Drilled Shaft

Foundations in Rock

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

Dan Brown and Associates, PLLC

Dan Brown and Associates, ADSC

Seminar Greensboro, NC 2014
 Advances in Drilled Foundations

 Focus on Drilled Shafts (CIDH piles)

 History & Applications
 Design Approach with LRFD

 Measured Axial Resistance in Rock

Why Use Drilled Shafts?

 Up to 13’ dia. available

 Avoids noise & vibration
associated with pile
driving
 Small footprint: single
Over- shaft vs pile group
burden  Strength: capable of
extremely large loads
(axial + lateral)
Rock  Most effective where good
bearing stratum present
 Early “Caisson” Constructions

Texas Drilled Shaft Crew

Chicago Method Gow Caisson

Drilled Shafts: Foundation Applications
Heavy Loads Over Water Work

Restricted Access
Applications with Large Lateral Loads

 Single Column Piers with Monoshaft

Foundations
 Extreme Event Loads

 Deep Scour
 LRFD Design Approach
General Form of Equation:

 R   
i i i Qi
where: i = resistance factor for resistance component i
Ri = nominal value of resistance component i
i = load factor for load component i
Qi = nominal value of load component i

For axial resistance to DL + LL:

s Rsn  b Rbn   D QDn   L QLn

Rn
ASD approach: Qall 
FS
Load and Resistance
 LRFD Design of Drilled Shafts

 Geotechnical Strength
 Geotechnical strength limit state
 Serviceability
 Deformation limit state
 Structural Strength
 Structural strength limit state
 Design for Axial Loading

 Geotechnical Strength
Limit State
 Plunging failure
 Structural Strength Limit
State
 Structural failure
 Servicability Limit State
 Settlements or Axial
Displacement
Generalized Behavior Under Axial Load
Dilation at Rock/Shaft Interface
 Strain Gauges
What does a strain gauge tell you?
Load = (strain)AE
Note: you need to have a good idea
of A and E to get load!
 Reducing Test Results
Applied Load, kips
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0

20
Depth (Ft)

40

60
Note: 1 ft. = 0.305 m
1 kip = 4.45kN
80

100
Example – Tampa, FL

0.0

Displacement (inches)
-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.5
0 1000 2000 3000
Load (kips)
Side & Base

Segment Displacement
0

Resistance -0.5

(inches)
-1

-1.5

-2
0 5 10 15 20
Side Shear (ksf)

0.0 0.0

Toe Displacement
Displacement (inches)

-0.5
-0.5

(inches)
-1.0

-1.5 -1.0

-2.0
-1.5
-2.5
0 1000 2000 3000
-2.0
Load (kips)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Load (kips)
Improved Design of Drilled Shafts in Rock

 Some Case Histories with Load Test Data

 Marl or Chalk
 Limestone
 Sandstone
 Shales
 Metamorphic Rocks
Marls and Chalks in SE U.S. - Test Data

Ref: Brown & Thompson, 2009. “Drilled Shaft Performance in Cemented Calcareous
Formations of the Southeastern U.S.” ASCE GSP 185.
Drilling & Sampling

 Conventional Rock
Coring Tools
 Pitcher Barrel
Side Resistance
Base Resistance
Strong Limestone: Stan Musial Veterans
Memorial Bridge, St. Louis
 Eads Bridge

Sketch at right from the British Journal

Engineering, Feb., 1872
 Hard Limestone Bedrock
305

300
16.5ft
Socket
295
Elevation (ft)

290

285

280
Post-Award, Geotechnology
Post-Award, MoDOT
275
Pre-Award, Geotechnology
Pre-Award on ~1yr Old Samples, MoDOT
270
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

Unconfined Compressive Strength (psi)

Limestone Coring
Load Test Shaft
New World Record Load Test
36,000 tons!
Load Test Results

E=900ksi
≈ 50qu

E=3800ksi
≈ 200qu

 s  0.79 

qB 1  2

E
 Nashville ADSC Research: Test Conditions

Compr Str, psi

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
0

-5
Test Shaft 2

Depth Below Top of Socket

-10 Test Shaft 1

-15

-20

Test Shaft 1 Test Shaft 2 -25

-30
Surface 0
-35

-40

-45

-50

RQD, %
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Top of Conc -14.0 0

-5
Tip of Casing -16.0 Test Shaft 2 RQD
Top of Conc -17.5

Depth Below Top of Socket

-10 Test Shaft 1 RQD
Tip of Casing -20.0
-15

-20

-25

-30

SG Level 1 -26.0 -35

SG Level 1 -31.4 -40

O-cell -33.25
Tip of Shaft -33.5 -45
Base of O-cell -36.9
Tip of Shaft -37.0 -50
 Nashville ADSC Research: Test Results

25
Unit Side Resistance, ksf

Bearing Pressure, ksf

20
0 250 500 750 1000 1250
15 0
Nominal Dia = 48" test shaft 1
Nominal Dia = 52.5" -0.25
10 test shaft 2
-0.5

Displ/Dia, %
5 -0.75 E=630ksi
E=335ksi
-1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -1.25 E=536ksi

Displacement, inches -1.5

E=235ksi
-1.75

qu -2
fs  C  pa 
 pa 
For Test Shaft 1:
 s  0.79 
qB 1  2  
avg qu = 8300psi
range = 1660 – 16,110 E
%rec = 74% – 100%
RQD = 9% - 65% E = 30 to 50 (qu)
Back-calculated C=0.4
 Case Studies in Weak Sandstones

 Bryant – Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa

 MN I-35W Bridge

 St. Crois Bridge, Minnesota/Wisconsin

Base Resistance - Tuscaloosa, AL

Shaft drilled
under polymer
slurry and base
cleaned with
bucket
 Base Resistance - Tuscaloosa

With 48” dia,

ρ/B ≈ 0.01 at ρ=0.48”

270 ksf/in

For rigid circular footing on elastic half-space:

With ν = ¼ : E = 9,600ksf  s  0.79 


qB 1  2 
≈ 65 ksi E
MN I-35W Replacement
 MN I-35W Replacement
690

680 % Rec
RQD
670 Compr Str, tsf

660

650
Elev., ft.

640

630

620

610

600

590
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Compr Str (tsf), or RQD or Rec (%)

78” Dia. Socket

20’ embedment into decomposed sandstone
20’ embedment into soft sandstone (qu ≈ 40tsf = 500psi)
35W – Side Resistance

avg
35W Side Resistance
f SN qu
C
pa pa

Elev 665-645,
C ≈ 2.5 to 2.8
 35W Base Resistance

With 78” dia,

ρ/B ≈ 0.01 at ρ=0.78”

135 ksf/in

For rigid circular footing on elastic half-space:

With ν = ¼ :  s  0.79 

qB 1  2 
E = 7,800ksf
≈ 54 ksi E
St. Croix Bridge, Minnesota
St. Croix Bridge, Minnesota
St. Croix Foundation Construction
 1995 Load Test

 Rock socket drilled with

water
 Some caving difficulties

 Hole open for 17 days

 Bottom cleaning with

bucket only
 Conventional concrete
placed w/ 4” pump line
Figure from Mike O’Neill’s
Report on Load Testing
 1995 Load Test

Recommended Design
Values for sandstone:
 fs = 6.6 ksf, top 30ft

 fs = 9 ksf, below 30ft

 qb = 19 ksf, below 30ft

 Base grouting
recommended for
consideration to improve
base resistance
 2012 Load Test

 Base grouting considered,

but not employed
 Socket drilled with
Polymer slurry
 Air lift cleaning of base
with mini-SID inspection
 SCC concrete, 24” spread

 Integrity testing with CSL

to verify concrete quality
 2012 Load test

 8ft dia x 45ft long

rock socket
E=200ksi
 avg fs = 30 ksf @ ≈ 100qu
0.2”
displacement
 qb = 275 ksf @  s  0.79 

qB 1  2 
E
1”, 400 ksf @
1.3” (without
base grouting)
 Shale: Some Test Data from
KS-MO-KY Area
 Jackson Co., MO Chanute Shale, dry hole
 fs=6ksf, weathered shale w/ qu=14ksf
 fs=9-12ksf, unweathered shale w/ qu=32ksf
 Lexington, MO Gray & Black Shale, water
 fs=15ksf, qb=144ksf, no strength data
 Waverly, MO Clay Shale, polymer slurry
 fs=6-12ksf, qb=110ksf, no failure, no boring
 Topeka, KS, Severy Shale, dry
 fs=4-40ksf, qb=127ksf, no strength data
 Republic Co., KS, Graneros Shale, dry
 fs=3-4ksf, qb=56ksf, no strength data, RQD >75%
 Osborne, KS, Fairport Chalk (gray shale), polymer
 fs=11ksf, qb=136ksf, no strength data
 Des Moine, IA, Soft-Fm Shale, “roughened socket”, polymer
 fs=4.5-7ksf, qb>40-114ksf, RQD=39-70%, qu=24-170ksf
 Owensboro, KY, 3 tests soft gray shale, polymer
 fs=3-12ksf, qb=140-300ksf, weathered shale w/ qu=28-40ksf
Bond Bridge, Kansas City

Plan View of Main Pylon Pier

Test Shaft. Shown

for location only,
not a structural
member in contact

Profile View

Cap

Seal
Steel

alluvium Drilled
Shafts

Shale
bedrock
 Polymer Slurry in Shale
at Bond Bridge
Natural Moisture Slake Durability Durability Rating Based
Sample Content Index on Shear Strength Loss
(%) Type Id(2) (%) Type DRs
River Water 8.3 II 72.2 Intermediate 61.9
Polymer Slurry 8.3 II 98.2 Hard, more durable 78.6
Test Data – Bond Memorial Bridge
Test Data – Bond Memorial Bridge
Bond Bridge - Side Resistance
f SN qu
C
pa pa

Elev 640-610,
C≈1
 Bond Bridge - Base Resistance

With 72” dia,

ρ/B ≈ 0.01 at ρ=0.72”

500 ksf/in

For rigid circular footing on elastic half-space:

With ν = ¼ :  s  0.79 

qB 1  2 
E = 27,000ksf
≈ 185 ksi E
≈ 100 qu
Metamorphic Rocks: Piedmont Geology

 Mica-Schist
 Gneiss
 Macon, Georgia Powerplant

SPT - N
0 200 400 600 800 wet dry
460 460

sand
% Rec
440 RQD 440

SPT

420 420

PWR
Elev

400 400

380 380
Rock

360 360

340 340

0 20 40 60 80 100

%Recovery or RQD
Load Test Results
Side Resistance
 Base Resistance

220 ksf/inch

With 60” dia,

ρ/B ≈ 0.01 at ρ=0.6”

qB 1  
For rigid circular footing on elastic half-space: 2
E = 9,800ksf s  0.79 
≈ 68 ksi E
 Inter County Connector - MD
SPT - N
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
310 310

SaSi
% Rec
300 300
RQD
SPT

290 290
PWR
Elev

280 280
Qu
2080
270 270 to
5560

3540
avg
260 260
Wissahickon
Schist

250 250
0 20 40 60 80 100

%Recovery or RQD
Inter County Connector - MD

f SN qu
C
pa pa

Elev 275-265,
C ≈ 1.3
 Base Resistance

800 ksf/inch

With 48” dia,

ρ/B ≈ 0.01 at ∆ρ=0.48”
For rigid circular footing on elastic half-space:
qB 1  2
E = 30,000ksf s  0.79 
≈ 200 ksi E
≈ 56 qu
 Summary

 Greater performance demands (e.g., bigger

loads, shafts, extreme event conditions)
 LRFD approach to design for transportation
structures
 Testing of drilled foundations in rock can
demonstrate performance
 Resistance in rock affected by rock type,
construction methods

 Need for continuing education, training for

design professionals!
Thanks for Listening!