Spread Footing Wall Design
Example
Figure 9-13. Spread footing wall design example.

Chapter 9 — Design Examples Section 6 — Tiedback Wall Design Example
Section 6
Tiedback Wall Design Example
This design example (Figures 9-14 and 9-15) illustrates the structural analysis for the design
of a tiedback wall. The structural sizing of the members is not covered here. For the
structural design of members, see the AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway Bridges.

Figure 9-14. Tiedback wall design example 1.

Figure 9-15. Tiedback wall design example 2. BMCOL51 computer output.

Appendix A Bibliography
Appendix A
Bibliography
Introduction
Following is a bibliography of the sources used in this manual.
Bibliography
Airhart, Tom P., Hirsch T. J., Coyle, Harry M., September, 1967, Pile-Soil System Response
in Clay as a Function of Excess Pore Water Pressure and Other Soil Properties, Texas
Transportation Institute, Research Report No. 33-8.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1988, Manual on

Subsurface Investigations.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1996, Standard

Specifications for Highway Bridges, 16th Edition
Bartoskewitz, Richard E. and Coyle, Harry M., Berger, William J., August, 1973, Bearing
Capacity Prediction by Wave Equation analysis – State of the Art, Texas Transportation
Institute, Research Report No. 125-8F.
Butler, H. D., 1973, A Study of Drilled Shafts Constructed by The Slurry Displacement
Method, Bridge Division, Texas Highway Department.
Chellis, Robert D., 1961, Pile Foundations, 2nd Edition.
Duderstadt, F. J., Bartoskewitz, Richard E. and Coyle, Harry M., 1977, Correlation of the
Texas Cone Penetrometer Test N-Value with Soil Shear Strength, Texas Transportation
Institute, Research Report No. 10-3F.
Kopperman, S., Carpenter, J. R., 1985, PCSTABL4 Users Manual, U. S. Department of

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-TS-85-229.
Goble, G. G., Rausche, F., 1987, Wave Equation Analysis of Pile Foundations, WEAP87
Program, Vol. IV: Users Manual for PC Application, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-IP-86-21.
O'Neill, Michael W., and Reese, Lymon C., December, 1970, Behavior of Axially Loaded
Drilled Shafts in
Beaumont Clay, Parts I-V, Center for Highway Research, Report No. 89-8.
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., Thornbum, T. H., 1974, Foundation Engineering, 2nd Edition.

Appendix A Bibliography
Reese, Lymon C., O’Neill, M. W., August, 1971, Criteria For The Design of Axially Loaded
Drilled Shafts, Center for Highway Research, Report No. 89-11F.
Reese, L. C., Sullivan, W. R., 1980, Documentation of Computer Program COM624,

Geotechnical Engineering Center, University of Texas at Austin.
Reese, L. C., Quiros, L. C., 1977, Design Procedures for Axially Loaded Drilled Shafts,
Center for Highway Research, University of Texas at Austin, Research Report 176-5F.
Terzaghi, Karl and Peck, Ralph B., 1967, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd
Edition.
Texas Department of Transportation, 1995, Manual of Testing Procedures, 100-E Series.
Wright, S. G., Roecker, J. D., 1984, UTEXAS: A Computer Program for Slope Stability
Calculations, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, Report
353-1.
Wright, S. G., Stauffer, P. A., 1984, An Examination of Earth Slope Failures in Texas,
Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, Report Center for
Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, Report 353-3F.

Geotecnical Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotecnical Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Manual

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

From: Kirby W. Pickett, P.E.

Functional Manual: Geotechnical Manual

Effective Date: August 29, 2000

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

This chapter contains the following sections:

Geotechnical Manual 1-1 TxDOT 9/00

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

Geotechnical Manual 1-2 TxDOT 9/00

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

Geotechnical Manual 1-3 TxDOT 9/00

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

The following paragraphs discuss preliminary soil surveys:

The next subsections discuss

Geotechnical Manual 1-4 TxDOT 9/00

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

Published Literature. Typical soils information sources are

Existing Data. Typical existing data, which is normally available, includes

Geotechnical Manual 1-5 TxDOT 9/00

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

Figure 1-1. Failure to do proper field investigation

A visit to the proposed project site reveals such problems as

Geotechnical Manual 1-6 TxDOT 9/00

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

Groundwater Levels. Groundwater levels are especially important for facilities to be

Design Feature Consideration

Design features that warrant special attention at this time are

Discussion on bridges in a preliminary soil survey covers these aspects:

Geotechnical Manual 1-7 TxDOT 9/00

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

♦ Approach embankment height

Approach Embankment Height. Bridge approach embankment height may be limited

Retaining Walls and Embankments

The next paragraphs discuss

Geotechnical Manual 1-8 TxDOT 9/00

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

Geotechnical Manual 1-9 TxDOT 9/00

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

Test Hole Location and Depth

Geotechnical Manual 1-10 TxDOT 9/00

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

Geotechnical Manual 1-11 TxDOT 9/00

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

♦ Test hole location

Avoid these areas if possible:

Subsurface Exploration Plan

The next paragraphs cover these exploration plan topics:

Geotechnical Manual 1-12 TxDOT 9/00

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

Discussion on these types of stream crossings appears below:

Geotechnical Manual 1-13 TxDOT 9/00

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

Figure 1-3. Drill rig loaded on barges

Geotechnical Manual 1-14 TxDOT 9/00

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

The exploration should include

Retaining Wall Consideration

Geotechnical Manual 1-15 TxDOT 9/00

SOFTbank E-Book Center Tehran, Phone: 66403879,66493070 For Educational Use.

Foundation Soil Investigation

Soil Core Borings

Geotechnical Manual 1-16 TxDOT 9/00