Afóasdf A Psdofm

-
-PRESENTATIONS - INDEX
-
-Mark Randolph.- K. Rainer Massarsch Lecture:. Practical Approaches for Design of
Pile Groups and Piled Rafts.
-EmiliosComodromos.- Fundaciones de plateas piloteadas bajo carga combinada:

metodología eficiente para análisis y diseño. Piled Raft Foundations Under Combined
Loading: Efficient Methodology for Analysis and Design.
-Alessandro Mandolini.-
Bengt H. Fellenius Lecture: Lecciones aprendidas de
investigaciones experimentales sobre pilotes: un punto de vista personal. Lessons
Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles - A Personal Point Of View.
-
-Der-Wen Chang.- Desarrollo de un analisis tridimensional de diferencias finitas para
asentamientos de cimentaciones de plateas piloteadas bajo cargas verticales.
Developing a Three Dimensional Finite-Difference Analysis for Piled Raft Foundation
Settlements Under Vertical Loads.
-Mario Terceros H.- Celda de carga como elemento de mejora de la base de los pilotes perforados
-Bengt Fellenius.- Respuesta estática de un grupo de 13 pilotes ensayados simultáneamente.

Static response of a group of 13 piles tested simultaneously.
-K. Rainer Massarsch.- Mario Terceros Banzer Lecture: La evoluci6n del concepto Expander Body
y sus futuras aplicaciones. The evolution of the Expander Body concept and future applications.
-Kyle Rollins.- lnteracci6n del grupo de pilotes durante carga lateral. Pile group interaction during
lateral loading.
-Anthony O’Brien.- De menor a mayor - La evolución de las cimentaciones profundas para

proyectos de transporte. From minor to major - The evolution of deep foundations for transportation
projects
-Dimitrios Konstantakos.- Immersive Geotechnical Engineering
-Anthony Marinucci.- Design and Construction Considerations for Anchored
-Luis Raygada.- Muros de Sostenimiento en Áreas Urbanas
-Alejo Sfriso.- Excavaciones urbanas en Buenos Aires
-Franz-Werner Gerressen.- Retaining Systems in Urban Excavations
-Carlos Medeiros Silva.- Desempenho Das Estruturas De Contenções Em Solos Colapsíveis.
-Walter Paniagua.- Sistemas de contención para excavaciones profundas Procedimientos

constructivos
4th Congreso Internacional de
Fundaciones Profundas de Bolivia
Practical approaches for design of pile

groups and piled rafts
Mark Randolph and Oliver Reul
Mark Randolph The University of Ocean Graduate School 23 May 2019

Western Australia Centre for Offshore
Foundation Systems
Outline
Analysis philosophy: pile groups and piled rafts

• Ultimate limit states (capacity) & serviceability (deformations)
• Absolute deformations: relative importance of non-linear pile responses
• Differential settlements: bending stiffness of pile cap or raft
Non-linear response of pile groups - hierarchical approach
• Simple (non-linear) lumped models: pile group, raft, piled-raft interactions
• Elasticity based methods: allowance for non-linearity at pile or soil element
• Comparisons with field data: axial, lateral loading
Piled rafts
• Iterative approach to couple pile response with (flexible) raft
• Case studies: numerical and field measurements
Mark Randolph: Practical approaches for design of pile groups and piled rafts: Bolivia: 23 May 2019 2
Analysis focus: pile groups, piled rafts
Size of foundation
‘Small’: B << L ‘Large’: B >> L
B Pile-reinforced zones B
L L
• ULS >> serviceability • Serviceability >> ULS

(capacity rules over deformations) • Non-linear pile and raft responses of
• Non-linear pile response critical limited importance
• Pile cap, raft: limited importance • Differential settlements critical:
load distribution from superstructure;
positioning of piles;
thickness of pile cap or raft
Evolution: raft, pile group, piled raft
Concept: piles as ‘settlement reducers’ for notional raft foundation

• Superstructural load distribution important
• Differential settlements more critical than absolute settlement
• Controllable by: (a) Profile of raft thickness (b) Locations of piles
Piled raft
Pile group
Raft
Randolph (1994)
A few software tools
Pile groups Basic approach Soil model Interaction Loading

REPUTE BEM Layered (approximate) Elastic - Mindlin Vertical only
(PGROUPn) Non-linear, limiting capacity Rigid pile cap
CLAP, DEFPIG BEM Layered (approximate) Interaction General 3D
Non-linear, limiting capacity factors Rigid pile cap
PIGLET Analytical Linearly varying modulus Semi-analytical General 3D
Non-linear, limiting capacity Rigid pile cap
GROUP, PILGRP1 Load transfer Layered Load transfer General 3D
curves Non-linear, limiting capacity modifiers Rigid pile cap
Piled rafts
Small & Zhang (2002) Finite layer Layered Elastic General 3D
Elastic, limiting capacity Flexible raft
NAPRA, NAPHOL BEM Layered (approximate) Interaction Vertical only
Non-linear, limiting capacity factors Flexible raft
GARP BEM Layered (finite layer) Interaction General 3D
Elastic, limiting capacity factors Flexible raft
HyPR Semi-analytical Linearly varying modulus Elastic - Mindlin Vertical only
and elastic Elastic, limiting capacity Flexible raft
… and then there is 3-dimensional finite element analysis
Treatment of non-linearity
Soil, pile-soil or foundation models

F F F
g
k k  F 
F = k0 d F = k0d  Flim = 1− f 
k0  lim 
F
d d
Elastic d Elastic-plastic Non-linear
Level of application
• Foundation unit level: F  Q (total load); Flim  Qult (ultimate total load)
• e.g. Mandolini (2017): direct estimates of average settlement
• Pile head level: F  V (axial load); Flim  Vlim (limiting axial capacity)
• e.g. PIGLET
• Soil element level: F  t (pile-soil traction); Flim  ts (limiting pile-soil traction)
• e.g. HYPRnl, PGROUPn & REPUTE, NAPRA & NAPHOL, GARP
Interaction and non-linearity
Principle (virtually universal)

• Interactive deformations based on initial tangent stiffness
• Non-linear component of deformations treated as local to individual pile
Load (per pile)

O A B C D
Single pile
Single pile Group pile
Group pile
response response
Elastic: OC = RsOA
Non-linear: AB = CD
Displacement
Simple lumped model for piled rafts
Mandolini (2017)
• Distinguish between initial (elastic) tangent stiffness
Ki,0 and current tangent stiffness Ki,t Raft
Pile group
nr
dQr  Q 
• Raft (non-linear): = K r ,t = K r ,0 1 − r 
dwr  Q
 r ,ult 
np
dQ p  Qp 
• Pile group (non-linear): = K p ,t = K p ,0 1 − 
dwp  Q p ,ult
 
dwp   1/ K p ,t a pr / K r ,0  dQ p 
• Elastic interaction:  =  
 r  a rp / K p ,0
dw 1/ K r ,t   dQr 
• Interaction factor arp ~ 0.8 for large pile groups (Clancy & Randolph 1993)
Non-linear response of each pile: PIGLET
Axial loading
• Elastic response from closed form solution of Randolph & Wroth (1978)
• Interactive deformations (elastic) from logarithmic decay
Vi ln ( rm / sij ) Vi 1.1
w j = a =x f=0 f = 0.7, g = 0.9 f = 0.9
kvi ,0 ln ( 2rm / d ) kvi ,0 1
0.9
Normalised axial load, V/Vlim

with rm the limit of interaction and sij 0.8 g
kv  V 
the spacing of piles with diameter d 0.7 = 1− f  
0.6
kv ,0  Vlim 
• ‘diffraction’ parameter x allows for 0.5
g = 0.3, 0.7, 1.5
0.4
differential pile compression
0.3
(Mylonakis & Gazetas, 1998) 0.2
Axial response
• Leading diagonal of stiffness matrix 0.1 Generalised hyperbola
0
‘softened’ to allow for non-linear 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Normalised axial displacement, w0kv,0/Vlim
response of individual pile
Non-linear response of each pile: PIGLET
Lateral loading
• Elastic response from closed form solution of Randolph (1981)
• Interaction according to approximate inverse relationships: a  d/sij
• Pile head stiffness reduced according to
6
kh 1
= Lateral response
Normalised lateral load, H/kh,0 u0,50

p
kh,0 u  5 Generalised hyperbola
1 +  0,el
 u0,50 
4 Linear p = 0.5
where u0,el is the purely elastic pile
deflection at ground level and u0,50 is 3 p=2
the value of u0,el at which secant 2
stiffness is halved p = 100
1
• Values of p > 10 reduce to elastic-
plastic response 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Normalised lateral displacement, u0 /u0 ,50
Comparisons among different software
Pirrello & Poulos (2014): combined loading of two different foundations

1. Small 3  3 pile group
2. Large 172-pile group proposed for Incheon Tower
Four different analysis techniques considered

• CLAP (Coffey 2017)
• PIGLET 5.1 (Randolph 2004)
• REPUTE (Geocentrix 2017)
• PLAXIS 3-D (General FE code)
Pirrello & Poulos – 9-pile group
2m 2m 50 MPa
0 E
2m 0.5 m
 = 0.3
2m
G = 19.2 MPa
V = 9 MN
Hx = 0.9 MN
Hy = 0.9 MN
Mx (y to z) = 3 MNm 15 m
100 MPa
My (x to z) = 4.5 MNm
G = 38.5 MPa
T = 1.5 MNm
Pirrello & Poulos – 9-pile group results
Quantity Units CLAP PIGLET1 REPUTE PLAXIS

Central settlement mm 7.43 9.4 8.8 14.1
Lateral deflection (x) mm 3.1 2.9 3.3 4.7
Lateral deflection (y) mm 3.2 3.0 2.3 4.2
Rotation (about y axis) mradians 0.4 0.4 0.2 3.2
Rotation (about x axis) mradians 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.9
Torsional rotation mradians 0.4 0.4 0.5 -
Maximum axial load MN 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8
Maximum lateral load (x) MN 0.17 0.19 0.25 0.27
Maximum lateral load (y) MN 0.17 0.19 0.25 0.26
Maximum moment (x:z) MNm 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.32
Maximum moment (y:z) MNm 0.11 0.10 0.14 0.31
• Pile
Maximum group softwareMNm
torque generally 0.01
in good agreement
0.01 0.01 -
• PLAXIS deformations are surprisingly high
• CLAP and PIGLET maximum lateral loads and moments are
lower than from REPUTE and PLAXIS (no shadowing effect)
Incheon Tower foundations
x coordinate (m)
8 m 172 piles
20 m Diameter 2.5 m
y coordinate (m)
Typical spacing: 5 m
2m
V = 6560 MN
20 m Hx = 149 MN
Hy = 115 MN
Mx (y to z) = 21600 MNm
My (x to z) = 12710 MNm
T = 1996 MNm
Pile embedment from 46.3 to 71.3 m (average 55.3 m)
• Soil shear modulus profiles: Gaxial = 7 + 4.5z MPa

Pirrello & Poulos (2014) Gb = 600 MPa ~ 2GL
Glateral = 5 + 3.5z MPa ( = 0.3)
Proposed 151 • Shaft friction: 50 kPa to 500 kPa: design average ~ 125 kPa (54 MN)
storey twin towers
• End-bearing capacity: 12 MPa (58.9 MN): design limit 30 MN
Incheon Tower foundations
~ 88 m 7 MPa
0 G
 = 0.3
5m 2.5 m
~ 77 m
4.5 MPa/m
Pile cap: 5.5 m thick;

0.1 m above ground surface
Pile embedment varies Below pile base

from 46.1 to 76.1 m
~60 m
600 MPa
V = 6560 MN
Hx = 149 MN ; My (x to z) = 21600 MNm
Hy = 115 MN ; Mx (y to z) = 12710 MNm
Pirrello & Poulos (2014)
T = 1.5 MNm
Incheon Tower foundations - results
Pirrello & Poulos (2014)
PIGLET1
Quantity Units CLAP REPUTE PLAXIS
E E-P NL-P
Central settlement mm 53.0 56.7 58.7 69.7 55.0 56.0
Lateral deflection (x) mm 18.5 19.5 19.8 20.4 21.0 18.7
Lateral deflection (y) mm 14.9 15.0 15.3 16.4 18.0 15.0
Rotation (about y axis) mradians 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2
Rotation (about x axis) mradians 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2
Torsional rotation mradians 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3
Maximum axial load MN 84.6 140.6 83.5 69.4 84.8 83.0
Maximum lateral load (x) MN 2.7 4.2 4.2 3.9 3 2.5
Maximum lateral load (x) MN 2.6 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.2
Maximum moment (x:z) MNm 22.9 18.9 18.7 16.4 21.4 20.0
Maximum moment (y:z) MNm 22.9 13.8 13.4 11.3 18.5 21.0
Maximum torque MNm 3.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 2.5
• Excellent agreement among all analysis results
• PIGLET maximum axial load very high from purely elastic analysis
• PIGLET non-linear analysis gives much more even axial load distribution
Comparisons with field test data
A. Three small groups of piles

1. O’Neill et al. (1980, 1982): axially loaded 9-pile group
2. McCabe & Lehane (2006): axially loaded 5-pile group
3. Rollins et al. (2006): laterally loaded 9-pile group
Note: all studies included independent tests on single piles
B. Field measurements from settlement of 697 pile group

• Goosens & van Impe (1991)
Axial load tests on 9-pile group
O’Neill et al. (1980, 1982)
0.82 m 0.82 m
0.82 m 800
0.274 m
Vertical load per pile, P (kN)

700
0.82 m 600
500
400
Piles:
300 Measured - single pile
Steel tubes: 0.274 m diam.
200 Piglet single pile
Wall thickness: 9.3 mm
Embedded 13.1 m 100 Measured - average group pile
Loads applied 0.9 m above ground Piglet average group pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Soil data: Vertical displacement, w0 (mm)
Shear modulus: G = 50 + 10z MPa
Limiting axial pile capacity: 674 kN
Non-linear parameters: f = 0.6, g = 0.85
Axial load tests on 5-pile group
McCabe & Lehane (2006)
1m 1m
70
Vertical load per pile, P (kN)

1m 60
0.282 m 50
1m Piglet: average group pile but
40 reduced central pile capacity
20 Piglet single pile

Piles:
Measured - average group pile
0.25 m square concrete 10
(modelled as cylinders) Piglet average group pile
0
embedded 6 m 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Vertical displacement, w0 (mm)
Soil data:
Shear modulus: G = 10 MPa
Limiting axial pile capacity: 64 kN
Non-linear parameters: f = 0.96, g = 0.4
Lateral load tests on 9-pile group
Rollins et al. (2006)
0.97 m 0.97 m
180 Piglet output
0.97 m
Lateral load, H (kN)

0.324 m 160
Measured - average group pile
140
Piglet output - group
120
0.97 m
100
80
Piles (pinned at head): 60
Steel tubes: 0.324 m diam.
40
20
Wall thickness: 9.5 mm
0
Embedded 9.1 m
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Loads applied 0.44 m above ground
Lateral displacement, u0 (mm)
Soil data:
Non-linear parameters: u0,50 = 0.02dp, p = 0.8
Measured response of 697-pile group
Goosens & van Impe (1991)
Section A-A
Soil data:
Axial pile capacity: 4.9 MN
Non-linear param.: f = 0.95, g = 0.7
Piles:
Cast-in-situ: 0.52 m diam.
Embedded 13.1 m
Expanded base diameter: 0.8 m
Pile spacing: 2.08 m (41  17 grid) A
Design working load ~ 1.3 MN/pile
Measured response of 697-pile group
Goosens & van Impe (1991)
Group pile settlement w0 (mm)

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400
2.5
Non-linear
Elastic average average group
Average vertical load, V (MN)
group response response

2
1.5 Single pile responses

(bottom axis)
1
Measured - single pile
Piglet single pile
0.5 Coordinate across silos (m)
Piglet average group
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Piglet elastic average 0
group
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Settlement, w (mm)
Single pile settlement, w0 (mm) 20

Measured along edge of silos
40 after 2 years
(Goosens & van Impe 1991)
• Underlying clay strata gave 60
continuing settlements
80
• After 10 years, central edge Piglet: Edge of silos
settlements ~ 180 mm 100

Piglet: Centre of silos
120
Piled rafts
Analysis objectives
• Sharing of load between raft and piles
• extremes of raft with a few settlement reducing piles, or
pile group with ground contacting cap
• Raft (pile cap) flexibility helps even out load distribution
• and controls differential settlements
• Simple geometries – uniform raft thickness
• raft-soil stiffness ratio a useful concept
Raft-soil stiffness ratio
Horikoshi & Randolph (1997)
Lr
0.5 3
Br E r 1 −  s2  Br   tr 
K rs = 5.57     Br
E s 1 −  2r  L r   Lr 
tr Lr
Differential settlements Bending moments

0.6
w 0.03
Central Lr/Br = 1
0.5 w average 0.025
moment
0.4 M/qLr2 0.02 Lr/Br = 5
0.3 Midside-centre
0.015
Rectangle (Lr/Br = 1 or 10)
0.2 Lr/Br = 10
0.01
0.1 0.005
0 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Relative raft-soil stiffness, Krs Relative raft-soil stiffness, Krs
Piled raft analysis – iterative approach
Investigation of iterative approach

• Pile group analysis using PIGLET
• Pile cap (no soil contact) or raft
(soil contact) analysis using finite
element code TOCHNOG Elastic soil
• Iteration process: Piles modelled

as equivalent
• Model pile group with fully flexible cap springs
(vertical response only)

• Output: spring stiffness for each pile, settlements at pile head
• Model raft on elastic continuum and elastic pile ‘springs’
• Input: pile spring stiffness values; output: settlements at pile head
• Convergence check
• Finish
Application of iterative approach
Example numerical study

(Reul & Randolph, 2003)
• Pile group:
• diameter 1 m
• spacing 6dp
• layout 7 7 grid
• length 30 m
• Raft
• square 38 m 38 m
Frankfurt clay:
• thickness 3 m
  z − 30  
E = 45 + 0.7  tanh   + 1 z MPa
• Krs ~ 0.05   15  
Convergence over 20 iterations
Load share Settlement difference:

Settlement Qpile/Qtotal between raft and pile group
3D FEA (includes slight plastic response): smax = 49 mm; Qpile/Qtotal = 0.75
Load-settlement responses
Mobilised soil resistance
Iterative
approach
Piles
Raft (3D FEA) Total
(3D FEA) (3D FEA)
Settlement
Pile group – relative spring stiffnesses
Corner Iterative approach Corner 0.031

3D FEA
pile pile
Non-linear
Elastic
0.018 0.025
0.014 0.016 0.024
Centre Centre
pile pile
0.013 0.014 0.016 0.024
• 3D FEA (includes slight plastic response): smax = 49 mm; Qpile/Qtotal = 0.75

• Piled raft: differential settlements ~ 10% of average settlement of raft alone
Prototype case study 1: Messeturm
64 bored piles
1.3 m diameter
Spacing ≥ 3.4dp
Profiled raft:
6 m to 3 m
Messeturm: 3D finite element analysis
Reul and Randolph (2003)
Messeturm: effect of groundwater level
• Groundwater drawdown from adjacent tunnel construction

• Pressure changes on raft cause corresponding changes in pile loads
Messeturm: load-settlement response
Effective settlement inducing load, Peff (MN)
Piled raft: 3D FEA

Iterative approach
(elastic)
Raft only: 3D FEA
Measured
Central
settlement (mm)
Messeturm: settlement profiles
Corner Corner
Normalised
settlement • Measurements show greater differential settlement
s/smax • Low differential settlement of iterative approach
partly due to approximation of raft profile
Messeturm: pile load-settlement responses
Inner ring
• Measurements show considerable scatter
• Elastic iterative approach gives less even
3D FEA load distribution
Iterative Middle ring
Measured
3D FEA
Measured Outer ring
Iterative
3D FEA
Iterative
Measured
WestendDuo: piled raft foundation
• Twin 96 m high towers, constructed 2004-2006

• 4 storey basement – excavation depth 15 m
WestendDuo: foundation layout
Cross-section A-A
Raft:
• Irregular shape
A A
• 1.8 m thick under main towers
• 1.2 m thick under low-rise sections
Piles: 1.2 m diameter
~ 68 m • 13 inner piles - 25 m long
Raft thickness 1.2 m (elsewhere 1.8 m)
• 13 outer piles - 20 m long
Instrumented pile
WestendDuo: geological section
6m
Basement depth 15 m
79 m
> 50 m
WestendDuo: alternative foundations
Foundation Analysis Max. sett. Differential Pile load

configuration smax (mm) settlement, /L proportion, zpr
F1 unpiled raft 3D FEA 137 1/300 (F2 1/500) -
K3 piled raft 3D FEA 72 1/500 (K2 1/700) 0.380
K3 piled raft Iterative 76 1/500 0.379
K3 piled raft Measured 47 1/700 -
WestendDuo: groundwater fluctuations
Pore pressure (kPa) Measured pile load (MN)
Pile load range
Net superstructure load:

Peff ~ 613 MN (150 kPa)
WestendDuo: settlement contours
Settlements (mm)
• 23 geodetic survey points

• Maximum settlement 47 mm
• Maximum /L ~ 1:700
• Well within design estimates
Pile group and piled raft stiffnesses
Group 20
McCabe
18 L/D = 25
stiffness 5 piles
L Ep/GL = 1000
Kp/GLB 16 B r = 0.75
s/D = 2
14  = 0.3
12
Pirrello
10 s/D = 3 9 piles Incheon
Messeturm
8 s/D = 5 172 piles
64 piles Goosens
6 697 piles
4 s/D = 10
O’Neill et al. Reul WestendDuo
2 9 piles 49 piles 26 pilesRaft stiffness
0
0.1 1 10
Normalised width of pile group, B/L
Summary comments - 1
Analysis approaches for pile groups and piled rafts

• Charts and simple lumped models for complete pile group and raft
• Interaction between elements based on elasticity
• Several purpose-specific software tools available, most based on BEM
• Gold standard: 3-dimensional finite element analysis
Treatment of non-linearity
• Elastic-plastic, or non-linear (hyperbolic-style) functions
• Applied at level of (a) foundation unit; (b) individual pile; or (c) soil element
• Interaction based on initial tangent elastic response
Design and analysis strategy

• Start simple; progress to sophisticated analysis as design matures
• Non-linearity important for small pile groups; less so for large foundations
Summary comments - 2
Approaches illustrated using PIGLET software for pile group analysis

• New non-linear extension of software for both axial and lateral response
• Single pile response calibrated from independent analyses of field tests
• Derived parameters then applied for analysis of full pile group
• Good consistency with other pile group analysis software and FE analysis
• Reasonable matching of field studies on small groups of 5 to 9 piles
• Consistent magnitudes and settlement profiles for large (697-pile) group
Coupled iterative approach for piled raft analysis

• Linking of pile group software to raft analysis software
• Iteration to provide consistent distributions of pile loads and settlements
• Promising comparisons with 3D FEA and data from piled rafts in Germany
4o Congreso Internacional de Fundanciones Profundas Bolivia ‫ ׀‬Santa Cruz, 23-25 Mayo 2019
ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’ ‫ ׀‬INCOTEC S.A. ‫ ׀‬Bolivian Society of Engineers - SM & GT Engineering
Piled Raft Foundations Under Combined Loading

EFFICIENT METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Emilios M. Comodromos
Laboratory of Computational Geotechnical Engineering
Emilios M. Comodromos, Professor in soil-structure interaction

Civil Engineering Department, University of Thessaly, Greece
1
In a 3-D analysis a designer can take into account most of the

mechanisms arising from the soil-pile-raft interaction under any
loading combination, but at high computation demands.
Experience from 3-D analyses of foundations and other cases
demonstrates that more than 95% of computer resources and
computational time arises from the simulation of the soil domain by
volume elements.
2
Group Location effect Group Location effect RAFT Combined
Introduction Applications
Axial Axial Lateral Lateral effect Loading
Straightforward analysis allowing for pile – soil – raft interaction by

replacing the surrounding soil with non linear springs
Advantages
• Dramatically reduce the computational time.
• Carry analyses for various combination of loads, required by most
design codes.
• Provide the possibility of unified numerical analysis of both the
foundation and the superstructure.
▪ implicitly generate the envelopes of internal forces on structural elements >
design
Prerequisite
• Accurately introduce the mechanisms of soil-pile-raft and the
variation of soil resistance associated with their activation
3
Straightforward analysis allowing for pile – soil – raft interaction

by replacing the surrounding soil with springs of variable stiffness
Presentation Layout
• Response of a single pile under axial loading

• Response of a pile in group under axial loading
• Response of a single pile under lateral loading
• Response of a pile in group under lateral loading
• Effect from the Raft to piles and vice versa
• Combined loading
• Applications
4
Three main approaches to define the response of a pile under

axial load
simplicity less accuracy accuracy complexity
Geotechnical Simplified Numerical 3D Nonlinear

Methods Methods Numerical Methods
‘t-z’
Load
Settlement
5
Simulation of a single pile under axial load by one dimensional elements
𝑑2 𝑤𝑗 𝑧
𝐸𝑝 𝐴𝑝 − 𝑘𝑧 Δ𝑤𝑗 = 0
𝑑𝑧 2
Beam 60
Shaft resistance τ (kPa)

elements
40
w 20
0
0 w 0.05 0.1
Pile settlement S (m)
Non-linear spring elements simulating

the shaft and base resistance
6
Shaft resistance
Simplified Numerical
Methods
shaft and base resistance
according to API (2002)
Pile base resistance
7
Pile base resistance

Boussinesq, Timoshenko and Goodier Methods
Relationships for assessing the
𝑄b 1 − 𝜈 shaft and base resistance
𝑆b =
2 𝐷 𝐺b
Shaft resistance
Randolph et al.
𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑠
Δ𝑠
𝜏s = 𝜏sf − 1.1 𝜏sf − 𝜏s;res 1 − exp −2.4
Δ𝑠f
8
From the single pile to

the pile group response Single pile
It is commonly accepted that, for the
same mean load, a pile group exhibits
considerably higher settlement than an Group 3 x 3
identical single pile, while each pile of S/D = 3
the group demonstrates a different L/D = 25
response, depending on its location.
Ras: response amplification factor
𝑆mG 𝑆nG
𝑅as = =
𝑆mLs 𝑆ns
9
2 (𝑠Τ𝐷) 𝐵
4𝐵ʹ + 2.7 𝑠/𝐷(5 − )
𝑅as = 3 𝑅as =
𝑅as = 𝐷
𝐵ʹ + 3.6 1 2
1+
𝑛𝑟
Skempton, 1953 Meyerhof, 1959 Vesic, 1969
−0.15
−0.675 0.66 𝐷
𝑁·𝑠 𝐷g Τ𝐷 𝑅as =
𝑅as = 0.29𝑁 ηg = 𝑅s−1 = 𝐷g
𝐿 𝑁
Randolph and Clancy, 1993 McCabe and Lehane, 2006 Castelli and Maugeri, 2002
A
𝐷𝑔 Τ𝐷 0.07 1.9 −0.08 0.54𝑁𝑅
5
ηg = ηf = 𝑅as = 0.8 𝑆𝑛𝑠 1.23𝑁𝑅 + 𝑆𝑛𝑠 e ln 1.25 + 𝑠
𝑁+1 ൗ𝐷
Sheil and McCabe, 2014 Comodromos et al., 2009, 2016
10
Skempton (1953) Meyerhof (1959)
Vesic (1969) Kaniraj (1993)
Randolph & Clancy (1993) Castelli & Maugeri (2002)
Comodromos (2004) Comodromos et al. (2016)
McCabe & Lehane (2006) Sheil & McCabe (2015)
Field data (O'Neill et al. 1977) Field data (Randolph & Clancy 1994)
Field data (Rampello 1994) Field data (Trofimenkov 1977)
Settlement ratio, Rs 14
-1 0 20 40 60 80 100
Number of piles, N
Comparison of the settlement amplification factor provided by

existing empirical approaches, Sheil et al. 2019
11
Different behavior depending on the pile location 60
Shaft resistance τ (kPa)

40
Free standing
piles 20 Single pile
Pile in a group
0
0 0.05 0.1
Pile settlement S (m)
Sp Ss
Lower shear strain

Less activation
of shear resistance
Ss -> 0 ∀d➚
Ss = Sp ∀d➘
12
Fixed head piles
250%
p1
p2
p3 P5 P6
Normalised Axial Load Na (%).

200% P3
p4
p6 P2 P4
150% P1
100%
50%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Normalised Settlement Sns
Fig. 8. Variation of normalised load with normalised settlement for caracteristic piles p1, p2, p3, p4 and
Define the mechanism of location effect on
p6 in a 5*5 layout with a spacing of 5.0D, soil type C3 and relative length L/D=25.
characteristic piles
Comodromos & Bareka: On the Response Prediction of Axially Loaded Fixed Head Pile Groups in Clayey Soils
13
TORHAUS SKYSCRAPER IN FRANKFURT
14
MESSERTUM SKYSCRAPER IN FRANKFURT
Foundation Layout
Location effect on pile resistance
256m
59m
Sandy soil
Frankfurt clay
Katzenbach et al. 2005

Katzenbach et al. 2005
15
Location weighting factor

Once the ‘t-z’ curves for the S.P. are known then we can define
those of a pile in a group through a bijective function,
i.e. from (tS,zS) and Ras -> (tG-zG)
𝑡S 𝑡S
𝑡G = 𝑡G;j
𝑅as
𝑡G , 𝑡S
Piles in a group
𝑧G = 𝑧S 𝑡G
tS-zS
tG-zG
tS
tG
Modification to account for the
location 𝑧S = 𝑧G
𝑡S 𝑡S
𝑡G;j = = 𝑙𝑤
𝑅as;j 𝑅as j
𝑧G;j = 𝑧S
16
Location weighting factor
𝑛 𝑛
𝑡S 𝑡S
෍ 𝑅as;j = ෍ 𝑙𝑤𝑖 𝑅a𝑠 = 𝑙𝑤𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑅a𝑠 𝑡G;j = = 𝑙𝑤
𝑗=1 𝑗=1 𝑅as;j 𝑅as j
17
Two main approaches to define the response of the pile under

lateral load
simplicity accuracy accuracy complexity
Simplified Numerical 3D Nonlinear

Methods Numerical Methods
18
Methods Soil resistance
Loading 1
Loading 2
‘p-y’ curves
p : soil resistance Epy=p/y
y : pile displacement
19
Beam on elastic foundation
(M+dM) – M + Ndy - Vvdx = 0 
dM dy d2M d2 y dVV
+N − VV = 0  + N − =0
dx dx dx 2 dx 2 dx
d2 y d2M d4 y
M = EpIp  = EpIp
dx 2 dx 2 dx 4
dVV
p= , E py =p/y ⇒p=E py  y
dx
d4 y d2 y
EpIp 4 + N 2 + Epy  y = 0
Hetenyi, M., 1946. Beams on Elastic dx dx
Foundations, Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan.
20
load
beam elem.
springs
Reese LC, Cox WR, Koop FD (1974) Analysis of

laterally loaded piles in sand. In Proc. 6th Offsh.
Techn. Conf., Houston, pp. 473–83.
Matlock, H. (1970). Correlations for design of
laterally loaded piles in soft clay. Proc.2nd Offsh.
Techn. Conf., Houston, 577-594.
Reese, L.C. & Welch, R,C. (1975). Lateral loadings
of deep foundations in stiff clay. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Engng ASCE 101, 633-649.
21
Hyperbolic form of p-y curves in clayey soil 22

Hyperbolic form of p-y curves in sandy soil

23
Correlation of group response

to that of a single pile
𝑦nG 𝑦G
𝑅ad = =
𝑦ns 𝑦S
yG = group displacement
ys = single pile displacement
Comodromos EM and Papadopoulou MC (2012) "Response evaluation of horizontally

loaded pile groups in clayey soils", Géotechnique, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp 329-39. 24
For the same displacement the

resistance of a pile in a group is
lower than that of the S.P.
Use of p-multipliers to reduce soil
resistance.
Values from experimental results in
tabular form, quite few,
limited to s = 3D.
Transformation relationship
f(ps, ys, Rad)
25
RESPONSE OF PILE GROUPS IN CLAYEY SOILS
Affecting factors:
➢ group layout
➢ pile spacing
➢ shear resistance
displacement level
Amplification factor Ra
Range of
application
Normalised displacement y/D

26
RELATIONSHIP FOR GROUP AMPLIFICATION FACTOR Ra
Mean load Hm
K Gi − K Gp
i
WG − WGp y nG = Ra y ns Normalised displacement y/D
m
K err = 1
j  K i
Werr =
WG
yG = Ra ys
i =1, j G
The most suitable values for parameters a and b were obtained from the
optimization for the less stiffness and potential energy mean error procedure over
112 cases and were found to be 0.25 and 0.40 for a and b, respectively. 27
Comodromos, E.M. and Papadopoulou, M.C. 2013. Explicit extension of the p–y method to pile
groups in cohesive soils. Computers and Geotechnics, 47: pp. 28–41. 28
GROUP RESPONSE IN SANDY SOILS EXPERIENCE LESS INTERACTION

EFFECTS
Amplification factor Ra
The most suitable values for

parameters a and b were
Normalised displacement y/D found to be 0.10 and 0.20 for a
and b, respectively.
−b a
 d  yns m tanφ
Ra = 1 + 2(m − 1)   − ln log
30
(1 − 2 yns )
 20  d
o
3 tan25 d
Papadopoulou MC and Comodromos EM (2010) "On the response prediction of horizontally
loaded fixed-head pile groups in sands", Computers & Geotechnics, Vol. 37, No. 7-8, pp 930-941.
29
Papadopoulou, M.C. and Comodromos, E.M. 2014. Explicit extension of the p–y method to pile
groups in sandy soils. Acta Geotechnica, 9(3): 485-497. 30
Response of characteristic piles in a group

31
From the single pile to the pile group response
C1, 3 x 3, 2.0D C1, 3 x 3, 3.0D

yG = 14.4 cm yG = 10.3 cm
C1, 3 x 3, 6.0D
yG = 8.6 cm
32
33
Forming the p-y curves for each particular pile in a group

(along pile length)
Transformation relationship
f(ps, ys, Rad;j)
Piles in a group
34
COMBINED PILE RAFT FOUNDATIONS
Katzenbach et al.
The response of the piles, is it affected by the raft resistance or vice-versa?
35
COMBINED PILE RAFT FOUNDATIONS
Low raft resistance

High raft resistance !!!!
The response of the piles remains practically unaffected by the existence of the raft.
On the contrary the springs simulating the raft resistance must be reduced to 50% of the raft alone.
Comodromos EM, Papadopoulou MC and Rentzeperis IK (2009) "Pile foundation analysis and design using
experimental data and 3-D numerical analysis", Computers & Geotechnics, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp 819-836.
Comodromos, E., Papadopoulou M, Pitilakis K.(2010) "Analysis and design of piled raft foundations",Int. Geot
Confer. Geotechnical Challenges in Megacities, ISSMGE, Moscow.
36
5
COMBINED LOADING: CLAYEY SOILS N= 0.00 Nult N= 0.25 Nult N= 0.50 Nult
4 N= 0.75 Nult N= 0.90 Nult N= 0.95 Nult
Lateral load Η (MN)

3
2
failure in vertical equilibrium
1 arising from pile-soil separation
0
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%
Normalised deflection y/D (%)
Zormpa TE, Comodromos EM (2018) "Numerical Evaluation of

Pile Response Under Combined Lateral and Axial Loading",
Geotechnical and Geologigal Engineering, Vol. 36 pp 793-811
doi: DOI 10.1007/s10706-017-0354-1.
37
COMBINED LOADING: CLAYEY SOILS
REDUCTION OF SHAFT RESISTANCE

IN THE ZONE OF SOIL-PILE REPARATION
38
COMBINED LOADING: CLAYEY SOILS
39
COMBINED LOADING: SANDY SOILS
INCREASE OF SHAFT RESISTANCE
AT THE UPPER ZONE AS A RESULT OF THE
SOIL REACTION AGAINST THE LATERAL LOAD
40
COMBINED LOADING: SANDY SOILS
41
APPLICABILITY
ecomo.users.uth.gr/web_emil/
PilRaftSpringDetermin.xls
42
APPLICATION: TORHAUS SKYSCRAPER IN FRANKFURT
43
Comodromos EM, Papadopoulou MC and Laloui L. GK (2016) "Contribution to the design methodologies of
piled raft foundations under combined loadings", Canadian Geotechnical Journal. doi: 10.1139/cgj-2015-0251.
44
45
46
47
Performance based-design > Ultimate Limit State (ULS)

Focus on the capacity of structure to carry safely the actions
(actions increased by a pf < resistance decrease by a pf)
Displacement based-design > Serviceability limit state (SLS)

Partial factors of safety are not applied since they are leading to unrealistic stress
path (higher) and the reduction of the failure surface > irrelevant zone plastification
Non-linear behavior governs the system (the foundation response is required rather
than the ultimate capacity)
Combinations of actions for seismic design situations
48
Partial factors on actions and recommended combination ψ

factors for buildings, according to Eurocode
49
Estimation of the location weighting factor in horizantal loading
Location weighting factors for characteristic piles under lateral loading
Comodromos EM, Papadopoulou MC and Laloui L. (2015) Contribution to the design methodologies of piled raft foundations under combined loadings, to appear in Canadian Geotechnical Journal
Current case: 6 x 7 at 3.4D

Number of characteristic piles
FC
2
FR
4
PE
12
IN
24
Total number of piles
42
Rad= 2.40
0.85 0.9 1.00 1.03 at yns= 2%
Verification
1 < should be equal to 1
ecomo.users.uth.gr/web_emil/PilRaftSpringDetermin.xls
Emilios M. Comodromos, 2015 50
Location weighting factors for characteristic piles under axial loading
1. Pile Groups less than 5 x 5

Current case: 3 x 3
corner external internal Total number of piles
4 4 1 9
1.1 0.9375 0.85
Verification
2. Pile Groups bigger than 5 x 5

Current case: 42 piles Torhaus Building, Frankfurt
corner external mid Internal Total number of piles

4 18 14 6 42
2.11 1.11 0.75 0.5
Verification
Please notice that in the case 2 an iteration is needed.

For MAC o.s. > Go to the menu Preferences> Calculations and set iteration to 100 and maximum change to 0.001
For Windows o.s. > Go to File>options>Folmulas>enable iterative calculations Ras= 6.74
at Sns= 2 %
ecomo.users.uth.gr/web_emil/PilRaftSpringDetermin.xls
51
Finite Element Mesh

Plate elements: 4748
Beam elements: 1680
Spring elements: 5040
52
Soil springs
Lateral: 80 different types
Shaft: 80 different types
Base resistance: 1 type
53
Actions
1. Dead load (400 MN)
2. Variable load (2 kPa on each floor)
3. Wind Load in X-X and Y-Y directions
4. Thermal load on geothermal piles (+15 C and -15 C)
5. Seismic action
Artificial accelelogram,
soil type A, acceleration 1.2 m/sec2
H1, p2
X-X Y-Y
H1 (m) 45 24
P1 (kPa) 1.62 0.78
P2 (kPa 2.13 1.97
H1, p1
54
Load cases
1. Piled raft with distributed load (in total 200 MN on each raft), load case 100, 21 sec
2. Dead Load of the skyscraber (in total 401.6 MN), load case 101, 43 sec
3. Variable, load case 102, 30sec
4. Wind Load Y-Y, load case 150, 40 sec
5. Wind Load X-X, load case 151, 39 sec
6. Thermal Load on Piles , +15o C, load case 300, 30sec
7. Thermal Load on Piles , -15o C, load case 301, 30sec
Design Load Cases

1. ULS analysis, 1.35 LC101+1.5 LC102+ 0.6 LC150+ 0.2 LC300+ 0.6 0.2 LC151, 65sec
2. Seismic action, LC101+0.5 LC102+0.6 LC300 + seismic action, 1649 sec
Additional time analysis

1. Mesh generation and applied load, 67sec
2. Design of piles from maximum values of the design LC, 12 sec
3. Design of raft elements from maximum values of the design LC, 34 sec
Storage requirements
Database in bin format, 0.4 GB for all analyses, except the seismic action which requires over than 2 GB
55
LC100 LC101
-20.00
-20.00
-10.00
-10.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
120
119
118
117
116
115
114
113
112
111
109
108
107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
120
119
118
117
116
115
114
113
112
111
110
108
107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
99
-10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m
Sector of system Beam Elements,Quadrilateral Elements M 1 : 403 Sector of system Group 1...5 M 1 : 403
Z X Z X
Quadrilateral Elements , Displacement in local z in Node , Quadrilateral Elements , Displacement in local z in Node ,
Y nonlinear Loadcase 100 Permanent on Raft , from 101.4 to Y nonlinear Loadcase 101 Permanent on Floors , from 100.0 to
Same level of settlements, slight difference in distribution

56
LC100 LC101
-20.00
-20.00
-5941 -4774 -5942 -5932 -4604 -4606 -5933
-4637 -3695 -213 -815 -4752 -3666 -212
-4634 -2694 -4634 -4743 -2663 -2664 -4745
-4635 -2695 -4635 -4773 -2686 -2686 -4774
-10.00
-10.00
-4641 -3697 -4640 -4835 -3748 -3748 -4835
-5944 -4779 -5943 -5985 -4729 -4729 -5985
0.00
0.00
-5944 -4778 -5943 -5985 -4728 -4727 -5984
10.00
10.00
-4641 -3697 -4640 -4835 -3748 -3747 -4833
-4635 -2695 -4635 -4774 -2686 -2686 -4772
-4634 -2694 -4634 -4745 -2664 -2663 -4743
-4637 -3695 -4638 -4754 -3668 -3667 -4752

20.00
20.00
-5941 -4774 -5942 -5933 -4606 -4605 -5932
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m
Sector of system Group 0...4 M 1 : 355 Sector of system Group 0...4 M 1 : 355
Z X Z X
Beam Elements , Normal force Nx in kN, nonlinear Loadcase 100 Beam Elements , Normal force Nx in kN, nonlinear Loadcase 101
Y Permanent on Raft (Min=-5944.) (Max=-213.3) Y Permanent on Floors (Min=-5985.) (Max=-212.4)
Same axial load on piles >> the raft is practically rigid

57
-5933 LC101
-4774
-5480 -5985
-2686 -4379
-4604 -5533 -5984
-5027 -4772
-5932 -3727 -4729 -5532 -4547 -5932
-3459 -5080
-4773
-5479 -5985 -4138 -4728 -4182 -5479
-5079
0.00
-3160 -4168
-4379 -5985 -4606
-5533 -3788 -5026
-5026 -3703 -4774
-2848 -3610
-3988 -5533 -4548 -5933
-5080 -4027 -4154
-4154 -3256
-2533 -3054
-3498 -5080 -4184 -5480
-4168 -3607 -3602
-3602 -2845
-2229 -2490 -3964
-3080 -4168 -5027
-3610 -3177 -3052
-3052 -2384 -3498
-1872 -1925
-2666 -3610 -3270 -4154
-3054 -2778 -2488
-2488 -1872
-1462 -1360
10.00
-2148 -3054 -2873 -3602
-2490 -2329 -1923
-1923 -1362 -2652
-680.0
-1370 -1633 -2490 -3052
-1925 -1827 -1358
-276.8 -2149
-1018 -1112 -158.3 -831.1 -2488
-1925 -1880 -1327 -678.9
-556.6 -1020 -1393
-559.2 -1368 -1923 -808.0
-340.0 -1020
-839.2 -1358 -269.2
-340.0 -555.9
20.00
-678.9
-158
-1165
-1748
-2331
-2913
-3496
-4079
-4661
-5244
-5826
-5985
-20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m
Sector of system Group 0 M 1 : 271

X
Y Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, nonlinear Loadcase 101 Permanent on Floors , 1 cm 3D = 15391. kN (Min=-5985.) (Max=-158.3) X * 0.502
Z Y * 0.906
Z * 0.962
Distribution of axial load in piles

58
Seismic action, envelope

-10168
-7731
-9387 -10214
-6045 -7112 -10208
-8616 -9432
-7712
-9284 -6496 -9427 -10163
-7125 -8662 -5727
-9332 -7094
-8552 -5632 -8657 -9382
0.00
-6542 -9331 -6479
-7831 -8600 -4942 -7126 -8612
-5964 -8600 -9282
-6464 -7879 -4256 -6543 -6998
-5194 -7879 -8551
-5642 -6465 -3520 -5965 -6124
-4569 -6465 -7830
-4828 -5643 -2849 -5194 -5255
-3951 -5643 -6462
-3897 -4828 -2180 -4569 -4241
10.00
-3185 -4827 -5641
-2973 -3897 -1512 -3951 -3233
-2423 -3896 -4826
-2054 -1439 -3185 -2228
-202.7 -2972 -3896 -1495
-1026 -1244 -719.0 -2423
-2054 -2972 -747.1
-415.6 -1026 -1664
-1026 -2054
-831.4
-1026
20.00
-203
-2002
-3003
-4004
-5005
-6007
-7008
-8009
-9010
-10011
-10214
-20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m
Sector of system Group 0...4 M 1 : 271

X
Y Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 9902 STEP min values of all timesteps , 1 cm 3D = 18047. kN (Min=-10214.) (Max=-202.7) X * 0.502
Z Y * 0.906
Z * 0.962
Distribution of axial load in piles

59
LC101
0.00
0.00
0.00
-5933 4.66 -34.0 102.1
-5706 9.27 100.7

-20.0 99.5
-5480 8.84
98.2
5.00
-5253 6.34
-4.84 97.0
5.00
-5027 3.85
-0.987
5.00
5.00
95.9
-4588 1.86 0.877 94.9
-4154 0.566 1.44 94.0
-3878 -0.117 93.1
10.00
-3602 -0.375 0.951
92.3
10.00
-3327 -0.392 91.5
10.00
10.00
0.257
-3052 -0.302 90.8
-2770 -0.189 90.2

-0.0277
-2488 89.7
-0.0957 -0.0606
15.00
15.00
89.2
-2205 -0.0329
88.7
-1923 0.0014 -0.0437
15.00
15.00
88.4
-1640 0.0154
-0.0122 88.1
-1358 0.0176
87.8
20.00
20.00
-1018 0.0139
87.7
-678.9 0.0085
-12
-15
-21
-24
-27
-29
-32
-34
1
0
-6
-9
87.6
0.0037
20.00
20.00
0.00 5.00 m 0.00 5.00 m 0.00 5.00 m 15.00 20.00 m
Sector of system Group 0 Sector of system Group 0 Sector of system Group 0 Sector of system Group 0
M 1 : 158 M 1 : 158 M 1 : 181 M 1 : 166
Y X Beam Elements , Normal force Y X Beam Elements , Shear force Y X Beam Elements , Bending X Nodal displacement in global
Nx, nonlinear Loadcase 101 Vz, nonlinear Loadcase 101 moment My, nonlinear Loadcase
Y Z, nonlinear Loadcase 101
X * 0.502
Y * 0.906
Z Permanent on Floors , 1 cm Z Permanent on Floors , 1 cm Z 101 Permanent on Floors , 1 Z Permanent on Floors , 1 cm Z * 0.962
3D = 5000. kN (Min=-5933.) 3D = 5.00 kN (Min=-0.392) cm 3D = 20.0 kNm (Min=-34.0) 3D = 100.0 mm
Distribution of axial, shear force, b.moment and settlement on corner pile 60

LC seismic action, max values
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9282 -74.1 -244.0 161.0
-8915 -73.4 158.9
-96.5
-8551 -54.4 156.9
-8190 -32.2 -42.1 155.0
5.00
-7830 -16.0 -9.84 153.2
5.00 6.13
5.00
5.00
-7140 -5.25 151.4
-6462 0.591 9.21 149.8

-6051 2.75 6.33 148.3
-5641 2.03 147.0
10.00
1.53
-5233 1.24 145.7
10.00
10.00
0.296
10.00
-4826 0.588 144.6
-4360 0.172 143.5

-0.464
-3896 -0.0437 142.5
-3433 -0.122 -0.492 141.6
15.00
-2972 -0.125 140.9
15.00
15.00
15.00
-2512 -0.139 -0.364 140.2
-2054 -0.112 -0.225 139.6
-1539 -0.0703 139.2

-0.0426
-1026 -0.0333 138.8
20.00
-0.0092 -0.0092 138.6
-24420.00
20.00
20.00
138.5
-1026
-2064
-2752
-3440
-4128
-4816
-6192
-6880
-7568
-8256
-8944
-9282
-100
-150
-200
-50
9
0
-15
-23
-31
-46
-54
-61
-69
-74
3
0
0.00 5.00 m 20.00 25.00 m 20.00 25.00 m 15.00 20.00 m
Sector of system Group 0 2 Sector of system Group 0 Sector of system Group 0 Sector of system Group 0
M 1 : 179 M 1 : 179 M 1 : 181 M 1 : 174
Y X Beam Elements , Normal force X Y Beam Elements , Shear force X Y Beam Elements , Bending X Nodal displacement in global
Nx, Loadcase 9902 STEP min Vy, Loadcase 9902 STEP min moment Mz (Maximum values
Y Z, Loadcase 9901 STEP max
X * 0.502
Y * 0.906
Z values of all timesteps , 1 Z values of all timesteps , 1 Z cubic interpolated), Loadcase Z values of all timesteps , 1 Z * 0.962
cm 3D = 5000. kN (Min=-9282.) cm 3D = 50.0 kN (Min=-74.1) 9902 STEP min values of all cm 3D = 100.0 mm
Distribution of axial, shear force, b.moment and settlement on corner pile 61

Wind in Y-Y direction Wind in X-X direction Permanent Load 62

Thermal Thermal
contraction expansion
63
-120.00
-100.00
-100.00
-80.00
-80.00
-60.00
-60.00
-40.00
-40.00
-20.00
-20.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
20.00
-6
-95
-142
-190
-237
-285
-332
-380
-427
-474
-480
16
994
884
773
663
552
442
331
221
110
1121
-40.00 -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 m

-40.00 -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 m
Sector of system M 1 : 752

X Sector of system M 1 : 812
Y Deformed Structure from LC 9902 STEP min values of all timesteps Enlarged by 50.0 X * 0.502 X
Y * 0.906
Y Deformed Structure from LC 9901 STEP max values of all timesteps Enlarged by 20.0 X * 0.502
Z
Quadrilateral Elements , Displacement in local x in Node , Loadcase 9902 STEP min Z * 0.962 Z Y * 0.906
Quadrilateral Elements , Displacement in local x in Node , Loadcase 9901 STEP max Z * 0.962
Seismic action
64
ULS, desing
-10.00
.9
Minimum reinforcement
16 .6 .7
14 14 .8 31.7 cm2
.5 14 .9 .5
14 5 .9 6 14 17
1 1 3. 8
. 5 3 . . 9 5 .9
14 . 6 .8 1 1 4
16
. 17 .3 .3
13 14 15 15 .3
.0 .8 9 .1 15 .4 .3
17 .7 13 4. .9 5 15 . 9 2 15 18
1 4 . 7
.8
1 1 3
15
. 16 4. .3
14 14 .9 1 4 4
.9 14 .6 .9 .1 1 1
5 . . 2
15 .6 17 13 .8 1 5
14
. . 8 1 17
13 .7 .8 12 15 .2
13 3 9 2 .8 14
4
0.00
.9
1 13
. . 6
.8 9.
6 17 .2 3 1 5. 4 .3 . 2
14 .6 16 12 1 5 . .3 1 6
12 .6 15 15 .4 1
12 .7 .9 62 2 .8 15 .2 .3
12 12 5.
5 9. .3 16 .2 18 14 .3
6 0 2 1 8 14 .2 3 13
9. 9.
6 62 2 2 14 1 4. . 3 2 6 2
9. .6 6 2 9 .6 . 32 0 2 .8 14 17
. .3 9.
30
9 9. 8 7. 15 .2 .2 13
8. 32 13 13 .2 62
8. 32 32 32 13 .3 1 9. .3
2
8. 8. 32 8. 02 79 9 13 6. 8
8. 7. 6. 9.
5 6 2 1
. 00 2 2 9. 62 2 62 2
7 7.
0 02 0 02 9. .6 62 9. .3 2
7. 02 7. 7. 79 29
9 9 . 8 . 0
7. 6. 79 8. 32 33
7
79 6. 8. 32 32 8. 32
6. 79 8. 8. 8. 02 79
79 .7
9
6.
9 7. 6.
6. 9 .7 79 00 2
10.00
7 6 6 . . 0 2 2 . 0 2
79 6. 79 6 7 7. 0 7 7.
0 02
6. 79 6. 79 79 7. 7. 79 79
79 6. 6. 6. .7
9 6. 6 .
6. 7 9 6
79 79
79 6. 79 79 79 79 79 6. 79 9
79 6. 6. 6. 79 6. 6. 79 6. 6. 6. .7 79
6. 6. 6. 6 .
79 79 9 79 79 79
6
79 6. 6. 79 9 .7 79 6. .7
9 6. 6. 79 9
6. 6 . 7 6 . 6 6 .
6.
7
79 6. 6
79
6. 79 79 79 79 6. 79 79 79
6. 79 79 6. 6. 6. 6. 79 6.
6. 6. 9 6. 6.
7 9 6 .7 7 9 9 7 9
6. 6. 6 .7 . 79 6.
79 79
6
6. 6. 79 79
6. 79 6.
20.00
6.
18
18
18
17
17
17
16
16
16
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
12
12
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
-20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m

X
Y Minimum-Beam Elements , Longitudinal Reinforcements Lay. 0, 1 cm 3D = 30.8 cm2 (Max=18.3) X * 0.502
Z Y * 0.906
Z * 0.962
Pile reinforcement, Loadcase LC 101

65
Seismic, design
-10.00
.4
22 .3
17 .5
0 22
3. .0 .5
1 20 .3 .3 22 .3
12 15 .1 17 .4
.4 4 20 .6 22
1. .0 .2 1 16
31 1 15 4 13 2 0.
.1 1 2. .0 8.
7
.0
.4 28 15 .6 20
23 9 .6 14
0.00
9. 9 .3 .0 11 . 0
. 1 0 30 15
6 . 2 20 2 .2 . 3 1 1 .4 .0
17
. 7 10 1 .2 1 31 15
7. .0 22 .
8 8 .8 10 . 2 . 3
. 0
8 0 1
9.
1 11 23 10 .2
.0 6. 7. .4 12
16 17 1
8. . 5 7
8 6 . 8 . 9 6 . 8
8.
0 17 8. 1
6. 15 8 9.
4 6. .9
8. 15
10.00
. 8 . 8 8 8
8 . 8 6 . 4 6 8 8 6. .9 6.
6 . 6 8 6 . 6. 15
3 8
8 6.
8 8. 8 6.
8 6 .8 6. 8 6.
8 3 6.
6 . . 8
6.
8 6. 8. 8
8
6 8 6.
8 6.
6. 8 6 . 8 6.
6.
8 6. 8
8 6.
8 6.
6.
20.00
31
27
25
22
20
17
15
12
10
7
-20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 m

X
Y Beam Elements , Longitudinal Reinforcements Lay. 0, Design Case 2 , 1 cm 3D = 37.7 cm2 (Max=31.4) X * 0.502
Z Y * 0.906
Z * 0.962
Pile reinforcement, Seismic action

66
389
350
LC 100, 101 8047
8000
-20.00
7500
-20.00
300 -401.6
-205.0
250 -199.7 -218.3 7000
42.5
222.9
389.2
6500
200 327.9
6000
150 190.4
-10.00
-10.00
5500
100
-414.5 5000
50
4500
0 4000
0.00
0.00
-50 3500
-100 3000
-12.7
2500
-150 -440.3
2000
10.00
-345.3
10.00
-200
1500
-445.7
-426.5
-424.9
-423.4
-420.7
-417.7
-415.8
-250
1000
-300
500
-350
20.00
20.00
-444.4
-400 -10.4 -500
-10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 m -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 m
-446 -683
Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements Group 1...4 M 1 : 364 Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements Group 1 3 M 1 : 355
Z X Z X
Bending moment m-yy in local y in Node , nonlinear Loadcase Bending moment m-yy in local y in Node , nonlinear Loadcase
Y 100 Permanent on Raft , 1 cm 3D = 832.0 kNm/m (Min=-445.7) Y 101 Permanent on Floors , from -683.1 to 8047. step 500.0
Bending moments Loadcase 101 67

Seismic action 213.0
-20.00
-20.00
2882.6
-3 7.4
-1. 8
366.4
8. 1
9. 1
15. 0
17. 5
63.5
108. 5
19 5.0
20 0.8
272. 2
423 .0
9.4
3.4
5 45.5
59 0.9
851 .6
34 6.3
-10.00
-10.00
3395.8
164.1
0.00
0.00
105.6
10.00
3590.6
10.00
139.0
-57.2
3184.4
20.00
16 93.7
20.00
1 81 3. 8
2 054. 4
20 68.4
2168 .6
2205 .1
2 239. 1
26 83.4
2 820. 2
30 69.2
34 08 .4
184.8
5 019 .5
51 14.4
58 70. 6
594 5. 3
42258
6258
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
-500
-962
0
5945
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
-57
0
30.00
-10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 m
Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements Group 1 3 M 1 : 418 Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements Group 1...4 M 1 : 403
Z X Z X
Principal bending moment I in Node, Loadcase 9901 STEP max Principal bending moment I in Node, Loadcase 9901 STEP max
Y values of all timesteps , 1 cm 3D = 5000. kNm/m (Min=-57.2) Y values of all timesteps , from -961.6 to 6258. step 500.0
Bending moments, Seismic action 68

0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
140.5 140.5 140.5 140.5 292.7 292.7 292.7 292.7 292.7
140.5
140.5
140.5
140.5
292.7
292.7
292.7
292.7
292.7
140.5 140.5 140.5 140.5 292.7 292.7 292.7 292.7 292.7
140.5
140.5
140.5
140.5
292.7
292.7
292.7
292.7
292.7
50.2 15.5 23.7 24.8 25.4 37.0 25.4
9.66
10.1
9.66
9.73
9.47
11.5
10.00
10.00
140.5 140.5 140.5 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 292.7
140.5
140.5
140.5
298.0
298.0
298.0
298.0
298.0
292.7
24.3 8.58 20.0 15.4 18.4 32.7 16.3
4.86
1.89
4.00
3.09
5.89
6.85
12.1
140.5 140.5 140.5 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0
140.5
140.5
140.5
298.0
298.0
298.0
298.0
298.0
298.0
15.00
15.00
36.2 11.6 35.8 19.1 34.3 32.8 21.0
29.7
3.99
18.2
3.81
15.7
9.58
14.8
105.8 140.5 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0
105.8
140.5
298.0
298.0
298.0
298.0
298.0
298.0
298.0
14.9 49.7 25.2 34.3 35.3 22.6 105.8 105.8 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0
20.00
105.8
105.8
298.0
298.0
298.0
298.0
298.0
298.0
298.0
20.00
29.7
8.73
18.2
9.35
15.7
8.18
8.28
105.8 105.8 105.8 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0 298.0
105.8
105.8
105.8
298.0
298.0
298.0
298.0
298.0
298.0
25.00
25.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 m 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 m
Sector of system Group 1 M 1 : 233 Sector of system Group 1 M 1 : 234

Z X Z X
Quadrilateral Elements , upper Reinforcements in Node in Quadrilateral Elements , lower Reinforcements in Node in
Y cm2/m, Design Case 1 ULS design (Max=50.2) Y cm2/m, Design Case 1 ULS design (Max=298.0)
Raft reinforcement resulting from the envelope of results (bottom and top layer) 69
Gracias por su atención
70
Dr. Bengt H. Fellenius
TC212
Deep Foundations
Honor Lecture
Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches

on Piles – A Personal Point Of View
Alessandro Mandolini (alessandro.mandolini@unicampania.it)
Chair ISSMGE TC212 ‘Deep Foundations’
23-24 May, 2019

Santa Cruz de la Sierra, BOLIVIA
Honor Lecture

- Introduction
- Experimental findings and practical implications for pile design
- Single pile: a step forward (base, shaft)
- Exercises
- Concluding remarks

23-24 May, 2019

Due to ever-increasing demands by the society, in the last
decades attention has been addressed to:
- even more versatile and powerful piling equipment
- new pile loading test techniques
- optimized design criteria (i.e., piled raft)
Lessons Learned from Experimental Researches on Piles – A Personal Point Of View

Alessandro Mandolini
WORLD’S RECORDS
The largest diameter bored pile:

Jiashao Bridge (China); d = 3.8 m; L = 110 m
The largest diameter CFA pile:

108 Tower (Australia); d = 0.9 m; L = 50 m
SOILMEC (d = 1.2 m; L = 36 m)
BAUER (d = 1.5 m; L = 28 m)
The largest diameter driven pile:

Hong Kong–Macau Seaway Project (China);
d = 30 m; L = 34 m

WORLD’S RECORDS
The largest pile loading test:

Ohio River Bridge (USA)
Q = 322 MN
(4 x 860 mm O-Cell at 1 single
level 1.1 m above pile base)

WORLD’S RECORDS
The tallest building (H = 828 m):

Burj Khalifa (DUBAI)
Foundation:
3.7 m thick raft supported by
- Tower – 194 bored piles d = 1.5
m; L = 47.45 m
- Podium – 750 bored piles d =
0.9 m; L = 30 m

Looking to the recent Past (50 years):  WTC x 2
 415 m  830 m
Source: Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (2010)

Looking to the next Future:  WTC x 2.5
 1000 m
 415 m  830 m
Source: Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (2010)

Main design stages @1
Single pile response to vertical and horizontal design actions:

- bearing capacity
- movement

Group effects (interaction among piles)

- approaching failure (single pile failure, row of piles, block
failure)
- under design working loads (superposition of movement
profiles)
Figures from Fleming et al. (2009)

Raft contribution (for capacity and/or settlement problems)

Mandolini et al. (2005):
State of the Art Report at XVI ICSMGE, Osaka (Japan)

The traditional approaches to predict the response of the
overall foundation system (pile group, piled raft) are based
on the ‘extrapolation’ to the group of the single pile
response to loads:
➢ Qlim,SP
➢ wG = Rsws or KG = wNKSP
➢ …

It follows that, whatever is the project and the design
approach,
the prediction of single pile response

to loads is still a fundamental step in
the design process ……

It follows that, whatever is the project and the design
approach,
the prediction of single pile response

to loads is still a fundamental step in
the design process …… but also the
most uncertain!!

While some uncertainties are common with other branches
of Foundation Engineering, like for instance:
• defining subsoil profile and initial and undisturbed

properties
• modelling foundation-soil interaction during loading

stage
one is peculiar for piling problems, that is
• Estimating soil changes during construction stage

International Prediction Event – Santa Cruz, 2017
• The shape of the curves are

different pile by pile
• Whatever the criterion is, the

failure load is different pile
by pile
At w = 10%d: QA3  1100 kN; QB2  1400 kN; QC2  2000 kN

Piles with same length (9.5 m) but different diameters (450 and 620 mm)



by pile
At w = 10%d: QA3  1100 kN; QB2  1400 kN; QC2  2000 kN

In order to compare different pile geometries, Mandolini et al. (2005) and
Mandolini (2017) proposed to look at data in terms of Capacity Ratio
CR = Q/Wp ((Wp = pile weight)



by pile
At w = 10%d: CRA3  16.9; CRB2  40.8 (x2.4); CRC2  58.2 (x3.5)
Fifty years of Research and Practice for Pile Foundations



by pile
Piles with different construction methods →

‘conventional failure load’ differing up 350%
Fifty years of Research and Practice for Pile Foundations

A personal doubt when preparing the Lecture:
(*)
Option 1 – Say ‘little’ of ‘all’
(*)
Option 2 – Say ‘all’ of ‘little’
(*)
all within the scheduled time
A personal doubt when preparing the Lecture:
(*)
Option 1 – Say ‘little’ of ‘all’
(*)
Option 2 – Say ‘all’ of ‘little’
(*)
all within the scheduled time
Honor Lecture

- Introduction
- Experimental findings (Bolivian experience, sand and silty sand)
- Single pile: a step forward (base, shaft)
- Exercises

23-24 May, 2019

• 50 predictions

• 11 predictions

(L = 9.00 m)

East to West (m)
E2-E14
South to North (m)
Bored 620 CFA 450 FDP 450 FDP 300
Santa Cruz de la Sierra (Bolivia)
Nienov F.A. (2016)
Dinner at Mario Terceros place (27/04/2017) Robertson (2017)

From the left: Massarsch, Terceros, Mandolini, Fellenius

• 72 predictions
A3 B2 C2 E1
Head-Down LT Head-Down LT Head-Down LT Bi-Directional LT

COMMENTS from previous three CFPB:
- 9 load tests (HD, BD) on different piles (bored, CFA, FDP) with
different sizes (d = 300 to 620 mm; L = 9.0 to 17.5 m) embedded in
rather well documented subsoil conditions (sand and silty sand)
- 133 predictions by specialists from all over the world

COMMENTS from previous three CFPB:
- 9 load tests (HD, BD) on different piles (bored, CFA, FDP) with
different sizes (d = 300 to 620 mm; L = 9.0 to 17.5 m) embedded in
rather well documented subsoil conditions (sand and silty sand)
- 133 predictions by specialists from all over the world
Large scatter for entire Q-w curve

Different perception about capacity

HD LT on Pile B2: CFA – d = 450 mm; L = 9.5 m
- Large scatter for shaft (150 to 1000 kN,  1:6) and

end-bearing resistance (250 to 850 kN,  1:3)
- Movement at which end-bearing resistance is
‘attained’ from 2 to 113 mm ( 1: 55)
HD LT on Pile B2: CFA – d = 450 mm; L = 9.5 m
Even in those case where the predicted values were

quite close to the measured value, the perception is
that it was by chance !!!!
ONLY ONE REASONABLE REMARK:
great uncertainties
Reducible to
some extent ?

Honor Lecture

- Introduction
- Single pile: a step forward (base, shaft) looking back
- Exercises

23-24 May, 2019

Base resistance (effective stress approach, sand)
𝒒𝒃,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝑵𝒒 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝑳
WHAT TO DO ?

Base resistance
𝒒𝒃,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝑵𝒒 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝑳
Many textbooks and guidelines suggest

Berezantzev et al. (1961) solution →
most widely used in practice

Base resistance
NOTE @1:
𝒒𝒃,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝑵𝒒 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝑳 Experiments (and consequent results)
concerned with piles embedded in dense
sand → stiff and dilatant behaviour

Base resistance
𝑵𝒒 = 𝑩𝒌 ∙ 𝜶𝑻
𝜶𝑻 = 𝒇 𝑳ൗ𝒅
Berezantzev et al., 1961

1000
Loose sand (j = 30): Bk  30
reference factor, Bk [-]
Medium sand (j = 35): Bk  70

100
Dense sand (j = 40): Bk  180
10
Very dense sand (j = 45): Bk  530
30 35 40 45
friction angle, j [°]

Base resistance
𝑵𝒒 = 𝑩𝒌 ∙ 𝜶𝑻 T takes into account for the reduction in

vertical effective stress due to ‘silo’ effect,
that is the reduction of vertical effective
𝜶𝑻 = 𝒇 𝑳ൗ𝒅 stress with depth due to shear forces
acting along a soil cylinder around the pile
and extending at free surface.

j= 30° 45°
Short piles (L/d  10): 0.66 < T < 0.84
Medium piles (10 < L/d  30): 0.51 < T < 0.80
Long piles (L/d > 30): 0.46 < T < 0.79

Base resistance
𝑵𝒒 = 𝑩𝒌 ∙ 𝜶𝑻 NOTE @2:
Failure surface may extend at
𝜶𝑻 = 𝒇 𝑳ൗ𝒅 free surface only for relatively
short piles

j= 30° 45°
Short piles (L/d  10): 0.66 < T < 0.84
Medium piles (10 < L/d  30): 0.51 < T < 0.80
Long piles (L/d > 30): 0.46 < T < 0.79

Base resistance
𝒒𝒃,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝑩𝒌 ∙ 𝜶𝑻 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝑳 = 𝑵𝒒 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝑳
𝜶𝑻 = 𝒇 𝑳ൗ𝒅

1000
bearing capacity factor, Nq [-]
Bk NOTE @3:
100 Slender the pile, larger the
L/d = 25
L/d = 50 reduction for qb (especially for
L/d = 10 loose sand, i.e. relatively low j
10
30 35 40 45 values, say 3035)

Base resistance
Bolton (1986): Dilatancy theory
Friction angle j is related to the relative density of the sand (ID),

corrected by the mean stress level at failure (pf) to give the corrected
relative density (IR), and to the friction angle at critical state (jcv) which
relates to condition where the soil fails with no dilation (i.e. at constant
volume):
𝒑′𝒇
𝑰𝑹 = 𝑰𝑫 ∙ 𝟓. 𝟒 − 𝒍𝒏 −𝟏 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒑′𝒇 ≥ 𝟏𝟓𝟎 𝒌𝑷𝒂
𝒑𝒂
𝑰𝑹 = 𝟓 ∙ 𝑰𝑫 − 𝟏 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒑′𝒇 < 𝟏𝟓𝟎 𝒌𝑷𝒂
𝝋𝒑 = 𝝋𝒄𝒗 + 𝒎 ∙ 𝑰𝑹 𝒎 = 𝟑 𝑨𝑿 𝒐𝒓 𝟓 (𝑷𝑺)
Base resistance
Fleming et al. (1992, 2009):
The mean stress level at failure (pf) may be taken approximately as the
geometric mean of the end-bearing pressure and the ambient effective
vertical stress at depth L:
1000

𝒑′𝒇 = 𝑩𝒌 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝑳 100
10
Few iterations required to get the final jp and Bk 30 35 40 45

1000
Base resistance

100
jcv = 30 → Bk(jcv) = 31.5 → qb(jcv) = 31.5v 10

30 35 40 45
jp [°] Bk [-] qb [MPa]

27 30 33 36 39 42 45 10 100 0 10 20 30 40
0 0 0
100 100 100
200 200 200
300 300 300
400 400 400

'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
500 500 500
600 600 600
700 700 700
800 800 800
900 900 900
1.000 1.000 1.000

1000
Base resistance

100
jcv = 30 → Bk(jcv) = 31.5 → qb(jcv) = 31.5v 10

30 35 40 45
ID = 0.30 (loose);

27 30 33 36 39 42 45 10 100 0 10 20 30 40
0 0 0
100 100 100
200 200 200
300 300 300
400 400 400

'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
500 500 500
600 600 600
700 700 700
800 800 800

loose
900 900 900
1.000 1.000 1.000

1000
Base resistance

100
jcv = 30 → Bk(jcv) = 31.5 → qb(jcv) = 31.5v 10

30 35 40 45
ID = 0.30 (loose); 0.50 (medium);

27 30 33 36 39 42 45 10 100 0 10 20 30 40
0 0 0
100 100 100
200 200 200
300 300 300
400 400 400

'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
500 500 500
600 600 600
700 700 700
800 loose 800 800
900 900 900

medium
1.000 1.000 1.000

1000
Base resistance

100
jcv = 30 → Bk(jcv) = 31.5 → qb(jcv) = 31.5v 10

30 35 40 45
ID = 0.30 (loose); 0.50 (medium); 0.70 (dense);

27 30 33 36 39 42 45 10 100 0 10 20 30 40
0 0 0
100 100 100
200 200 200
300 300 300
400 400 400

'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
500 500 500
600 600 600
700 700 700

loose
800 800 800
medium
900 900 900
1.000 dense 1.000 1.000

1000
Base resistance

100
jcv = 30 → Bk(jcv) = 31.5 → qb(jcv) = 31.5v 10

30 35 40 45
ID = 0.30 (loose); 0.50 (medium); 0.70 (dense); 0.90 (very dense)

27 30 33 36 39 42 45 10 100 0 10 20 30 40
0 0 0
100 100 100
200 200 200
300 300 300
400 400 400

'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
500 500 500
600 600 600
700 700 700

loose
800 800 800
medium
900 dense 900 900
1.000 very dense 1.000 1.000

Base resistance
At depths whose extension depends on ID, the soil fails dilating

although not dense: jp > jcv → Bk(jp) > Bk(jcv) → qb > qb(jcv)

27 30 33 36 39 42 45 10 100 0 10 20 30 40
0 0 0
100 100 100
200 200 200
300 300 300
400 400 400

'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
500 500 500
600 600 600
700 700 700

loose
800 800 800
medium
900 dense 900 900
1.000 very dense 1.000 1.000

Base resistance
Once again, qb increases less than linearly with depth but for dilatancy
(reduction of friction angle at peak) and not for ‘silo’ effect (reduction
of vertical effective stress)

27 30 33 36 39 42 45 10 100 0 10 20 30 40
0 0 0
100 100 100
200 200 200
300 300 300
400 400 400

'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
500 500 500
600 600 600
700 700 700

loose
800 800 800
medium
900 dense 900 900
1.000 very dense 1.000 1.000

Base resistance
Technological effects (Fleming et al., 2009):
Procedure reasonable for closed-ended driven piles in the absence of

more specific information (field tests).
• For bored and CFA piles, reduce Nq from 30% to 50%
• For open-ended driven piles, 20% Nq reduction

Base resistance
Once again, qb increases less than linearly with depth but for dilatancy
(reduction of friction angle at peak) and not for ‘silo’ effect (reduction
of vertical effective stress)
jcv, ID and p ??
27 30 33 36 39 42 45 10 100 0 10 20 30 40
0 0 0
100 100 100
200 200 200
300 300 300
400 400 400

'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
500 500 500
600 600 600
700 700 700

loose
800 800 800
medium
900 dense 900 900
1.000 very dense 1.000 1.000

Base resistance
Vesic, 1977:
“Experience shows that soil under a

deep foundation always fails in the
same manner; i.e., in punching shear
under the foundation point,
accompanied or preceded by a
direct-shear failure of the soil along
the foundation shaft.”

Base resistance
Practical consequence:
As in the case of punching shear of

shallow foundations, the ultimate
load is rarely well defined; in many
cases there is no visible collapse of
the foundation and no clearly
defined peak load.”

Base resistance
𝟏 + 𝟐 ∙ 𝑲𝟎 ′
𝒑= ∙ 𝝈𝒗
𝟑
Vesic (1977):
- Elasto-plastic material model

- Expansion of a spherical cavity
𝑰𝒓
𝑰𝒓𝒓 =
𝟏 + 𝑰𝒓 ∙ 𝜺 𝒗
𝑮
𝑰𝒓 =
𝒄 + 𝒑 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋
Vesic (1977)

Base resistance
𝟏 + 𝟐 ∙ 𝑲𝟎 ′
𝟑 𝝅
−𝝋 ∙𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋 𝒑= ∙ 𝝈𝒗
𝑪𝟏 𝝋 = ∙𝒆 𝟐 𝟑
𝟑 − 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋
𝟐
𝝅 𝝋
𝑪𝟐 𝝋 = 𝒕𝒂𝒏 + = 𝑲𝒑
𝟒 𝟐
𝟒 ∙ 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋
𝑪𝟑 𝝋 =
𝟑 ∙ 𝟏 + 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋
Soil stiffness
𝑵𝝈 = 𝑪𝟏 𝝋 ∙ 𝑪𝟐 𝝋 ∙ 𝑰𝒓𝒓 𝑪𝟑 𝝋
𝒒𝒃,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝑵𝝈 ∙ 𝒑 𝑰𝒓
𝑰𝒓𝒓 =
𝟏 + 𝑰𝒓 ∙ 𝜺 𝒗
Nq 𝑮
𝟏 + 𝟐 ∙ 𝑲𝒐 ′ 𝑰𝒓 =
𝒒𝒃,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝑵𝝈 ∙ ∙ 𝝈𝒗 Vesic (1977)
𝟑

Base resistance
𝟏 + 𝟐 ∙ 𝑲𝟎 ′
𝒑= ∙ 𝝈𝒗
𝟑
Vesic (1977):
- Elasto-plastic material model

- Expansion of a spherical cavity Soil stiffness
Practical consequence:
The end-bearing capacity depends 𝑰𝒓𝒓 =

𝑰𝒓
not only on soil strength, but also 𝟏 + 𝑰𝒓 ∙ 𝜺 𝒗
𝑮
on its stiffness 𝑰𝒓 =
Vesic (1977)

Base resistance 𝑮𝒐
𝒑𝒂
Carriglio et al. (1990):

𝟐∙𝝀
𝑮𝟎 𝒑
= 𝑴 ∙ 𝟏 + 𝟐 ∙ 𝑰𝑫 ∙
𝒑𝒂 𝒑𝒂
M = modulus number  250

 = coefficient ( 0.25)
𝟐
𝒑
𝒑𝒂
M depends on type of sand (silica, SILICA SAND: Suggested variation of M/Mclean

calcareous) and on fine content % fine content 05 510 1015 1530
(passing 0.2 mm sieve) Value of M/Mclean 1 0.50 0.25 0.20

Base resistance
Stiffness degradation for sand and silty sand (Lee et al., 2004)
Clean sand:
when approaching failure (say q/qf > 0.60)
0.05 < E/E0 or G/G0 < 0.25 whatever ID and OCR
𝒈
𝑮 𝝉
𝑭𝒂𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑪𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝟏𝟗𝟗𝟑 : =𝟏−𝒇∙
𝑮𝟎 𝝉𝒎𝒂𝒙

Base resistance
𝒈
𝑮 𝝉
=𝟏−𝒇∙ Silty sand (s/c  20%): f  1 and g = 0.5ID
s/c = 0% s/c = 2%
s/c = 5% s/c = 10%
s/c = 15% s/c = 20%

Base resistance
𝒈
𝑮 𝝉
=𝟏−𝒇∙ Silty sand (s/c  20%): f  1 and g = 0.5ID
1,00
0,80
very dense: ID = 0.90

0,60
G/G0 (-)
s/c = 0% s/c = 2%
s/c = 5% s/c = 10%
s/c = 15% s/c = 20%
0,40 loose: ID = 0.30
0.210,20
0.070,00
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00
t/t max (-)

Base resistance
Loose sand and silty sand Very dense
ID = 0.30 ID = 0.90
qb (MPa) qb (MPa)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 0
dilatancy dilatancy
200 200
dilatancy + stiffness dilatancy + stiffness
400 400
'v (kPa)
'v (kPa)
600 600
800 800
15 10 <5 (%fc) 15 10 <5 (%fc)

1000 1000
5.4 3.9 2.8 1.0 4.3 3.1 2.2 1.0

Base resistance
The approach suggested by Fleming et al. (1992) has clearly revealed

that the reduction of end-bearing resistance with depth is due to
dilatancy: Nq = f(jcv, ID, p).
Vesic (1977) added the role played by soil stiffness and its importance
in determining ‘punching’ mechanism of failure at pile base with
significant reduction of end-bearing resistance: Nq = f(j, G, p).
Carriglio et al. (1990) established a relation G0 = f(s/c, ID, p),
Lee et al. (2004) gave simple role about stiffness degradation for sand
and silty sand – G/G0 = f(ID).

Base resistance
By combining all:
Nq = f(jcv, ID, p, G)

Base resistance
Randolph et al. (1994):
21 class C prediction for OE and CE driven piles embedded in sand or silty sand
Calculated vs. measured capacity within  25% range

Base resistance
Randolph et al. (1994):
21 class C prediction for OE and CE driven piles embedded in sand or silty sand
calculated / measured base capacity:  = 0.73; S.D. = 0.30

large scatter; general tendency to predict low values for long piles
Base resistance
Randolph et al. (1994), from the Conclusion:
- Accurate determination of end-bearing capacity is limited by a

number of factors, including insufficient displacement of the pile
during the loading test, resulting in underestimation of the end-
bearing capacity (particularly for relatively long piles)

Wind Farm (Apulia, Italy) – 2015
Bored piles d = 1.20 m; L = 20 to 31 m
BD loading tests with O-Cell close to pile base

where sand or gravels are found

WTG01 WTG05 WTG12
1.75 m
1.9 m
4m
Silty clay and clayey silt
Silty sand and sandy silt (jcv = 27)
Sandy gravel (jcv = 31)

WTG01 WTG05 WTG12
1.75 m
1.9 m
4m
WTG12 WTG05 WTG01

Silty clay and clayey silt L = 31 m L = 29 m L = 27 m
v = 466 kPa v = 495 kPa v = 406 kPa
Silty sand and sandy silt (jcv = 27) Qmax = 5.0 MN Qmax = 8.1 MN Qmax = 9.2 MN
Sandy gravel (jcv = 31)

WTG01 WTG05 WTG12
Nq = 15.8
Nq = 12.0
Nq = 5.5
1.75 m
1.9 m
4m
Silty sand and sandy silt (jcv = 27; ID = 0.50; M = 125)
Sandy gravel (jcv = 31; ID = 0.50; M = 250)

WTG01 WTG05 WTG12
Nq = 15.8
Nq = 12.0
Nq = 5.5
1.75 m
1.9 m
4m
Silty sand and sandy silt (jcv = 27; ID = 0.50; M = 125) Circle: dilatancy
Square: dilatancy + stiffness

WTG01 WTG05 WTG12
Circle: dilatancy
Square: dilatancy + reduced
stiffness
1.75 m
1.9 m
4m
Silty sand and sandy silt (jcv = 27; ID = 0.50; M = 50) Circle: dilatancy
Square: dilatancy + stiffness

L d L/d wmax wmax/d 'v qb j Nq
Case history Pile type Reference
[m] [m] [-] [mm] [%] [kPa] [kPa] [°] [-]
42,00 1,50 28,0 111,5 7,4% 252 1403 35 5,6
Bored (bentonite)
New Law Court 42,00 2,00 21,0 100,0 5,0% 252 1305 35 5,2
Viggiani & Vinale (1983)
Building (ITALY) Bored (bentonite,
preloading cell at the base)
42,00 1,50 28,0 123,2 8,2% 252 4544 35 18,0
Holiday Inn & Office 24,00 0,60 40,0 65,6 10,9% 144 3501 36 24,3
CFA Mandolini (1994)
40 Load tests
Tower (ITALY) 24,00 0,60 40,0 84,6 14,1% 144 3466 36 24,1
Poggiomarino 24,00 0,80 30,0 75,6 9,5% 156 3084 35 19,8
CFA Mandolini et al. (2002)
Treatment Plant 22,50 0,60 37,5 81,9 13,7% 146 3148 35 21,5
48,80 0,36 135,6 85,1 23,6% 415 13560 38 32,7
Garigliano Bridge Driven (steel tubular closed
end)
Mandolini (1994) 48,10 0,36 133,6 112,4 31,2% 409 4521 38 11,1
(ITALY)
10  L/d  136
48,70 0,36 135,3 108,6 30,2% 414 9042 38 21,8
28,30 1,20 23,6 181,0 15,1% 406 6373 32 15,7
Wind Farm (ITALY) Bored (bentonite) Mandolini (2015) 29,75 1,20 24,8 100,0 8,3% 495 5898 29 11,9
33,30
30,00
1,20
0,41
27,8
73,2
240,0
19,90
20,0%
4,9%
466 2583 27
195 3408 37
5,5
17,5 4,2%  w/d  33,3%
Driven (steel tubular closed 31,00 0,36 86,1 41,10 11,4% 202 3930 37 19,5
end) 42,00 0,36 116,7 20,90 5,8% 273 9824 37 36,0
42,00 0,41 102,4 17,50 4,3% 273 4545 37 16,6
- Bored
Sarno Treatment
Massaro et al. (2006) 22,00 0,50 44,0 25,50 5,1% 143 2037 37 14,2
Plant (ITALY)
22,00 0,60 36,7 64,20 10,7% 143 1945 37 13,6
Vibro-driven 22,00 0,50 44,0 21,00 4,2% 143 1019 37 7,1 (bentonite, polymer, EB, TB)
22,00 0,50 44,0 31,50 6,3% 143 3310 37 23,1
ISC 2002 test site Bored (bentonite) Viana de Fonseca et al.

24,80
6,00
0,50
0,60
49,6
10,0
22,40
95,00
4,5%
15,8%
161 3667 37
111 2157 32
22,7
19,4 - CFA
- Screw
(PORTUGAL) CFA (2004) 6,00 0,60 10,0 155,00 25,8% 111 1592 32 14,3
29,00 0,62 46,8 26,20 4,2% 174 1656 35 9,5
Agorà (ITALY) FDP Unpublished data (2009)
16,90 0,62 27,3 71,60 11,5% 101 1656 35 16,3
Araquari test site Bored (bentonite) 24,00 1,00 24,0 60,0 6,0% 200 1462 33 7,3 (FDP, FDP+EB)
Nienov (2016)
- Driven
(BRASIL) Bored (polymer) 24,00 1,00 24,0 99,0 9,9% 228 1714 33 7,5
Bored (with EB) 9,50 0,62 15,3 89,00 14,4% 71 1375 39 19,3
Bored (with TB) 9,50 0,62 15,3 55,50 9,0% 71 1904 39 26,7
Bored 9,50 0,62 15,3 71,30 11,5% 71 1971 39 27,7 (tubular steel closed end)
CFA (with EB) 9,50 0,45 21,1 19,03 4,2% 71 1896 39 26,6
CFA 9,50 0,45 21,1 80,00 17,8% 71 2452 39 34,4
B.E.S.T. piles FDP (with EB) 9,50 0,45 21,1 93,20 20,7% 71 2355 39 33,1
Fellenius (2017)
(BOLIVIA) FDP 9,50 0,45 21,1 43,83 9,7% 71 3144 39 44,1
Self-Boring micro (with EB) 9,50 0,15 63,3 21,58 14,4% 71 1790 39 25,1
Self-Boring Micro 9,50 0,15 63,3 50,00 33,3% 71 1415 39 19,9
FDP (with EB) 9,50 0,30 31,7 32,00 10,7% 71 2204 39 30,9
Bored (with EB) 9,50 0,45 21,1 97,95 21,8% 71 4181 39 58,7
Bored (with EB) 9,50 0,60 15,8 37,20 6,2% 71 1436 39 20,2

Base resistance
 58
5

Base resistance
 1:7

Base resistance
Only j and L/d ??

1000
Bk
100
L/d = 50
L/d = 25
L/d = 10
10
30 35 40 45

Base resistance
𝟏 + 𝟐 ∙ 𝑲𝟎 ′
𝒑= ∙ 𝝈𝒗
𝟑
Only j and L/d ??

1000
Bk
100
L/d = 50
L/d = 25
L/d = 10
10
30 35 40 45
friction angle, j [°] 𝑰𝒓
𝑰𝒓𝒓 =
𝟏 + 𝑰𝒓 ∙ 𝜺 𝒗
𝑮
𝑰𝒓 =
No: jcv, ID, p and G !!!! 𝒄 + 𝒑 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋
+ technology
Honor Lecture

- Introduction
- Exercises

23-24 May, 2019

Shaft resistance
𝑲
𝒒𝒔,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = ∙ 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = 𝑲 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹
𝑲𝒐
It is commonly believed that the quantity K/Ko measures the stress

changes induced in the soil as result of pile construction.
- poorly constructed N-D (bored) pile: K/Ko < 1

- well constructed N-D (bored) pile: K/Ko  1
- N-D (CFA) pile: K/Ko = 1.01.5
- D (screw, driven) pile: K/Ko = 1.54
Note: the suggested values derive from pile load tests → ……

Shaft resistance
𝑲
𝒒𝒔,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = ∙ 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = 𝑲 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹
𝑲𝒐
In reality:
𝒒𝒔 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 + ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒄 + ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒍 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹
ho = at rest horizontal stress = kov

hc = horizontal stress change due to pile construction
hl = horizontal stress change due to pile loading
 = soil-pile interface friction angle ( j)

Shaft resistance
∆𝝈′𝒉𝒄 ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒍
𝑲 = 𝑲𝒐 + ′ + ′
𝝈𝒗 𝝈𝒗
or
𝑲 ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒄 ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒍
=𝟏+ ′ +
𝑲𝒐 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈𝒗 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗
Note: the suggested values derive from pile load tests → ……
It follows that K/Ko values take into account not only for the effects
during construction but also for pile-soil interaction during loading

Shaft resistance
=1
𝑲
𝒒𝒔,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = ∙ 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹
𝑲𝒐
The quantity K/Ko measures the stress changes induced in the soil
as result of pile construction and subsequent loading.
- poorly constructed N-D (bored) pile: K/Ko < 1

- well constructed N-D (bored) pile: K/Ko  1
- N-D (CFA) pile: K/Ko = 1.01.5
- D (screw, driven) pile: K/Ko = 1.54

Shaft resistance  = Kotan
𝒒𝒔,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹

Shaft resistance  = Kotanj
𝒒𝒔,𝒍𝒊𝒎 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝝋
 represents the friction angle at pile-soil interface.
- Cast in situ concrete pile:  = j

- Precast concrete pile:  = 0.75j
- Steel pile:  = 20

Shaft resistance
1.2 1.8
sands
N60  15
gravelly sands
or gravels
N60  15
0.25

Shaft resistance
1.2 1.8 3
sands
N60  15
gravelly sands
or gravels
N60  15

gravels ( 50%)
N60  50
0.25

Shaft resistance
1.2 1.8 3
sands
N60  15 increasing
soil grading
gravelly sands
or gravels
N60  15

gravels ( 50%)
N60  50
0.25

From -depth dependent method to ‘rational’ method

From Discussion in Appendix C
….. a significant amount of additional information available from load tests

has made it possible to move beyond depth-dependent empirical equations
for  and into realm of methods based on the correct theoretical model.
A stated by O’Neill and Hassan (1994), the rational method is ‘clearly superior
to the depth dependent  method from a soil mechanics perspective’ and
‘should give accurate values for ’ than the depth dependent  method.

Shaft resistance  = Kotanj
𝑶𝑪𝑹=𝟏
𝑲𝒐 = 𝑲𝒐,𝒏𝒄 ∙ 𝑶𝑪𝑹𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋 𝑲𝒐,𝒏𝒄 = 𝟏 − 𝒔𝒆𝒏𝝋
Note:
nc = Ko,nctanj  0.280.30
for 27  j  40°
any j

Shaft resistance
The earth pressure coefficient Ko is related to the soil friction angle

j and to the stress history of the soil deposit (OCR):
𝑲𝒐 = 𝑲𝒐,𝒏𝒄 ∙ 𝑶𝑪𝑹𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋
𝑲𝒐 = 𝟏 − 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋 ∙ 𝑶𝑪𝑹𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋
𝑲𝒐,𝒏𝒄 = 𝟏 − 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋

Shaft resistance
Chen and Kulhawy, 2002

Shaft resistance
FHWA (2010):
OCR effect

Shaft resistance
FHWA (2010):
OCR effect
 = 6.4 at 3 m depth →
OCR  225 for j = 27
OCR  90 for j = 40
 = 3 at 9 m depth →
OCR  40 for j = 27
OCR  30 for j = 40

Shaft resistance
FHWA (2010):
OCR effect
ONLY OCR ???

SOME COMMENTS
- FHWA (2010) is very useful in practice
- Step forward if compared with FHWA (1999)
- Greater values of skin friction qs at shallow depth are

possible only for OC soils
- Role played by soil grading lost

Shaft resistance
𝒒𝒔 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝒐 + ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒄 + ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒍 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹
ho = at rest horizontal stress = kov
hc = horizontal stress change due to pile construction
hl = horizontal stress change due to pile loading
 = soil-pile interface friction angle ( j)

Shaft resistance (hc = 0)
𝒒𝒔 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒇 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝒐 + ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒍 ∙ 𝒕𝒈𝜹
As for G0, also hl depends on:

- nature, fabric and grain size distribution
- void index or porosity or relative density
- mean stress
but also on:

- pile-soil surface roughness
- pile diameter

PILE-SOIL SURFACE ROUGHNESS
- Maximum surface roughness, Rt

- Soil grain size, d50
- Normalized roughness over Lm, Rn = Rt/d50

PILE-SOIL SURFACE ROUGHNESS
Smooth Medium rough Rough

Rn = 0.03 Rn = 0.26 Rn = 1.14
Soil engagement is Soil gets engaged; a Soil fully engaged, with

limited; no shear band thinner shear band a clear formation of a
forms into the soil forms into the soil shear band
(video courtesy by R. Salgado)

SHEAR BAND FORMATION
Approaching failure, large shear strains start to concentrate in a very

thin soil cylinder around the pile shaft (the shear band, SB).
(e.g. Frank 1974; Wernick 1978)
video courtesy
by R. Salgado
ts  (520)d50
Uesugi and Kishida 1986; Viggiani et al. 2001
DILATION
Depending on the soil state (void index, e, or relative density ID; mean
stress, p) the shear band will dilate or not. If dilating, an outward radial
displacement u will occur.
ts u
video courtesy
by R. Salgado

SOIL STRESS INCREASE DUE TO SOIL DILATANCY
The outer soil will react to the displacement ur by an increase of the

horizontal stress h,l whose magnitude will mainly depend on the soil
stiffness G (e.g. Wernick 1978; Boulon and Foray 1986).
ts + ho + hl
u
video courtesy
by R. Salgado

Dilatancy as ‘trigger’ for soil stiffness engagement along pile shaft
𝟒∙𝑮
Cylindrical cavity expansion (elastic theory): 𝒌𝟏 =
𝑫

Dilatancy as ‘trigger’ for soil stiffness engagement along pile shaft
𝟒∙𝑮
Cylindrical cavity expansion (elastic theory): 𝒌𝟏 =
𝑫
𝟒∙𝑮
∆𝝈′𝒉𝒍 = 𝒌𝟏 ∙ ∆𝒖 = ∙ ∆𝒖
𝑫
Available skin friction qs at pile/sand interface:
𝒒𝒔 = 𝝈′𝒉 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝜹 = 𝝈′𝒉𝒐 + ∆𝝈′𝒉𝒍 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗

𝟒∙𝑮
𝒒𝒔 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝒐 + ∙ ∆𝒖 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗
𝑫
PILE
PALO BT
SB
SOIL
Terreno
di
Contrasto
t
'hho + h,l
R ts
u

𝟒∙𝑮
𝒒𝒔 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝒐 + ∙ ∆𝒖 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗
𝑫
Mascarucci, Mandolini, Miliziano (2015), 3M method:

𝜸𝒄𝒗
PILE
PALO BT
SB
SOIL
Terreno
∆𝒖 = 𝒕𝒔 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝍𝒑 ∙
di
Contrasto 𝟐
t
'hho + h,l Bolton (1986): 𝝍𝒑 = 𝟏. 𝟐𝟓 ∙ 𝝋𝒑 − 𝝋𝒄𝒗
Uesugi and Kishida (1986), 𝒕 = 𝟓 ÷ 𝟑𝟎 ∙ 𝒅
𝒔 𝟓𝟎
Hammad (1991):
Stroud (1971), Mortara (2001): 𝜸𝒄𝒗 ~ 𝟎. 𝟔𝟎
R ts
u

𝟒∙𝑮
𝒒𝒔 = 𝑲𝒐 ∙ 𝝈′𝒗𝒐 + ∙ 𝒕𝒔 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝍𝒑 ∙ 𝟎. 𝟑 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗
𝑫
𝒒𝒔 𝑮 𝒕𝒔
𝜷 = ′ = 𝑲𝒐 + 𝟎. 𝟒 ∙ 𝟏 + 𝟐 ∙ 𝑲𝒐 ∙ ∙ ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝍𝒑 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗
𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝒑 𝑫

Shaft resistance (effective stress approach)
𝑲 ∆𝑲
𝑲 = 𝑲𝒐 + ∆𝑲 𝒐𝒓 =𝟏+
𝑲𝒐 𝑲𝒐
The peak angle of dilation (p) determines increasing values of K/Ko (or
K/Ko) depending on:
a) the soil grading (ts = nd50) relative to the pile diameter D, ts/D
b) the stiffness ratio G/p, decreasing with depth and playing the role of
‘amplifier’

Shaft resistance (effective stress approach)
𝒏 ∙ 𝒅𝟓𝟎 𝒕𝒔 ∆𝑲 𝑲
= →𝟎⇝ → 𝟎; →𝟏
𝑫 𝑫 𝑲𝒐 𝑲𝒐
Mascarucci,
Miliziano &
Mandolini (2014)

3M method (Mascarucci, Miliziano & Mandolini, 2015):
pile L = 45 m, d = 1.5 m (L/d = 30) pile shaft factor, pile shaft factor,
 = qslim/'v0 [-]  = qslim/'v0 [-]
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0
SOIL PROPERTIES 0 SOIL PROPERTIES 0
g [kN/m3] 18,0 g [kN/m3] 18,0

10 10
j cv [°] 32,0 3M j cv [°] 32,0 3M
j cv [rad] 0,56 j cv [rad] 0,56
depth [m]
depth [m]
20 20
ID [-] 0,75 ID [-] 0,75
d50 [mm] 0,20 30 d50 [mm] 2,00 30

n = ts/d50 [-] 20 n = ts/d50 [-] 20
ts [mm] 4,00 40 ts [mm] 40,00 40 
g cs [-] 0,60 g cs [-] 0,60

50 50
increasing d50

3M method (Mascarucci, Miliziano & Mandolini, 2015):
 = qslim/'v0 [-]  = qslim/'v0 [-]
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0
SOIL PROPERTIES 0 SOIL PROPERTIES 0
g [kN/m3] 18,0 g [kN/m3] 18,0

10 10
j cv [°] 32,0 3M j cv [°] 32,0 3M
j cv [rad] 0,56 j cv [rad] 0,56
depth [m]
depth [m]
20 20
ID [-] 0,75 ID [-] 0,75
d50 [mm] 0,20 30 d50 [mm] 2,00 30

n = ts/d50 [-] 20 n = ts/d50 [-] 20
ts [mm] 4,00 40 ts [mm] 40,00 40 
g cs [-] 0,60 g cs [-] 0,60

50 50
increasing d50
 = qslim/'v0 [-]  = qslim/'v0 [-]
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0
0 0
SOIL PROPERTIES SOIL PROPERTIES
g [kN/m ] 3
18,0 g [kN/m3] 18,0
decreasing pile dia.
3M 3M
j cv [°] 32,0 j cv [°] 32,0
j cv [rad] 0,56 j cv [rad] 0,56
depth [m]
depth [m]
ID [-] 0,75 10 ID [-] 0,75 10
d50 [mm] 0,20 d50 [mm] 2,00
 
n = ts/d50 [-] 20 n = ts/d50 [-] 20
ts [mm] 4,00 ts [mm] 40,00
g cs [-] 0,60 g cs [-] 0,60
20 20

East to West (m)
E2-E14
South to North (m)
CFA: d = 450 mm
Santa Cruz de la Sierra (Bolivia)
Nienov F.A. (2016)
Dinner at Mario Terceros place (27/04/2017) Robertson (2017)

From the left: Massarsch, Terceros, Mandolini, Fellenius

Pile B2: CFA – L = 9.5 m; d = 450 mm
base, shaft and total load

Rb, Rs and Rc [kN]
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0
10
20 at w = 80 mm (18%d):
settlement [mm]
30
40
Rb = 316 kN; Rs = 1123 kN; Rc = 1439 kN
50
60
70
80
90

Robertson (2017): CPTU interpretation
B2
27 tests over upper 9.5 m
0.1 mm  d50  0.25 mm
ID,av  0.50; jcv = 31; OCRav  7.6

Pile B2: CFA – L = 9.5 m; d = 450 mm
shaft load,
Rs [kN]
0 500 1000 1500
0
10
𝑲𝟎 = 𝟏 − 𝒔𝒆𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗 ∙ 𝑶𝑪𝑹𝒔𝒆𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗 = 𝟏. 𝟑𝟖
20
settlement [mm]
30 LT 𝜷 = 𝑲𝟎 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟑
40
𝑹𝒔𝜷 = 𝟑𝟑𝟐 𝒌𝑵
50
60
70

80
90 Curves obtained by assuming
hyperbolic relationship
load-settlement

Pile B2: CFA – L = 9.5 m; d = 450 mm
shaft load,
Rs [kN]
0 500 1000 1500
0
10
20
settlement [mm]
30 LT 𝜷 = 𝑲𝟎 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟑
40
50
60 𝑹𝒔,𝟑𝑴 = 𝟔𝟑𝟗 𝒌𝑵 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒅𝟓𝟎,𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟎 𝒎𝒎
70

80
3M
d50,min hyperbolic relationship
load-settlement

Pile B2: CFA – L = 9.5 m; d = 450 mm
shaft load,
Rs [kN]
0 500 1000 1500
0
10
20
settlement [mm]
30 LT 𝜷 = 𝑲𝟎 ∙ 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋𝒄𝒗 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟑
40
50
60 𝑹𝒔,𝟑𝑴 = 𝟔𝟑𝟗 𝒌𝑵 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒅𝟓𝟎,𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟎 𝒎𝒎
70
 𝑹𝒔,𝟑𝑴 = 𝟏𝟎𝟖𝟔 𝒌𝑵 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒅𝟓𝟎,𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟓 𝒎𝒎
80
3M 3M
d50,min d50,max hyperbolic relationship
load-settlement

Only OCR effect ?
Also
G/p’ and d50/D!!
+ technology

Pile B2: CFA – L = 9.5 m; d = 450 mm
Circle: loading test data
Full line: Vesic + 3M
Dashed line: Berezantzev + 

Honor Lecture

- Introduction

23-24 May, 2019

CONCLUDING REMARKS (#1) Nq = f(jcv, ID, p)
Bk-values given by Berezantzev et al. (1961) derived from experiments

on piles in dense (and stiff) sand.
Dilatancy Theory by Bolton (1986) 1000

and its use for assessing qb-values Bk
as suggested by Fleming et al. 100
(1992, 2009) has clearly revealed that L/d = 50

the invoked ‘silo effect’ is only a L/d = 10
L/d = 25
display of the role played by dilatancy. 10

30 35 40 45

CONCLUDING REMARKS (#2) Nq = f(jcv, ID, p, G)
The failure beneath the pile tip is a confined failure (with no rupture
extending to a free surface), which entails the end-bearing resistance
being affected by the stiffness of the soil in addition to its strength.
Vesic Theory (elasto-plastic material

model and expansion of spherical
cavity) helps to explain lower Nq
values for looser (and softer) sand Circle: dilatancy
Square: dilatancy + reduced
by including its dependency on G/p’ stiffness
(rigidity index Ir).

CONCLUDING REMARKS (#3)  = f(jcv, ID, p, G, d50)
Also the failure along the pile shaft is influenced by the combination of
the soil close to the pile (shear band, SB) to dilate (jcv, ID and p’) and
the surrounding soil to resist proportionally to its stiffness (G).
Hammad (1991)
SB thickness (thus, the outward displacement u)

depends on the soil grain size distribution (d50).

CONCLUDING REMARKS (#4)  = f(jcv, ID, p, G, d50/D)
Elastic or elasto-plastic material model and expansion of cylindrical

cavity helps to explain larger  values also for
normally consolidated sand
(as experimentally observed).
Under given soil conditions (jcv, ID , p’, G, d50),

larger the pile diameter D, lower -values
(influence of the ratio d50/D).
Mascarucci et al. (2016)

The Past still stores
concepts very useful for
predicting Future

Napoli – a Paradise lived by Devils

4th Bolivia International Conference
on Deep Foundations
Developing a Three Dimensional Finite-

Difference Analysis for Piled Raft Foundation
Settlements under Vertical Loads
Der-Wen Chang, Hsin-Wei Lien, Gao-Yun Hu and Yu-An Chuang
Department of Civil Engineering
Tamkang University, New Taipei City, Taiwan
Hotel Marriot, Santa Cruz – Bolivia

May 23-24, 2019
Outlines
• Introduction
• 2D FD Analysis of Rigid Mat
• 2D FD Analysis of Flexible Mat
• 1D FD Analysis of Single Piles
• Combined 3D Analyses
• WERAFT-S Analysis of Raft Foundation
• WEAPR-S Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation
• Problems and Modifications
• 3D FD Analyses on Foundation Vibrations
• Concluding Remarks
Combined Pile Raft Foundation (CPRF)
PBD Principles
1. SAFETIES
- Overall Foundation
- Fdt. Elements
2. SERVICEABILITIES
- Overall Foundation
- Fdt. Elements
From Katzenberg and Choudhury (2013)

Combined Pile Raft Foundation (Cont.)
For small CPRF, i.e., Pile

length > width of the raft or width
of raft ≤ 15m, foundation can be
regarded as grouped piles – Rigid
Raft can be assumed. This is
typically done in most of the
conventional pile foundation
designs. If not, flexibility of
the raft must be taken into
account. In such case, the design
needs to consider the flexibility of
the raft and the interactions
between the structural elements
From Katzenberg and Choudhury (2013) and the soils.
Current Pile Design Practice in Taiwan
• Soil data – SPT-N etc…
• Evaluating Qs & Qb of
single pile
• Computing Qall = Qult/FS
• Concerns of negative skin
frictions and pull out
resistance
• Pile load test assessments
• Seismic concerns
• Group pile capacity
assuming rigid cap
• Structural Design
Scope (Research Grant MOST106-2221-E-032-025-MY2)
• 3D FEM analysis has been recognized as the most
powerful tool in simulating the piled raft foundation
behaviors. However it is relatively complex to be used in
design practice.
• The simplified numerical solutions applicable at the
preliminary design stage are always merited.
• 3D finite-difference analyses based on equilibriums of
the structural system was thus proposed to simulate the
pile-raft foundation settlements under vertical loads
(both static and dynamic).
• This presentation will introduce the methodologies,
validations and further attentions.
Approximate Computer Based method
Soil springs are used in

such modeling
Methodologies – Theory of Thin Plate
Thick Thin Very Thin

Plate Plate Plate
W/D 5-10 10-100 >100
w/ transverse w/o transverse

Nonlinear
characteristics shear shear
geometry
deformations deformations
Plate Theory Reissner,

Kirchhoff-Love Von Karman
(2 dimensions) Mindlin
Beam Theory
Timoshenko Euler, Bernoulli
(1 dimension)
Methodologies – Finite Difference method
∂4 w 2 ∂4 w ∂4 w 12qሺ1 − 𝜈 2 ) 12Pሺ1 − 𝜈 2 )
+ + = +
∂x 4 ∂x 2 ∂y 2 ∂y 4 ED3 ED3 (∂x ∂y)
20𝑤0 − 8ሺ𝑤 𝑇 +𝑤𝐵 +𝑤𝑅 + 𝑤𝐿 ) + 2ሺ𝑤𝑇𝐿 + 𝑤𝑇𝑅 + 𝑤𝐵𝐿 + 𝑤𝐵𝑅 )

q𝑠 4 P𝑠 2
+ሺ𝑤 𝑇𝑇 + 𝑤𝐵𝐵 + 𝑤𝐿𝐿 + 𝑤𝑅𝑅 ) = +
B B
Using the Central Difference schemes, the

above equation can be derived as follows.
Thirteen unknowns are involved in this
equation.
If the raft is large enough w/ infinite
boundaries or rigid enough with relatively
thick raft, displacements can be assumed
equal. Then solutions are easy.
Soil springs need to be
implemented. Bowles (1970s) Foundation Analysis and Design
Methodologies – Soil Springs
Governing Equation with uniform load q was assumed,
𝜕4 w 2𝜕4 w 𝜕4 w 12q 1−ν2

+ 𝜕x2 𝜕y2 + =
𝜕x4 𝜕y4 ED3
The effects of soil reactions can be computed by q* to account for the soils,
Σ𝐾𝑠 𝑤𝑘
𝑞∗ = 𝑞 − 𝐴𝑟
= 𝑞 − 𝐸𝑆 Τ𝑙 Σ𝐴𝑆𝑘 𝑤𝑘 /𝐴𝑟
𝑬𝑫𝟑
l𝐞𝐭 𝐁 = 𝟏𝟐ሺ𝟏−𝝂𝟐 ) the above equation can be written as follows,
𝒘𝒊,𝒋+𝟐 + 𝟐𝒘𝒊−𝟏,𝒋+𝟏 − 𝟖𝒘𝒊,𝒋+𝟏 + 𝟐𝒘𝒊+𝟏,𝒋+𝟏 + 𝒘𝒊−𝟐,𝒋 − 𝟖𝒘𝒊−𝟏,𝒋 + 𝟐𝟎𝒘𝒊,𝒋 − 𝟖𝒘𝒊+𝟏,𝒋

𝒒∗ 𝟒
+𝒘𝒊+𝟐,𝒋 + 𝟐𝒘𝒊−𝟏,𝒋−𝟏 − 𝟖𝒘𝒊,𝒋−𝟏 + 𝟐𝒘𝒊+𝟏,𝒋−𝟏 + 𝒘𝒊,𝒋−𝟐 = 𝒔
𝐁
Methodologies – Boundary effects
Governing Equations and Boundary Conditions
𝜕4 w 2𝜕4 w 𝜕4 w 12q∗ 1−ν2 12P 1−ν2 𝑞∗ P
+ + = + = +
𝜕x4 𝜕x2 𝜕y2 𝜕y4 ED3 ED3 ሺ𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑦) 𝐁 B𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑦
where q* = q –ΣKswk /Ar = q – (Es/l)ΣAsk×wk /Ar  q-(Es/l)wk(Ask/Ark)
Mx = −Bሺ𝜕 2 w/𝜕y 2 + ν𝜕 2 w/𝜕x 2 ) = 0 NOTE:

𝜕3 w 2−ν 𝜕3 w Both single rod stiffness EA/l
Vy = −B 3 + =0
𝜕y 2 𝜕y𝜕x = ks
My = −Bሺ𝜕 w/𝜕x + ν𝜕 2 w/𝜕𝑦 2 ) = 0
2 2
and Lysmer’s Analog soil
𝜕3w 2 − ν 𝜕3w spring
V𝑥 = −B 3
+ 2
=0 where ks = 4G×ro/(1-n)
𝜕x 𝜕x𝜕𝑦
were considered in this study.
Resulting formulations (6 types of Eqs., total 25 Eqs.)
WERAFT-S for the Raft Displacements
n2
Chang et al. (2018). “Finite Difference Analysis of Vertically Loaded Raft Foundation Based on the Plate
Theory with Boundary Concern” Journal of GeoEngineering, TGS 13(3), pp 135-147.
Studies on rod stiffness
Studies on rod stiffness (cont.)
Matching
line
Validations/Comparisons of the Raft Displacements
Midas-GTS NX WERAFT-S (rod) WERAFT-S (Lysmer)

Center 1.88 cm Center 1.86 cm Center 1.86 cm
Edge 1.31 cm Edge 1.37 cm Edge 1.36 cm
Corner 0.97 cm Corner 0.92 cm Corner 0.79 cm
Standard numerical model: Raft: L×W×D = 26m×26m×1m, E = 2×107 kPa, ν = 0.15;

Soils: Vs = 150 m/s, ν = 0.4; q= 100 kPa
Some Observations (Poulos, 2001 TC18 Report)
18
Wave equations of single piles
 Wave Equation of
single piles subjected
to vertical loads
Governing eq.
𝜕2 Wp
EpAp 𝜕𝑧 2 𝑑𝑧 = kps．Wp
Boundary conditions
EpAp𝜕Wp
Pp = - @ pile head
𝜕𝑧
𝜕Wp
EpAp = − kpb．Wp @ pile tip
𝜕𝑧
Chang, D.W. and Lin, K.C. (1999). "Interaction Effect on Vertical Pile Response from Time-Domain Wave
Equation Analysis," Procds., The 2nd Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal,
June, Vol. 1, pp. 407-412.
19
Soil Springs along the Piles
 Linear (small strains), t, p, Q

static and dynamic (both
frequency independent or ks
dependent impedance) – 1
such as pile behaviors to
z, y, w
be controlled in elasticity,
machined fdt. problems, Novak and Jurado (1974), Roesset and Angelides (1980),
etc. Dobry and Gazetas (1988)… etc.
 Nonlinear (large strain t, p, Q

levels), static and
seismic – such as pile ks
capacities, seismic
1
influences of the super-
z, y, w
structural loads and the
ground impacts to piles, Matlock and Reese (1960), Duncan and Chang (1970),
etc. Kagawa and Kraft (1980), Chow (1985), Fahey and Carter
(1993)… etc.
20
WEAPR-S incorporating the piles in WERAFT-S analysis
𝜕4w 2𝜕 4 w 𝜕 4 w 12q" 1 − ν2 NOTE: q”= q- (ks + kp)×w/AR

+ + =
𝜕x 4 𝜕x 2 𝜕y 2 𝜕y 4 ED3 where q” is used if pile is encountered
at the nodes, otherwise q* is remained.
NOTE: kp is the equivalent stiffness of a single pile which includes the surrounding
soil effects.
1. If linear pile-soil elements are used, kp = constant.

2. If nonlinear pile-soil elements are considered, kp ≠
constant. Iterative procedures need to be used to obtain
kp.
3. Pile-to-pile interactions need to be considered if the piles
are close enough to have the interactions.
21
Hybrid piled raft model (Clancy and Randolph, 1993)
 One-dimensional pile element

 Lumped soil response at each pile-
node-load transfer spring
 Two-dimensional plate bending FE
raft mesh
 Ground resistance at each raft node
represented by an equivalent spring
 Pile-soil-pile interactions
 Raft-soil-raft interactions
 Pile-soil-raft interactions
22
Equivalent Stiffness of Single Pile, kp
model shaft bottom KP
𝐺𝑠 𝐴 𝐸𝑠 𝐴
𝐾𝑠 = 𝐾𝑏 =
Rod stiffness 𝑙𝑠 𝑙𝑏 130,683 kN/m
(𝑙𝑠 =1m) (𝑙𝑏 =1m)
𝜋𝑟0 𝐸
2𝜋𝐿𝑖 𝐺𝑠 𝐾𝑏 =
Liang (1993) 𝐾𝑠 = 2 1−𝜇𝑠2 𝐼𝑏 144,840 kN/m
ln 2.5𝐿𝑖 1 − 𝜇𝑠 Τ𝑟0 (𝐼𝑏 =0.64)
Matsumoto 2𝜋𝐺∆𝐿
𝐾𝑧𝑃 = 131,208 kN/m
(2003) ln 𝑟𝑚 Τ𝑟0
23
Validation/Comparisons of the Piled Raft Displacements
Lysmer’s
analog
model
was used
For soil
springs
below
raft
Center Edge Corner Center Edge Corner
Midas 1.41 cm 0.96 cm 0.64 cm WEAPR-S 1.35 cm 0.95 cm 0.34 cm
Numerical model: Piles: LP = 20 m, d = 1 m, S/d = 8, E = 2×107 kPa, ν = 0.15

Parametric studies on soils and piles
1. Numerical
tools
Soils 2. Averaged
springs
Corners Corners
Due to
Piles Pile-to-pile
interactions
Corners Corners
Comparisons of a = 0.4 S/d=4
WEAPR-S with Midas Midas/GTS
WEAPR-S w/
w/ and w/o reducing Reduced Kp
pile stiffness WEAPR-S
a = 0.6
S/d=6 a = 0.8 S/d=8
Concerns on soil springs
For Lysmer’s Analog model used, the averaged spring constant at

the nodal points will result in some problems. Therefore 3D FEM
solutions were examined to monitor the foundation springs
underneath the raft.
Concerns on soil springs (cont.)
1. Find the soil spring constants along the
central line of the foundation, then
compute the normalized function for
the variations of the spring constants
from the center to the edge, i.e. f(x).
2. Compute 2D variations of the soil

springs underneath the raft foundation,
where H(x,y)=f(|x|)× g(|y|)
3. Soil spring constant ks underneath the

flexible raft is computed by ks= Ko ×
H(x,y) where Ko is 4G×ro/{(1-n) ．N};
and N is the number of nodal points.
Concerns on soil springs (cont.)
The normalized function at one dimension
• However in order to match the solutions of 3D FEM

continuums, the soil springs along the edge of the
foundation again require reductions.
Concerns of soil springs (cont.)
Need to be reduced
in order to yield
compatible solutions
to the ones from FEM
continuums.
Reduction factor found at the edge

Poisson’s ratio, n
Vs (m/s)
0.3 0.4 0.5
120 0.36 0.51 0.52
150 0.32 0.32 0.35
180 0.29 0.33 0.47
Modeling Pile-to-Pile Interactions
Dobry and Gazetas (1988)
Ah(t,s)
If frequency = zero, then
Chang, D.W., Lin, B.S. and Cheng, S.H. (2009). ″Lateral

load distributions on grouped piles from dynamic pile-
to-pile interactions factors.″ International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
33(2), 173-191.
Modeling Pile-to-Pile Interactions
With the foundation displacements

obtained by WEAPR-S, compute
wp1/wp2 = a and wp2/wp5= b
Knowing that
wp1-a×wp2 = (Pp1/kp)×a1j– a×(Pp2/kp)×a2j = p1×a1j - a×p2×a2j = 0

wp2-b×wp5 = (Pp2/kp)×a2j– b×(Pp5/kp)×a5j = p2×a2j - b×p5×a5j = 0
(4Pp1+4Pp2+Pp5)/Pptotal = 4p1+4p2+p5 = 100%
where a1j= a11 + a12 + a13 + a14 + a15 + a16 + a17 + a18 + a19
𝒓 𝒓 𝒓 𝒓 𝒓 0.5
= 1 + 2×( )0.5 + 2×( )0.5 + 2×( ) 0.5 +( )0.5 + ( )
𝑺 𝟐𝑺 𝟓𝑺 𝟐𝑺 𝟐 𝟐𝑺
Modeling PPI (cont.)
• Once the loads carried at each pile (Ppi* =
Pptotal × pi) were computed, the equivalent
stiffness of each pile can be obtained as kpi*=
Ppi*/wpi, replace kpi by kpi*.
• Then solve for new wpi and the
corresponding pi and kpi*. The analysis is
iterated and stopped until the variations of
both kpi* and/or wpi are becoming trivial.
Modeling PPI (cont.)
Developing FD Analysis for the Raft
under Dynamic Loads
Governing Equation:
𝜕4 w 2𝜕4 w 𝜕4 w q ρD 𝜕2 𝑊
+ + = − (Kirchhoff-Love Theory)
𝜕x4 𝜕x2 𝜕y2 𝜕y4 B B 𝜕𝑡 2
Boundary Condition (1) (LEFT AND RIGHT EDGES)

• 𝑀𝑦 = 0 𝑉𝑥 = 0 𝑥 = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡
𝜕2 𝑤 𝜕2 𝑤
➢ 𝑀𝑦 = −𝐵 + 𝑣 2 =0
𝜕𝑥 2 𝑦
Boundary Condition (2) (TOP AND BOTTOM EDGES)

• 𝑀𝑥 = 0 𝑉𝑦 = 0 𝑦 = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡
𝜕2 𝑤 𝜕2 𝑤
➢ 𝑀𝑥 = −𝐵 + 𝑣 2 =0
𝜕𝑦 2 𝑥
Soil springs and dashpots
For Disk on Homogeneous Half-Space
Spring Dashpot Mass
Frequency 4.54𝐺𝐵
Dependent
Gazetas 𝐾𝑣 = 𝑘෨ 𝑧 𝐶𝑣 = ሺ𝜌𝑉𝐿𝑎 𝐴𝑏 )𝑐𝑧ǁ -
1−𝑣
Lysmer’s 4𝐺𝑅 3.4𝑅 2
𝐾𝑣 = 𝐶𝑣 = 𝐺𝜌 -
Analog 1−𝑣 1−𝑣
𝐴
𝐾𝑣 = 𝜌𝑐 2 0ൗ𝑧0 𝐶𝑣 = 𝜌𝑐𝐴0 -
1 1
(Cone) < 𝑣 < ; 𝑐 = 2𝑐𝑠
Frequency 3 2
Independent Discrete
2
Element 𝑧0 𝜋 𝑐
Model; = 1−𝑣 1
𝑟0 4 𝑐𝑠 ∆𝑀 = 2.4ሺ𝑣 − )𝜌𝐴0 𝑟0
Wolf (1997) 3
𝑐𝑠 = 𝐺ൗ
𝜌
Frequency dependent soil springs and dashpots
Gazetas, G. (1991) “Foundation Vibrations”, in Foundation Engr. Handbook edt. by
Fang)
3D FEM analysis conducted by Midas
Model 1
Analysis Zone: 100 x 100 x 60 m
Raft Dimension: 10 x 10 x 1 m
Boundary Constraint
Left and Right X- direction
Front and back Y- direction

Bottom Z- direction
3D FEM analysis conducted by Midas
Model 2
Analysis Zone: 200 x 200 x 70 m
Raft Dimension: 26 x 26 x 1 m
Boundary Constraint
Left and Right X- direction
Front and back Y- direction
Bottom Z- direction
Model 1: 10 x 10 x 1m
Model 2: 26 x 26 x 1m
Gazetas Wolf
Small
raft
Large raft
Lysmer 3D FEM
Harmonic Loading
Total Load: 150 kN
Load Amplitude: 1.5 kPa
Raft Model 1: 10 x 10 x 1m
 FEM raft on springs also

gave similar solutions to FD
analyses.
 The missing resonance of
raft was possibly caused by
overestimating the
damping in FD analysis.
 At the resonance of the
foundation, material
damping rather than
geometric damping should
become more significant.
Harmonic Loading
Total Load: 150 kN
Load Amplitude: 0.222 kPa
Raft Model 2: 26 x 26x 1m
Concluding Remarks
The proposed FD analysis for 2D raft WERAFT-S can simulate the
flexible foundation settlements in a rational manner.
- If rod spring was used, the length of spring and the
influencing area should be adjusted to provide adequate
solutions.
- If Lysmer’s Analog spring was used, fdt. settlements are okay
at center and edges, but the ones at corners are much smaller
than 3D FEM solutions.
The proposed FD analysis of CPRF WEAPR-S can simulate fdt.
settlements in similar order to the ones by 3D FEM.
- Again, the corner displacements were found much smaller.
- Pile-to-pile interactions must be taken into account.
Further investigations are conducted to modify the analyses.
Brief Introduction of 16ARC
www.16arc.org
The 16th Asian Regional Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
Taipei International Convention Center (TICC), Taipei, Taiwan
October 14-18, 2019
16ARC Program at a Glance (tentative)
12 Oct. 13 Oct. 14 Oct. 15 Oct. 16 Oct. 17 Oct. 18 Oct.

Time\Date Time\Date
Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
08:00-08:30 08:00-08:30
103 (120 105 201BC 201A 201B 201D (88 201E
Venune National Taiwan University Venune 201 (800 pax) 201 (800 pax) 201 (800 pax) pax) (100 pax) (232 pax) (112 pax) (88 pax) pax) (88 pax)
08:30-09:00 08:30-09:00 Opening Ceremony Keynote III (50 mins) Keynote IV (50 mins)
09:00-09:30 09:00-09:30 (08:30-09:20) (08:30-09:20) SF01M (9) SA08 (9) SFA05 (9) SA03 (8) SA09 (7) SA10 (9) SA11 (9)
Keynote I (50 mins)
09:30-10:00 09:30-10:00 (09:10-10:00) Invited Lecture I Invited Lecture IV
10:00-10:30 10:00-10:30 Coffee Break Coffee Break Coffee Break Coffee Break
10:30-11:00 10:30-11:00 Keynote II (50 mins) Mentoring Lecture (30 mins) Invited Lecture V
SFA05 (6)
11:00-11:30 11:00-11:30 (10:30-11:20) Invited Lecture II Invited Lecture VI SF01M (9) SA08 (9) SA03 (8) SA09 (6) SA10 (9) SA11 (9)
11:30-12:00 11:30-12:00 Invited Lecture III Special Lecture by AECOM SA07 (3)
12:00-12:30 12:00-12:30
Lunch @ Banquet Hall (120 mins) Technical
12:30-13:00 Pre-Conf. Pre-Conf. 12:30-13:00 Lunch @ Banquet Hall (90 mins) Lunch @ Banquet Hall (90 mins) Lunch @ Banquet Hall (90 mins) Visit
Short Short
13:00-13:30 13:00-13:30
Course Course
Program Program North 103 (120 201A 201B 201C 201D (88 201E 201F 103 (120 105 201BC 201A 201B 201D (88 201E
Venune
made by made by
Venune 201 BCDE (476 pax) (90 pax) 201 BCDE (476 pax) 401 (60pax)
pax) (112 pax) (88 pax) (88 pax) pax) (88 pax) (112 pax) pax) (100 pax) (232 pax) (112 pax) (88 pax) pax) (88 pax)
13:30-14:00 CTGS CTGS 13:30-14:00 Theme Lecture I Theme Lecture IV
Asian
14:00-14:30 14:00-14:30 Theme Lecture II YMPG (9) Council TC202 (9) SI14 (8) SF01 (9) SF02 (9) SA04 (9) SFA05 (9) SA06 (9) SF01M (8) SA08 (9) SA07 (9) SI15 (8) SI17 (7) SA10 (9)
CAPG session "Are we over-designing?" Meeting
14:30-15:00 14:30-15:00 Theme Lecture III
15:00-15:30 15:00-15:30 Coffee Break Coffee Break Coffee Break
103 (120 201BCDE 105 201A 201F 401 North 103 (120 201BCDE 105 201A 201F North South 103 (120 201A 201B 201C 201D (88 201E 201F
Venune Venune
pax) (476 pax) (100 pax) (112 pax) (112 pax) (60 pax) (90 pax) pax) (476 pax) (100 pax) (112 pax) (112 pax) (90 pax) (90 pax)
401 (60pax)
pax) (112 pax) (88 pax) (88 pax) pax) (88 pax) (112 pax) 201BC (232 pax)
15:30-16:00 15:30-16:00 AGSSEA Asian
YMPG (6) ATC6 (6) ATC1 (6) SA06 (7)
16:00-16:30 16:00-16:30 TC103 (8) ATC10 (8) TC104 (9) Council ATC3 (9) ATC18 (9) ATC19 (8) TC304 (8) TWN Council ISSMGE Bright Spark Lecture & Closing Ceremony (16:00-17:30)
ATC6 (11) ATC7 (9) Meeting Meeting TC209 (10) TC305 (12) SF01 (10) SA08 (12) SA04 (12) SFA05 (12)
16:30-17:00 16:30-17:00 Session
ATC6
YGES (6) SA04 (5) SA07 (5)
17:00-17:30 17:00-17:30 meeting
ATC3
17:30-18:00 17:30-18:00 meeting
18:00-18:30 18:00-18:30
18:30-19:30 18:30-19:30
Welcome reception @ Banquet Hall Gala dinner
19:30-20:30 19:30-20:30
Registration 15:00-17:00 Registration 08:00-17:00 08:00-17:00 08:00-17:00 08:00-16:00
Poster Session Poster Session 09:00-17:00 P1/P2 09:00-17:00 P3/P4 09:00-17:00 P5/P6 09:00-17:00 P7/P8
Exhibition Exhibition 10:00-17:00 10:00-17:00 10:00-17:00 10:00-17:00

Thank you!
48
INCOTEC LOAD CELLS
FOR CAISSONS
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Fuerza (tn)
-10
10
Desplazamiento (mm)
20
30
40
50
GENERAL ASPECTS
The CCI consists in a piston-cylinder system, similar to a hydraulic jack, installed at

the toe of the caisson/drilled pile.
Once the pile is finished and the concrete has hardened, the injection of the cell is
performed with grout. This process mobilizes downwards the toe of the cell,
compacting the soil and measuring the forces: and occasionally, mobilizes the shaft
upwards, allowing to calculate the average friction of the shaft.
QUALITY SYSTEM
GENERAL ASPECTS
TYPICAL CURVE FORCE VS. TOE MOVEMENT

THE CHANGE OF STIFFNESS IS PRESENTED
CAISSON:
Ø150 CM
Altered L = 22m
soil
Stiffness
MAX. INJECTION
PRESSURE: 25 Kg/cm2
After injection
stiffness TOTAL MOBILIZED
LOAD : 406 TN
QUALITY SYSTEM
ALTOUGH THE “CAPACITY” OF A

PILE SHOULD BE DEFINED PRIOR
TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE
CCI, DURING THE INJECTION THE
VALUES OF PRESSURE, VOLUME
AND MOVEMENTS (TOE AND
HEAD) ARE DIRECTELY
MEASURED, GIVING THE
RESISTANCE PARAMETERS OF
EACH PILE/CAISSON. 100%
CONTROL
OTHER IMPORTANT ASPECT IS
THAT THE SHAPE OF THE
INJECTED ELEMENT IS KNOWN
DYNAMIC LOAD TEST
THE FOLLOWING GRAPHS

SHOW THE RESULTS OF
TWO DLT PERFORMED IN
TWO CAISSONS 5 m APPART
FROM EACH OTHER.
THE FIRST HAS A CCI AND
SECOND DOES NOT.
THE DROP HAMMER IS A 15 t
FREE-FALL HAMMER AND
MAXIMUM HEIGHT WAS 1.8
m.
PRUEBA DE CARGA
CAISSON Ø 1200 mm, L=22 m AND WITH CCI

PRUEBA DE CARGA
CAISSON Ø 1200 mm, L=22 m AND WITHOUT CCI

CASO DE ESTUDIO:
Pilotes excavados con inyección en punta. Aplicación en ríos
bolivianos
ÍNDICE
1. Situación y descripción 6. Perforación de los pilotes

2. Condicionantes geotécnicos 7. Procedimiento de inyección
3. Normativa de diseño a) Equipos y control
4. Propuesta de inyección b) Monitoreo de movimientos
5. Método de cálculo c) Resultados
8. Conclusiones
10
Situación y objeto.
3 puentes en vía ferroviaria para exportar urea y amoniaco a Brasil y Argentina
Bulo Bulo:
We are
here !!!!
Santa Cruz
11
Descripción del proyecto y obra
Tres puentes:
- Río Piraí de 331 m.
- Río Yapacaní de 799 m
- Río Ichilo de 331 m
Luces de 39 m.
Yapacaní
Socavación de 10 m.
Piraí Ichilo
12
Condicionantes geotécnicos
Carretera existente
- Suelos aluviales, principalmente arenosos.

Muy pocos finos
- Nivel freático en superficie
13
Condicionantes geotécnicos. Campaña geotécnica
Sondeos con ensayos SPT
14
Condicionantes geotécnicos. Perfil geotécnico
N30 % Finos Límite líquido

15
Factores que determinan el comportamiento
de la punta
Pilotes excavados en arenas
1. Alteración
2. Acumulación de detritus
3. Baja rigidez y resistencia
creciente
16
de la punta
1 – 2%
inclinación Mullins et al.
1. Alteración
La limpieza no es perfecta
creciente
17
de la punta
Carga en punta versus asiento
1. Alteración
Carga movilizada normalizada en punta, en función del
creciente
asiento (AASHTO 2012).
18
Normativa aplicable (AASHTO)
𝑞𝑝 = 0.057 𝑁60 ; 𝑁60 ≤ 50 𝑀𝑃𝑎 N=50 → qp=2.87 MPa

0.8
𝑝𝑎
𝑞𝑝 = 0.0285 𝑁60 𝜎𝑣, ; 𝑁60 > 50 N=100 → qp=6.00 MPa
𝜎𝑣,
19
Normativa aplicable (AASHTO).
Comparando otros métodos:
Método analítico
Métodos semiempíricos (SPT,

Presiómetro)
20
Inyección en punta
a)Normativa restrictiva
b)Terreno realmente alterable
Inyección Punta
a)Normativa con método cálculo para inyectados

b)Terreno mejorará capacidad punta x 2
La alternativa: pilotes más largos, o mayor número de pilotes

21
Sistema de inyección: El TOE BOX
¿Qué es un gato plano?

(Flat Jack)
Pilote Bomba
La lechada ocupa un área conocida bajo la punta:

→ Se conoce la fuerza aplicada en la punta (presión x área)
→ Se obtiene cota inferior de la resistencia por fuste
→ Similar a una prueba de carga.
22
Sistema de inyección con gato plano
Gato plano usado en USA
Gray Mullins (2001)

23
Sistema de gato plano o celda de inyección
Celda de inyección usada en este proyecto
24
Sistema de celda de inyección
25
Método de cálculo de pilotes inyectados (FHWA)
Gray Mullins et al. (2004)

𝑞𝑝 𝑖𝑛𝑦𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑎 = 𝑇𝐶𝑀 (𝑞𝑝൯ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENG. ASCE/APRIL 2006
%𝐷 TCM:Tip Capacity Multiplier

𝑇𝐶𝑀 = 0.713 𝐺𝑃𝐼 %𝐷 0.364 +
0.4 %𝐷 + 3.0
𝑃𝑖
𝐺𝑃𝐼 =
𝑞𝑝
Para 5 % 𝐷 𝑇𝐶𝑀 = 1 + 1.28 GPI
N=50 → qp=3 MPa ; Pi=3 MPa → TCM=2.28
Como establecer la presión de inyección:

- La presión de inyección de diseño está limitada por la resistencia por fuste
- La presión de inyección de diseño hay que lograrla después en obra.
Metodología de diseño usada por Uriel&Asociados:
1. Usar el método analítico ( = 𝟑𝟐 − 𝟑𝟓º) para obtener una “resistencia por punta deseada (qp*)
2. Usar esa qp* como la resistencia a conseguir mediante la inyección (qp inyectada=qp*).
3. Definir la presión de inyección necesaria para ello, usando Mullins (y AASHTO para qp)
4. Comprobar que se dispone de resistencia por fuste suficiente
26
Método de cálculo de pilotes inyectados (FHWA)
Ejemplo capacidad de pilote convencional versus pilote inyectado
27
Perforación pilotes
Participaron 2 empresas
Pilotes de 1,2 y 1,5 m.
Longitud: 22 a 30 m
Excavación con camisa

recuperable en toda la longitud,
sin lodos 28
Inyección
Mezcladora + bomba
Conductos y llaves de paso
Transductor de caudal y presión Registro de datos en tiempo real
29
Registros de la inyección
Presión máxima (MPa): 4.1

Volumen inyectado (l): 700
Fuerza movilizada total (kN): 6440
30
Inyección. Control asentamiento en punta
Tell Tales
31
Inyección. Control levantamiento en cabeza
Levantamiento en cabeza
Anclajes externos
Hilo para nivel

de Referencia
Medición de
desplazamientos
Cese de la inyección si se levanta 5 mm.

→ La resistencia por fuste puede limitar la presión de inyección
32
Registros de movimientos
33
Resultados. Resistencia por punta movilizada
Presión de inyección (Mpa)
Resistencia admisible por punta (Mpa)
• Presiones de inyección del mismo orden de magnitud que las resistencias

admisibles por punta calculadas
(Resultados para pilotes de 1.2 m)

34
Resultados. Resistencia por fuste movilizada
Resistencia movilizada FUSTE (kN)
Ratio
Resistencia última calculada FUSTE (kN) movilizada/calculada
• En el 75 % de los pilotes se “ensayó” su resistencia por fuste hasta valores por
encima de su resistencia nominal calculada.
• El método analítico (=Ko tan  )ha sido conservador para obtener la resistencia por
fuste
(Resultados para pilotes de 1.2 m) 35
Resultados. Carga total aplicada por la inyección
• 75 % de los pilotes se “ensayaron” a una carga total mayor que la carga en servicio.
→ Confianza el diseño y la ejecución.
(Resultados para pilotes de 1.2 m) 36

Conclusiones
Respecto a la celda de inyección
- Técnica con grandes posibilidades para la inyección en punta.

- Como posibles mejoras:
- Monitorización de movimientos en tiempo real.
- Será de interés realizar en el futuro alguna prueba de carga estática para
corroborar aun más la bondad del sistema.
37
Conclusiones.
Respecto a la inyección de punta de pilotes
“Toe post-grouted bored piles have amazing benefits:
increased end bearing,
reduced foundation cost,
increased design confidence, etc.” (Gray Mullins)
“La inyección en punta de pilotes excavados tiene enormes

beneficios:
Incremento de la resistencia por punta,
Reducción del coste,
Incremento de confianza en el diseño” (Tomás Murillo)
38
Muchas gracias por su
atención
39
REFERENCES
References
Berggren, B., Sellgren, E. and Wetterling, S. 1988. Expanderkroppar. Anvisningar för
dimensionering, utförande och kontroll (Expander Body. Instructions for design,
installation and control). Swedish Commission on Pile Reseach, Report 79, 54 p.
Broms, B.B. 1985. Expander Bodies – A new concept for underpinning of structures.
Proceedings XI ICSMGE San Francisco.Vol. 3, pp. 1531 – 1534.
Broms, B.B. and Nord, B. 1985. Axial bearing capacity of the expander body pile. Soils
and Foundations 25(2) pp. 31-44.
CEN 2000. Execution of special geotechnical work - Displacement piles. European

Committee for Standardization (CEN). ICS 93.200. December 2000, 46 p.
Coutand, S.C. 2007. Ajuste de parámetros presiométricos en la estimación de la

capacidad de carga última de pilotes con tecnología Expander Body en arenas
sedimentarias. Tesis de grado. Ed. Universidad Federico Santa María. Valparaíso, Chile.
99 p.
REFERENCES
Decourt, L., 2008. Loading tests: interpretation and prediction of their results.
ASCE GeoInstitute Geo-Congress New Orleans, March 9-12, "Honoring John
Schmertmann—From Research to Practice in Geotechnical Engineering",
Geotechnical Special Publication, GSP 180, Edited by J.E. Laier, D.K. Crapps, and
M.H. Hussein, pp. 452-488.
Eslami, A. and Fellenius, B.H., 1997. Pile capacity by direct CPT and CPTU
methods applied to 102 case histories. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 34(6)
886–904.
Fellenius, B.H. and Terceros, Herrera.M. 2014. Response to Load for four different
types of piles. Proceedings, International Conference on Piling and Deep
Foundations. 2014., Stockholm
Fellenius, B.H., 1989. Tangent modulus of piles determined from strain data. The
ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division, 1989 Foundation Congress, Edited by
F.H. Kulhawy,Vol. 1, pp. 500-510.
REFERENCES
Fellenius, B.H., 2114. Basics of foundation design. Electronic Edition.
www.Fellenius.net, 428 p. Page 21/21
Fellenius, B.H., Kim, S.R., and Chung, S.G., 2009. Long-term monitoring of strain in
instrumented piles. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 135(11) 1583-1595.
Goudreault, A.A and Fellenius, B.H., 2013. UniPile Version 5, Users and Examples
Manual. UniSoft Geotechnical Solutions Ltd. [www.UniSoftLtd.com]. 100 p.
Massarsch, K.R., Brieke, W., and Tancré, E. 1988. Displacement auger piles with
compacted base. Proceedings, Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 333 – 342.
Massarsch, K. R. and Wetterling, S. 1993. Improvement of augercast pile performance

by expander body system. 2nd International Seminar on Deep Foundations on
Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, June 1 - 4, 1993, pp. 417 - 428.
REFERENCES
Massarsch, K. R. 1994. Execution, supervision and quality control of anchors.
Panel Discussion, Section 3.3, Construction, Instrumentation and Real Time
Management, XIII. Proceedings, International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, India,Vol. 5, pp. 317 - 319.
NeSmith, W. 2002. Static capacity analysis of augered, pressure-injected

displacement piles. Deep Foundations Journal 2002: pp. 1174-1186.
Terceros Herrera, M. 2008. El uso de la tecnología Expander Body en

fundaciones profundas en suelos sedimentarios de Santa Cruz, Bolivia (Use of
Expander Body technology for deep foundations in sedimented soil of Santa
Cruz, Bolivia). Proc. of 19th Congreso Argentino de Mecánica de Suelos e
Ingeniería Geotécnica, La Plata,Argentina, 8 p.
Terceros Herrera M., Wetterling, S., and Massarsch K. R. 1995. Application of the
Soilex Pile System with Expander Body in Bolivia. X. Congreso Panamericano de
Mecanica de Suelos e Ingenieria de Cimentaciones, Mexico. pp. 1319 - 1327.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Mario A.Terceros H., Incotec S.A., Santa Cruz, Bolivia
www.incotec.com.bo
E mail: math@incotec.cc - Phone: +591 3 349522
Observations and analysis of pile
group of 13 EB-equipped piles
Bengt H. Fellenius
and
Mario Terceros H.
Mario Terceros A.
K. Rainer Massarsch
4th CFPB
Santa Cruz, Bolivia
May 23 - 24, 2019
1
Shaft response to load for a single pile
and a group of piles
Conventional model for the
Single response of a piled raft to load.
PERIMETER PILE
Pile INTERIOR PILES
I expect that under the pile

cap (raft), the strain in the
pile and in the soil are
equal. Thus, for working
load conditions, neither
relative movement nor
shaft resistance should
develop between the pile
and the soil. So, can there
be resistance all along the
interior piles?
2
A study of the shaft response to load for a
single pile and a group of piles
Conventional model for the
Single response of a piled raft to load.
PERIMETER PILE
Pile INTERIOR PILES
I expect that under the pile

cap (raft), the strain in the
pile and in the soil are
equal. Thus, for working
load conditions, neither
relative movement nor
shaft resistance should
develop between the pile
and the soil. So, can there
be resistance all along the
interior piles?
3
Cable-stayed bridge over the Garigliano River in Southern Italy; constructed in 1991-94.
(Russo and Viggiani 1995, and Mandolini et al. 2005).
PIER
W
800
CORNER
AXIAL LOAD (kN)

Foundation 600 SIDE
Piles
b = 406 mm
D = 48 m
Bored Pile Wall INTERIOR
b = 800 mm 400
D = 12.0 m
(To prevent scour.
End of
Construction Construction
Free from contact
with raft and piles). 200 Pause
0
19.0 m
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TIME AFTER CONSTRUCTION START (days)
10.6 m
The soil profile consisted of about 10 m of clay on about 10 m of dense sand underlain by soft
clay deposited at about 48 m depth on a very dense sand and gravel bed. The clay is normally
consolidated undergoing small. The piled raft foundation comprised 144 mandrel-driven, then
concrete-filled, steel pipe piles, 406-mm diameter, 48 m long, uniformly distributed in a 10.6 m by
19.0 m raft and driven into the very dense sand and gravel layer. The pile c/c distance was 1.2 m
(3.0 pile diameters). The Footprint Ratio was 9 %. The unfactored load from the pier was 800
kN/pile, which incorporated a factor of safety of 3.0 on pile capacity as stated to have been
verified in static loading tests.
4
Actual measurements on response of pile groups to load are very scare.
Okabe (1977) presented very informative measurements on axial load
distributions of 43 m long piles in a wide piled foundation.
Single Pile LOAD (kN)

LOAD (kN)
LOAD (kN)
-1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
-1,000
-1,000
-1,000 000 1,000
1,000 2,000
1,000 2,000 3,000
2,000 3,000 4,000
3,000 4,000 5,000
4,000 5,000
5,000
0
9.4 m 000 The working load?
The
The working
working load?
load?
43 m long
10
10 single pile
10
10 43 m long
43
43 m
m long
installed long
single pile
single
awaysingle
from pile
pile
installed
installed
installed
group
away from
away
away from
from
group
20 group
group
(m)
20
10.6 m
20
20
DEPTH(m)
DEPTH
DEPTH
( )
1.5 m
30
30
30
30
N.P.
Perimeter
pile
Monitored 40
40
40
40 Perimeter
A back-calculation of the pile
Piles Interior Perimeter
with
Interiorload distribution shows
Interior loads
pile that
piles
piles it corresponds shifted to same
piles to a unit
1.5 m 0.7 m load atequal
negative skin friction start as
to a the= others
ß-coefficient 0.4
50
50
50
50
Note, the interior piles showed no

shaft resistance and no drag force.
Data from Okabe 1977
5
A 36-pile group with a rigid pile cap (resting on the ground) forced down 40 mm
SOILSOIL
SOIL SETTLEMENT
SETTLEMENT AND
and PILEAND PILEMOVEMENT
PILE
MOVEMENTMOVEMENT (mm)
(mm) (mm) LOAD (kN)
LOAD (kN)
00 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 00 100
100 200
200 300
300 400
400 500
500 600
600
00 00
FF
22 22
EE
DD
44 44
CC
BB
66 66
AA
11 22 33 44 55 66
88 88
(m)
DEPTH (m)
(m)
DEPTH (m)
Interior
Interior
DEPTH
DEPTH
10
10 10
10 Piles
Piles
12
12 12
12
Perimeter
PerimeterPiles
Piles
14
14 14
14
PileToe
Pile Toe Depth
Depth
Pile
Pile 16
16
16
16
Soilat
Soil at Movement
Movement
PerimeterPile
Perimeter Pile
Calculations
18
18 18
18
Soilat
Soil at performed with
InteriorPile
Interior Pile Plaxis software
20
20 20
20
Distribution of soil settlement at perimeter and interior

piles, pile and pile cap movements, and load for peri-
meter and interior piles loaded by a rigid pile cap.
6
Procedure for determining the load-transfer movement of interior piles.
Theoretically, this
should be toe
resistance. Is it?
Average sustained
load on interior piles
500 20.0
Applied load minus
LENGTH ABOVE TOE LEVEL (m)

"Soil-pile"(shaft)
400 Left Ordinate axis 16.0
LOAD (kN)
300 12.0
Pile-toe
Resistance
200 Left Ordinate 8.0
100 4.0
0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Pile length above MOVEMENT (mm)

Pile-toe load-transfer
the pile toe with movement for the
shaft resistance sustained load
Right Ordinate
The intersection of the green, blue, and red lines

Calculations performed with is where the downward toe movement matches 7
UniPile software
(www.unisoftGS.com) the upward soil movement at the pile toe
Comparison of load-movement response of perimeter and
interior piles for rigid and flexible rafts
3,000
2,500
Rigid Raft, so same Perimeter

2,000
movement and Pile
LOAD (kN)
different load
1,500
Interior
Pile
1,000
Flexible Raft, so
500
same load and
different movement
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
PILE-HEAD MOVEMENT (mm)
Slightly exaggerated, 8
qualitative graph
The perimeter piles will carry a larger But piles are often installed at a site that is
load than the interior piles. Should the affected by general subsidence. Thus, the
perimeter piles then not be shorter than perimeter piles will experience down-drag,
the interior piles so as to reduce so the foundation raft will tend to settle.
differential settlement? Should the perimeter piles then not be
installed longer than the interior piles to
ensure non-differential settlement?
FILLS, etc. FILLS, etc.
G.W. G.W.
Equivalent Pier with a Equivalent Pier with a

stiffness of AE combined stiffness of AE combined
Equivalent Raft placed at Equivalent Raft placed at

the pile toe level the pile toe level
2:1 or Boussinesq 2:1 or Boussinesq 2:1 or Boussinesq 2:1 or Boussinesq

distribution distribution distribution distribution
Settlement of the piled foundation is caused Settlement of the piled foundation is caused
by the compression of the soil due to increase by the compression of the soil due to increase
of effective stress below the neutral plane of effective stress below the neutral plane
from external load applied to the piles and, for from external load applied to the piles and, for
example, from fills, embankments, loads on example, from fills, embankments, loads on
adjacent foundations, and lowering of adjacent foundations, and lowering of
groundwater table. groundwater table.
9
Observations and analysis of pile
group of 13 EB-equipped piles at
the B.E.S.T. test site.
10
Soil Profile
WATER CONTENT (%) SOIL TYPE FRACTIONS (%) SPT N-INDICES

(blows/0.3 m)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30
0 0 0
GW Silty
1 1 1 Sand
SAND
2 2 Silt
2 Clay
3 3 FINES 3 Silt or
PL w n LL SAND
4 4 Clay
4
5 5 5
Clay
DEPTH (m)
6 6 6
FINES SAND
7 7 7
8 8 8
Sand
9 9 9
10 10 10
11 11 11
12 12 FINES 12
13 13 Silty
13 SAND
FINES Sand
14 14 14
0 5 10 15
CPTU qt (MPa)
11
CPTU Results
WATER CONTENT (%) SOIL TYPE FRACTIONS (%) SPT N-INDICES
Cone Stress, qt (MPa) Sleeve Friction, fs (kPa) Pore Pressure (kPa) (blows/0.3
Friction m)
Ratio, fR (%)
0 5 10 0 200 40 60 80 100 0 10 10 3 204 30
10 1515 20 25
0 3025 35 5040 75 100 200 400 600 800 1,000 2 5
0 5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GW Silty
1 1 2
1 Sand
2 2 2 SAND
2 2 Silt
2 Clay
4 4 4 4
3 3 FINES 3 Silt or
PL w n LL SAND
6 6 4 6 6
4 Clay
4
8 5 8 5 8 8 5
Clay
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
6 6 6
10 10 10
FINES SAND 10
7 7 7
12 12 12 12
8 8 8
Sand
14 14 14
14 9 9 9
16 10 16 10 16 16 10
11 11 11
18 18 18 18
12 12 FINES 12
20 20 20 20 Silty
13 13 SAND 13
FINES Sand
22 14 22 14 22 22 14
0 5 10 15
CPTU qt (MPa)
12
The piles were pressure-grouted, 300 mm
diameter, full displacement piles equipped
with an Expander Body
The Expander Body, EB and EBI
Un-inflated before installation Extracted Expanded in air

13
The pile group layout and sequence of construction
Sequence of EB Expansion
Sequence of Construction Sequence of EB Expansion
Piles E2 - E14 E12, E2, E8, E7,
E10, E5, E6, E11,
1st: E8,
E8,E2,
2nd: E3,
E2, E4,
E3,E9,
E9,
E12,E14,
E4, E12,
E13,
E13,
and E14
and E7
E7, E11
2.54 m
2.5 m E13, E3, E9, E4, and E14 E10, E5, and E6
3rd: E11, E10, E5, and E6
E2 E3 E4 E2 E3 E4
E5 E6
E5 E6
DISTANCE (m)
5.0 m
E8
E7 E9
E1 E7 E8 E9
E10 E11 E10 E11

E12 E13 E14
E12 E13 E14
The single pile
14
Arrangement for measuring Phase-1 movements
15
Phase 2, the head-down test
8.00
6.00
4.00 2.0 m
E-GROUP
3.0 m
2.00
PILE E1
0.00 REACTION PILE
2.0 m
-2.00
REFERENCE
-4.00
BEAM SUPPORT
-6.00
-8.00
-8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
16
The results
First those of the single pile
700 1,500
UniPile simulation Pile broke
LOAD IN BIDIRECTIONAL CELL (kN)
fitted to test curve near head
EB response (>800 kN)

600
500
BD Test 1,000
LOAD (kN)
400 Head-down
Test
300
Phase 1 500
200 BD Test
100
0 PILE E1
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 0 10 20 30 40 50
UPWARD MOVEMENT (mm)
MOVEMENT (mm)
The effective stress proportionality coefficient, ß,
was 0.4 at the ground surface increasing linearly Phase 1 now with Phase 2
to ß = 2.0 at 6 m depth, which value was then
kept the same to the BD depth (8.3 m).
17
t-z and q-z functions are fundamental
to the analysis of pile response
Common t-z and q-z functions
140
The t-z function applied to the back-analysis
Ratio, θ = 0.200
Strain-hardening
120 Hyperbolic (r∞ = 120 %)
rtrg Elastic-plastic Exponential, b = 1.20

100
δ100 % = 5 mm
SHAFT SHEAR (% of rult)
Hansen 80 %
80
Strain-softening
δtrg Zhang, a = 0.009
Hyperbolic
60 C1 = 0.0099
40
This is typical for an element affected by residual force

20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
RELATIVE MOVEMENT BETWEEN PILE AND SOIL ELEMENT (mm)
18
E-Group test — Phase 1
Load versus time

700
Piles E2-E14 Piles E2- E14
600
Phase 1a Pile E1 Phase 1b
Unloading due to
Pile plunging mistaken f or
BD LOAD (kN/PILE)
collector malf unction.

500 Ceased pumping re-newed 'leak'
and, then, unloaded.
400
Pump
300 'leaking'
200
100 Restarted
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
TIME (minutes)
19
E-Group test — Phase 1a
Same data with rotated graph
30
PILE HEAD MOVEMENT (mm)
25
Single,
Pile E1
20
15
10 E-Group
Phase 1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
The load (same for all 13 piles) that pushed the pile group
upward corresponded to a unit shaft resistance acting along
the circumference of the group that was about equal to the
unit shaft resistance measured for the single pile, Pile E1.
20
E-Group test — Phase 1a and 1b
Load versus movement

700
Pile E1
600
Average Average
Phase 1a Phase 1b
500
400
300
E6, E8,
200 E9, & E11
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
UPWARD PILE HEAD MOVEMENT (mm)
21
Upward movement of pile heads
60 60
Phase 1a Phase 1a
UPWARD MOVEMENT (mm) Phase 1b Phase 1b

50 50
40 40
Average Average
30 Phase 1b 30 Phase 1b
Unloaded Unloaded
20 20
10 10
Phase 1a
0 0
0.00 0.90 1.80 2.70 3.60 0.00 0.90 1.80 2.70 3.60
DISTANCE ACROSS (m) DISTANCE ACROSS (m)
Upward movement of ground surface

50 50

S6
S6
S1 S4 S9
Phase 1b S1 S4 S9
Phase 1a
S7 S7
40 S2 S5 S10
40 S2 S5 S10 Phase 1b
S3 S8
S3 S8
Average
Average Pile Head Average
30 Soil Heave 30 Soil Heave
20 20
Unloaded Unloaded
10 10
0 0
0.00 0.90 1.80 2.70 3.60 0.00 0.90 1.80 2.70 3.60
DISTANCE ACROSS (m) DISTANCE ACROSS (m)
Conclusion: the pile heads and ground

22
surface moved more or less in unison.
After Phase 1 E-Group test
23
E-Group test — Phases 2 and 3
Phase 2: Head-down Test; Loading the rigid pile cap.
Phase 3 : BD-Test: Repeating Phase 1. Now with the rigid cap.
1,200
Ph. 2.1 Ph. 2.2
Ph. 3.1
1,000
Ph. 3.2
800 Phase 2
LOAD (kN/Pile)
Head-down.
Load applied
to Pile Cap
600 Phase 3
Load in BD
Phase 2
Load in BD
400
200
Load remaining
in BD af ter
Weight Ph. 2.4 unloading
Ph. 2.3
of Cap Pile Cap
0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
24
E-Group test — Phases 1 through 3
Shaft Resistance versus Pile-head Movement
700
SHAFT RESISTANCE (kN)/Pile
600
500 Phase 1a, BD Phase 1b, BD
400
Phase 3, BD
300 SHAFT
200 Phase 2, HD
SHAFT
100
0
Phase 1a Phase 1b
-100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
25
Phase 2, E-Group test
Load-movements of the total load applied to the pile cap, the
average pile-head loads, the shaft resistance between pile head
and BD level, and the average contact load.
1,000
E-GROUP Total Load
EB response (>500 kN)

PHASE 2
800 Average
LOAD per PILE (kN)
Pile Load
600
SHAFT
Resistance
400
Average
Contact Load
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
HEAD MOVEMENT (mm)
26
Phase 2: all piles pushed downward from above the pile cap,
i.e., a head-down test. Because of the rigid pile cap, all pile head
movements were equal—the piles were forced down in unison
1,000
E9
E7
E12 E2 Average
E4 perimeter
LOAD AT PILE HEAD (kN)

800 piles
E13
Average all
E6 E8 piles
600 E3 Average
E14 E11 interior
E5
Sequence of EB piles
Expansion
E10
1st: E8, E2, E4, E12, and E14
2nd: E3, E9, E13, and E7
400 3rd: E11, E10, E5, and E6
E2 E3 E4
E5 E6
E8
200 E7 E9
E10 E11
E12 E13 E14
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Maximum load applied to the Pile Cap: 10.8 MN = 900 kN/pile

Weight of the pile cap, beams, jacks etc.: 0.7 MN = 50 kN/pile
Actual maximum load from cap: 11.5 MN = 950 kN/pile
Maximum total load on the piles: 8.7 MN = 670 kN/pile (3/4 of total load)
The balance rests on the ground: 2.8 MN ==> ≈100 kPa contact stress
The average axial strain change induced by the Phase 2 loading of the cap was about 500 με. Strain
compatibility for this strain (100 kPa ground stress) indicates an E-modulus of about 200 MPa for the
soil, which is a very high value even considering that the sand is compacted and confined.
27
Conclusions
The eight perimeter piles carried the load with the five interior piles not
experiencing resistance to the upward loading.
In both Phases 1 and 2, the interior piles moved considerably more than
the perimeter piles for the same applied load. Phase 2 measurements
showed that the perimeter piled mobilized considerably more shaft
resistance than the interior piles.
The Expander Body provided a considerably enhanced pile-toe

resistance thus, enabling the BDs to push the piles as planned; The
enhanced resistance was a key aspect of the study.
28
Thank you for your attention
29
”Conferencia Mario Terceros Banzer”
The evolution of the Expander Body
concept and future applications
K. R. Massarsch
Geo Risk & Vibration AB, Stockholm, Sweden
Bo “Bosse” Skogberg
19 February 1942 – 26 August 2018
“A person with really exceptional talents and initiative”
In the late 1970s
BO SKOGBERG
invented
the Swellex Rock bolt
SWELLEX
ROCK BOLT
still used world-wide.
A multi-million
business for
Atlas Copco
SWELLEX PATENT
Granted in 1980
In the early 1980s,
first experiments by
BO SKOGBERG
to inflate folded steel tube
EXPANDER BODY PATENT

granted in 1982
In 1988, the Swedish Commission On Pile Research issued:
Guidelines for the design, execution and control of Expander Body
piles.
Before Stages of Expansion Final Shape
Expansion
Results of loading tests were used
to develop a design concept for Soilex anchors and piles
Soilex piles were used for underpinning
and as conventional pile foundations
A close personal relationship developed between Incotec and SOILEX
C-PILES
260 mm
450 mm
800
350 mm 1,15
• Cost-effective production of Expander Body

• Bottom injection system - EBI
• Displacement auger pile (FDP) with Expander Body
Vibrated Expander Body Pile Full Displacement
Auger Pile
Full-scale testing of vibrated
Expander Body pile by Franki
STEEL TUBE PILES
Diameter: 356 mm
Length: 12 and 17 m
EXPANDER BODY PILES
Steel tube pile: 273 mm
EB 510 and EB 810
VIBRATOR MS 25H
Frequency: 0 – 35 Hz
Eccentric moment: 25 kgm
Centrifugal force: 750 kN
SOIL CONDITIONS
• 0 – 8 m: loose to medium
dense sand with organic layers
• 8 – 20 m: medium dense sand
PILE LOADING TESTS

LOAD (kN)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0
Steel tube, 12 m
10
Steel tube, 17 m
20 EB 510, 12 m
EB 810, 12 m
MOVEMENT (mm)
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Depth
Geophone
Measurement of pile penetration speed and vibration

response of ground to optimize Expander Body installation
1. Parameters measured during pile driving
• Vibrator acceleration (g)
• Vibration frequency (Hz)
• Time (min)
• Pile depth (cm)
• Vibration velocity on ground (mm/s)
2. Derived parameters
• Movement amplitude (mm) by integration of g
• Pile penetration speed, v (cm/min)
• Pile vibration cycles, ce/0,2 m
3. Correlation with geotechnical parameters
• Correlation of vibration cycles (ce) with
penetration resistance (qc)
c0.2: vibration cycles for 0,2m 0,2 m
f
ce =
v
f (Hz): vibration frequency
v (cm/min): pile penetration speed
ce (cycles/cm): number of vibration cycles per depth interval.

In granular soils, related to penetration resistance (qc or N)
CONE RESISTANCE, qc (MPa) PENETRATION SPEED, v (cm/min)
0 5 10 15 20 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0 0
2 2
4 4
6 6
INCREASED REDUCED
8 8
CONE PENETRATION
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
RESISTANCE SPEED
10 10
12 12
14 14
16 16
18 18 Penetration speed
has been estimated
20 20
CONE RESISTANCE, qc (MPa) VIBRATION CYCLES, ce (cycl/0,2 m)
0 5 10 15 20 0 50 100 150 200
0 0
5
6
8
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
10 10
12
14
15
16
18
20 20
20
SITE-SPECIFIC CORRELATION
BETWEEN qc AND ce
15
CONE RESISTANCE (MPa)
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
VIBRATION CYCLES, ce (cycl/0,2 m)
• When granular soil deposit is compacted at
the resonance frequency of the vibrator-
pile-soil system, ground vibrations increase -
resulting in enhanced compaction.
• At the same time, pile penetration speed is
reduced due to increased shaft resistance.
• Resonance frequency can be determined by
vibration measurement with geophone at
ground surface.
25
Penetration
VERTICAL VIBRATION VELOCITY , mm/s
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
VIBRATION FREQUENCY, Hz
25
20
VERTICAL VIBRATION VELOCITY , mm/s
15
10
COMPACTION
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
VIBRATION FREQUENCY, Hz
CONE RESISTANCE, qc (MPa) SLEEVE RESISTANCE, fs (kPa)
0 5 10 15 0 50 100 150 200
0 0
5 5
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
10 10
15 15
20 20
SLEEVE RESISTANCE, fs (kPa)
0 100 200 300
0
Before
compaction
After
5 compaction
DEPTH (m)
10
Compaction effect 15 Increase in

has been estimated horizontal stress
due to resonance
20 compaction
• Installation of pile at high frequency (> 30
Hz) gives high production rate
• When foundation depth has been reached,
reduce vibrator frequency to system
resonance frequency (vibrator-pile-soil)
• Resonance compaction of soil around shaft
increases horizontal stresses and shaft
resistance
• At end of driving, lower eccentric moment
(reducing toe movement)
F
GEOPHONE
Reduced
shaft resistance
during high
frequency driving
Low toe resistance of uninflated

Expander Body during vibratory driving
F
GEOPHONE
High shaft
resistance due
to increase in
horizontal stress
High toe resistance

due expansion
pressure
Enlarged pile toe area
of Expander Body
• Use of vibrator with variable eccentric
moment and variable frequency achieves
efficient installation.
• Record vibration response of ground during
vibratory installation to avoid resonance
effects.
• Monitoring of vibratory driving to determine
required installation depth.
• Full documentation of driving process gives
high quality control - similar to Expander Body
inflation phase.
• Smooth and efficient pile installation at high
vibration frequency.
• Verification of required installation depth of
each pile by measurement of pile penetration
speed.
• Increase of shaft resistance in sandy soil by
resonance compaction at end of driving.
• Increase of horizontal stresses at pile toe.
• Verification of toe resistance from EB grouting
data.
Congratulations to Ing.
Mario Terceros Banzer
for your exceptional achievements by
creating a loving family and at the same time
developing a prosperous and inspiring
foundation business!
Lateral Load Behavior of Pile
Groups Based on Full-Scale Tests
Prof. Kyle M. Rollins

Civil & Environmental Engineering Dept.
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah, USA
4° Congreso Internacional De Fundaciones

Profundas De Bolivia
May 23-24, 2019
Ralph Rollins, performed geotechnical
investigations for 5000 structures
I took Soil Mechanics class from my Father

Rachel Rollins was a Civil Engineering student
Rachel took Soil Mechanics class from her Father

Granddaughter, Ella, shows early
interest in soil behavior…
Lateral Load Behavior of Pile
Groups Based on Full-Scale Tests
Prof. Kyle M. Rollins

Civil & Environmental Engineering Dept.
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah, USA
4° Congreso Internacional De Fundaciones

Profundas De Bolivia
May 23-24, 2019
Wind and Waves in Seismic Forces
Hurricanes
Landslides
Landslides andand lateral
lateral
Ship Impact spreading
spreading in Earthquakes
in Earthquakes
Lateral Pile Load Analysis
H
y
p y1
Interval
y
p y2
Non-linear p y3
springs
y y
p 4
y5
y
Pile Groups for Bridges on I-15
Good Group Behavior
Poor Group Behavior
Angry Mob
US Congress
Group IQ = Lowest IQ of anyone in the group

Pile Group Interaction
Leading Row Piles Row 1
Row 2
Trailing Row Piles
Row 3
Direction of
Loading
P-Multiplier Concept (Brown et al, 1988)
Horizontal Force/Length, P
Single Pile Curve
PSP
Group Pile Curve
PGP = PMULT PSP
Horizontal Displacement, y
P-multipliers from Full-Scale Tests
(Situation in 1998)
nd rd
Soil Type Front 2 3
(Reference) Row Row Row
Clean Sand 0.8 0.4 0.3
(Brown et al. 1988)
Stiff Clay 0.7 0.5 0.4
(Brown et al. 1987)
Soft Silty Clay 0.9 0.5 -
(Meimon et al. 1986)
BYU has conducted 11 Full-scale tests over the past 20 years

Influence of Friction Angle on Group Interaction
Elevation View
▪ Passive failure wedge
inclined at 45-/2.
▪ As  increases the
45-/2
45-/2
angle gets smaller and

wedge gets longer.
▪ Longer wedge causes
more group
interaction.
Influence of Friction Angle on Group Interaction
Plan View
▪ Passive failure wedge
fans out at .
▪ As  increases the
angle gets larger and
wedge gets wider.
▪ Wider wedge causes
more group

 interaction.
Influence of Friction Angle on P-multiplier
Less Group
1.0 Interaction
More Group
Interaction
P-Multiplier
Soft
Clay Stiff Looser
Clay Sand Denser
Sand
Drained Friction angle, ’

Limitations of Test Database
▪ Relatively few full-scale pile group load

tests with necessary measurements.
▪ All full-scale tests performed at about 3 pile
diameter spacing.
▪ Nearly all full-scale tests involved 3 rows or
less.
Pile Group Project Objectives
▪ Determine p-multiplier as a function of spacing.
▪ Evaluate p-multipliers for groups with more than
three rows.
▪ Examine effect of cyclic loading on lateral
resistance.
▪ Evaluate available computer models for analyzing
lateral response.
“One good test is worth a
thousand expert opinions.”
Werner Von Braun

Designer of Saturn V Moon Rocket
Healthy Skepticism for Tests
▪ A theory is something nobody believes,
except the person who proposed it.
▪ An experiment (test) is something
everybody believes, except the person who
performed it
--Albert Einstein
Sponsors
▪ Utah DOT - FHWA
▪ Caltrans
▪ Washington DOT
▪ Arizona DOT
▪ New York DOT
▪ Syro Steel
▪ PDCA-Build Inc.
▪ National Science Foundation
Bent Test with Carbon Fiber
Joint Wrapping
BYU - Univ. of Utah Collaboration

Bent Test Layout on I-15 (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Hydraulic Actuator
Reaction Frame
Pile Reaction Footing

(12-0.324 m diam., 11.9 m)
Geopier Aggregate Piers

(10-0.76 m diam., 4.57 m long)
3x4 Pile Group
Test 3x3 Pile Group
(4.4 D Spacing)
Site (3 D Spacing)
Layout
3x5 Pile Group

(3.3 D Spacing)
3x3 Pile Group

(5.6 D Spacing)
Site Characterization
▪ Field Testing ▪ Lab Testing

Cone Penetration Testing Atterberg Limits
(CPT) Grain Size Distribution
Standard Penetration Testing Undrained Strength
(SPT) Testing
Dilatometer Testing (DMT)
Pressuremeter Testing (PMT)
Shear Wave Velocity Testing
WT Clay Generalized
Sand Soil
Clay
Sand
Profile
Clay
Sand
Clay
Field & Lab Test Results
Idealized Soil Profile Tip Resistance (qc), kPa Friction Ratio, % Shear Strength of Clays, kPa Stress Profile, kPa
1.0 0.5 0.0 0 2 4 6
0 5000 10000 15000 0 100 200 300 0 50 100 150 200
0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
Fat CLAY (CH)
1 1.0 1.0 1.0
1.0
Lean CLAY (CL)
with silt (ML) layers
2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Silty SAND (SM)
Lean CLAY (CL)
4
Depth Below Excavated Ground (m)
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Silty SAND (SM)
5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Used in
Analysis
6 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
CPT Su
Sensitive Fat
7 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
CLAY (CH) Vane Shear
Test
8 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Unconfined
Compression
9 9.0 9.0 9.0 Test 9.0
10 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

Lean CLAY (CL)
with silt (ML) and 11 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
silty sand (SM)
layers
12 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
13 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0

Effective Stress
14 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 Pre-Consolidation

Pressure
15 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0

qc (MPa)
0 5 10 15
0
1
Sand
Comparison
2
of
3
4
Sand
CPT
Depth Below Excavated Surface (m)
5
Sand
Soundings
6
9 Pile Group (0.324 m)
7 12 Pile Group (0.324 m)
8 15 Pile Group (0.324 m)
9 Pile Group (0.6 m)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Single Pile Load Tests
324 mm OD Steel Pipe Pile 600 mm OD Steel Pipe Pile
Single Pile Test Procedure
▪ Test performed in incremental fashion with
initial 5 min hold.
▪ 15 cycles at each increment to the same
deflection.
▪ Load applied in one direction only.
Full-Load Deflection Curve
250
200
Load (kN)
150
100
50
0
0 25 50 75 100
Deflection (mm)
Load-Deflection (324 mm Single Pile)
250
200
15-20%
150
Load (kN)
Load
65% Continuous
100 15th Cycle
Curves
50 1st Cycle
15th Cycle
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Deflection (mm)
Stiffness Degradation vs Load Cycle
1
0.9
Stiffness (K/Ki)
0.8
0.7
12.7 mm 19.05 mm 25.4 mm
38.1 mm 50.8 mm 63.5 mm
0.6 76.2 mm
0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of Cycles
PILE GROUP LOAD TESTS
3x3 Pile Group at 5.6 Diameter Spacing
Tie-Rod
Load Cells
Existing Pile Load

Cells
Cap
Two 500 Ton

Jacks
9 Pile Group at 5.6 D Spacing
Pinned
Connection
LVDT Tie-Rod
Load Cell
3x5 Pile Group at 3.3 D Spacing
Crack Patterns During Lateral Load
1.42 m 1.02 m 0.61m

3 6 9
1.22 m 0.76 m 0.64 m

EXISTING 2 5 8
PILE CAP
Direction of
Loading 0.66 m 0.66 m
1 4 7
1.22 m*
LOAD DIRECTION
N * depth of gap
Stiffness Reduction with Cycling
1.00
Single Pile
0.95 9 Pile Group
12 Pile Group
15 Pile Group
0.90
K/Ki
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0 5 10 15
Number of Cycles
Load Distribution in 3x4 Pile Group
Row 1 Row 3
160 120
140 100
120
80
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
100
80 60
60
40
40 Left Left
Middle 20 Middle
20
Right Right
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Average Group Deflection (mm) Average Group Deflection (mm)
Row 2 Row 4
140 120
120 100
100
80
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
80
60
60
40
40 Left Left
20 Middle 20 Middle
Right Right
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Average Group Deflection (mm) Average Group Deflection (mm)
3x3 Pile Group at 5.6 Dia. Spacing
250
200
Avg. Pile Load (kN)
150
100
Single
Row 1
50
Row 2
Row 3
0
0 20 40 60 80
Avg. Group Deflection (mm)
3x4 Pile Group at 4.4 D Spacing
200
150
Avg. Pile Load (kN)
100 Single
Row 1
Row 2
50 Row 3
Row 4
0
0 20 40 60 80
3x5 Pile Group at 3.3D Spacing
250
Single
Row 1
200
Avg. Pile Load (kN)
Row 2
Row 3
150 Row 4
Row 5
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
3x3 Pile Group at 3 D Spacing
500
400
Avg. Pile Load (kN)
300
200
Single
Row 1
100 Row 2
Row 3
0
0 20 40 60
Influence of Cycling on Row Loads
125
Previous cyclic deflection
100 Row 1
Avg. Load in Row (kN))
Row 2
75
Row 3
Row 4
50
25
0
0 10 20 30 40
Average Group Deflection (mm)
Bending Moment vs. Depth
Bending Moment (kN-m) Bending Moment (kN-m)
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-1 -1
0 0
1 1

2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
50.8 mm
6 1st cycle 50.8 mm 6 Single
Single Row 1
7 7
Row 1 Row 2
Row 2 Row 3
8 8
Row 3 Row 4
9 9 Row 5
5.65D Spacing 3.3D Spacing

10 10
3x3 Pile Group at 5.65D Spacing
350
300 Front
Middle
Max. Moment (kN-m)
250 Back
Single Pile
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200
Avg. Load per Pile in Row (kN)
3x3 Pile Group at 3 D Spacing
900
800
700
Max. Moment (kN-m)
600
500
400
Front
300 Middle
200 Back
Single Pile
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Avg. Pile Load in Row (kN)
Conclusions from Load Tests
▪ Load capacity dependent on row position.
▪ Group effects decrease as pile spacing increases.
▪ Behavior of 3rd, 4th and 5th row piles very similar
▪ For a given deflection, group effects decrease
maximum bending moment, due to reduced soil
resistance.
▪ Repeated cyclic loading only led to a 15-20%
reduction in capacity at the peak load
COMPUTER ANALYSIS
Undrained Strength, su (kPa)
0 100 200 300

0.0
STIFF CLAY su= 70 kPa  50= 0.005
k= 136 N/cm3
1.07 m Water Table
1.0
1.34 m
1.65 m SAND  = 36O k =61 N/cm3
su= 105 kPa  50= 0.005 2.0

STIFF CLAY 3
k= 271 N/cm
3.02 m
3.0
3.48 m SAND  = 36O k=61 N/cm3
STIFF CLAY su= 105 kPa  50= 0.005
Depth below excavated surface (m)

k=271.43 N/cm 3
4.09 m 4.0
SILTY SAND  = 38O k=61.07 N/cm3

5.15 m
5.0 Vane Shear Tests
Unconfined Comp. Tests
6.0 Avg CPT strength
Strength Used in Analysis

7.0
SOFT CLAY su= 35 kPa  50= 0.01
k= 27 N/cm3
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
Computed & Measured Load vs Deflection
(324 mm Single Pile)
250
200
Load (kN)
150
100
LPILE
50 FLPIER
Measured
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Deflection (mm)
Computed & Measured Moment vs Load
(324 mm Single Pile)
400
Maximum Moment (kN-m)
350
300
250
200
150
Measured
100 Florida Pier
LPILE
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Average Load (kN)
Computed & Measured Moment vs. Depth
Bending Moment (kN-m)
Bending Moment (kN-m)
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
-100 0 100 200 300 400 0
0
1
1
2
2

3
3 4
4 5
5 6
Meas.- 6.35 mm
7
6 LPILE- 6.35 mm 133 kN
Meas.- 25.40 mm 240 kN

8
300 kN
7 LPILE- 25.40 mm
414 kN
Meas.- 50.8 mm 9
8 LPILE- 50.8 mm
10
Meas.- 88.90 mm
9
LPILE- 88.90 mm 11
10 12
P-multiplier vs Spacing for Stiff Clay
(a) FIrst Row P-Multipliers
(c) Third & Higher Row P-Multipliers
1.2
1.2
Row 1 Rows 3
1.0
1.0
1 Rollins et al. (2006b) & Higher 1
P-Multiplier
0.8
P-Multiplier
0.8
0.6 Rollins et al. (2006b)
0.6
0.4 Stiff Clay
0.4
Stiff Clay
0.2
0.2
0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.0
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam.
(b) Second Row P-Multipliers
First (Lead) Row Piles: Pm= 0.26ln(S/D) + 0.5 ≤ 1.0
1.2 Second Row Piles: Pm = 0.52ln(S/D) ≤ 1.0
Row 2 Third or Higher Row Piles: Pm = 0.60ln(S/D) - 0.25 ≤ 1.0
1.0
1
P-Multiplier
0.8
0.6
Rollins et al. (2006b)
Row 1: Pm = 0.26ln(S/D) + 0.5 ≤ 1
Row 2: Pm = 0.52ln(S/D) ≤ 1
0.4 Stiff Clay
Row 3 & up: Pm = 0.60ln(S/D) – 0.25 ≤ 1
0.2
0.0
2 3 4 5 6
7 8
Rollins et al. Oct 2006, ASCE JGGE
P-multiplier Curves vs. Spacing
Rollins et al. 2006, ASCE JGGE
1.2
1.0
m
P-Multiplier, P
0.8 Row 1
0.6 Row 2
Row 3 &
0.4
higher 1st Row Piles
2nd Row Piles
0.2 AASHTO 3rd or Higher Row Piles
2000
AASHTO
0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Measured & Computed Load-Deflection
2000
1800
5 Row Group
1600 (3.3 Diameter Spacing)
1400
Total Load (kN)
1200
1000 1600
800
1400 4 Row Group
600 (4.4 Diameter Spacing)
1200
Total Group Load (kN)
400 Measured
200 1000 GROUP
0
800
0 20 40 60 80 100
600 Avg. Group Deflection (mm) 1600
1400 3 Row Group
400 Measured
(5.6 Diameter Spacing)
Total Group Load (kN)
1200 GROUP
200
1000
0
0 10 800
20 30 40 50
Avg. Group
600 Deflection (mm)
400 Measured
GROUP
200
0
0 20 40 60 80
Comparison of Measured & Computed Behavior
Front Row
1600
1400
1200
Load (kN)
1000
800
600
400
Measured
200
Group
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Deflection (mm)
Comparison of Measured & Computed Behavior
Back Row
1600
1400
1200
Load (kN)
1000
800
600
400 Measured
200 Group
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Deflection (mm)
Measured & Computed Load-Deflection
(9 Pile Group-60 cm Pile)
500
450
400
Avg. pile load per row (kN)
350
300
250
200
single pile
150 Front
Middle
100 Back
GROUP-Front
50 GROUP-Middle
GROUP-Back
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Measured & Computed Moment vs. Depth
(3x5 Pile Group)
Bending Moment (kN-m) Bending Moment (kN-m) Bending Moment (kN-m) Bending Moment (kN-m)
-100 0 100 200 300 -100 0 100 200 300 -100 0 100 200 300 -100 0 100 200 300 -100
-2 -2 -2 -2
0 0 0 0
2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4
6 6 6 6
8 Measured--Row 1 8 Measured--Row 2 8 Measured--Row 3 8 Measured--Row 4

GROUP--Row 1 GROUP--Row 2 GROUP--Row 3 GROUP--Row 4
10 10 10 10
12 12 12 12
Conclusions from Computer Analysis
▪ Current computer models for clay provide
reasonable estimates of single pile response for
virgin loading.
▪ P-multipliers increase as spacing increases and can
be grouped for leading rows and trailing rows.
▪ P-mulitipliers for 0.6 m and 0.32 m piles were
about the same at similar spacing.
▪ With appropriate P-multipliers, pile group response
can be modeled with reasonable accuracy (< 20%
error).
Salt Lake City Intl. Airport
Test Site
North
Funding from NSF

9 Pile Group at
Test 5.6 D Spacing
Site
Layout
1.2 m Drilled
Shafts
15 Pile Group at
3.9 D Spacing
9 Pile Group at
2.8 D Spacing
Plan View of 15 Pile Group Test
Profile View of 15 Pile Group Test
GROUND SURFACE
Soil Profile
Shear Strength (kPa)
Soil Profile 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
Silt and Clay

Soil
1 Layers
2
(ML, CL) Profile and
3
Properties
Depth Below Ground (m)
Sand
Med. Dense
Φ=38°
4 Sand (SP)
5
Silt and Clay
Layers (ML,
6 CL, CH)
7 Silty Sand Silty Sand

(SM) Φ=33°
8 PMT
Torvane
Gray Silt VST
9
(ML) UU
Analysis
10
How soft is the clay?
Track-hoe Penetration Test (TPT)
P-multiplier vs Spacing for Clay
(a) FIrst Row P-Multipliers (c) Third & Higher Row P-Multipliers
1.2 1.2
Row 1 Rows 3
1.0 1.0
1 Rollins et al. (2006b) & Higher 1
P-Multiplier
0.8
P-Multiplier
0.8
0.6 Rollins et al. (2006b)

0.6
Soft Clay
0.4 Soft Clay
0.4
Stiff Clay
Stiff Clay
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(b) Second Row P-Multipliers
1.2 First (Lead) Row Piles: Pm= 0.26ln(S/D) + 0.5 ≤ 1.0
Second Row Piles: Pm = 0.52ln(S/D) ≤ 1.0
1.0
Row 2 Third or Higher Row Piles: Pm = 0.60ln(S/D) - 0.25 ≤ 1.0
1
P-Multiplier
0.8
Rollins et al. (2006b)
0.6
Row 1: Pm = 0.26ln(S/D) + 0.5 ≤ 1
Soft Clay Row 2: Pm = 0.52ln(S/D) ≤ 1
0.4
Stiff Clay Row 3 & up: Pm = 0.60ln(S/D) – 0.25 ≤ 1
0.2
0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam. Rollins et al. Oct 2006, ASCE JGGE
Lateral Statnamic Load Testing
0 to 1600 kN in 0.2 seconds

Large Displacement, High Velocity
Schematic of Lateral Statnamic Test
Combustion
Load Piston Chamber
Statnamic
Test Sled
Foundation
Statnamic Test Firing Videos
Next time your friends ask…
Yes,
Foundation Design Actually
is Rocket Science
Static vs Dynamic Response
1800
1600 15th Static Cycle
Dynamic Cycle
1400
1200
Load (kN)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-20 0 20 40 60 80
Deflection (mm)
Unloading Point Method Model-Axial Loads
Stanamic Force, (Fstn)
Pile Mass, M
(Fa)
Fstn = Fu + Fv + Fa
Sping, K Dashpot, C or
(Fu) (Fv)
Fu = Fstn - Fv - Fa
Interpreted Static versus Measured Static Resistance
2000
Measured Dynamic Test
1500 Computed Static

Force (kN)
1000 Measured Static Test
500
0
Damping Ratios of 30 to 40%
-500
0 20 40 60 80 100
Deflection (mm)
Pile Group Load Tests in Sand
4x4 Group at 3D,

3x3 Group at 3D (Brown et al, 1988) (Ruesta & Townsend, 1997)
3x5 Group at 3.9D Spacing 3x3 Group at 3.3D Spacing
3x3 Group at 5.65D Spacing 2x2 Group at 3.3D Spacing
Treasure Island Naval Station
San Francisco
Test Site
Treasure Island Naval Station
CPT Cone Resistance, q c1 SPT Blow Count, N1(60) Relative Density, Dr
Interpreted
(MPa) (Blows/300 mm) (%)
Friction Angle, 
Soil Profile 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 10 20 30 0 20 40 60 80 100 25 30 35 40 45
0
Fine Sand
w/ Shells
1
(SP)
2
Depth Below Excavated Surface (m)
Interbedded
3
Fine Sand
and
4 Silty Sand
(SP-SM)
6 Fine Silty
Sand
(SM)
7
8
Gray Silty
Clay (CL) Mean
API Phi CPT
Mean-SD From CPT
9 Mean+SD From SPT API Phi SPT
From PMT Bolton Phi
Sand (SP)
10
Load-Displacement - 3x3 Pile Group (3.3D)
100
Single Pile (b)
Measured Front Row
Measured Middle Row
80
Measured Back Row
Computed
Avg. Load (kN)
Pm=0.8
60
Computed
Pm=0.4
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Deflection (mm)
Load-Displacement - 3x5 Pile Group (3.9D)
250
Single Pile
200 Row 1
Average Pile Load in Row (kN)
Row 2
Row 3
150 Row 4
Row 5
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Average Group Deflection (mm)
P-Multipliers vs Spacing for Sand
1.2 1.2
(c) Third Row
1.0 1.0
P-Multiplier, Pm
P-Multiplier, Pm
0.8 0.8
Full-Scale Test
0.6 0.6 Full-Scale Test
Centrifuge Test
0.4 Centrifuge Test
0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam. Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam.
1.2 1.2
(b) Second Row (d) Fourth Row or Higher
1.0 P-Multiplier, Pm 1.0
P-Multiplier, Pm
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
Full-Scale Test
0.4 0.4 Full-Scale
Centrifuge Test
Centrifuge Test
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam. Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam.
Explanation of Variability in Sand
▪ Natural variability of sand relative to clay
▪ Sand more influenced by installation
procedure than clays
▪ Different installation procedures
Jetting
Driven, Closed-end and Open-ended
Come visitaround
Sand Compacted us inpreviously
Utah! driven piles
Natural Arches An Engineer Can Appreciate
Comparison of P-Multipliers for Sand and Clay
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
P-Multiplier, Pm
0.8
P-Multiplier, Pm
0.8
0.6
0.6
Row 1
0.4
1st Row Piles 0.4 Row 2
0.2 2nd Row Piles Row 3

0.2 Row 4
3rd or Higher Row Piles
0.0
0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
P-Multipliers for Clay P-Multipliers for Sand

Influence of Friction Angle on P-multiplier
Less Group
1.0 Interaction
More Group
Interaction
P-Multiplier
Soft
Clay Stiff Looser
Clay Sand Denser
Sand
Drained Friction angle, ’

Lateral Load Tests in Liquefied Sand
High-Speed
3x3 Pile Group Hydraulic Ram
1 m Drilled Shaft
Liquefied Sand
5m
8m
Non-Liquefied
Sand
Schematic Diagram of Load Test
0.9 m Cast-in Steel Shell 324 mm
(CISS) Pile Driven Piles
2200 kN Actuator
3.3 D
Sub-Frame
Load Frame
9 Pile Group vs 0.9 m CISS Pile
9 Pile Group Blast Test Video
Post-Liquefaction Pile Response
100
80
Single Pile Resistance due
Average Pile Load (kN)
60 to Soil Dilation
40 Resistance due
to Pile alone
20
-20 P-y curves for Liquefied Sand

(ASCE JGGE, Jan 2005)
-40 Built into LPILE/GROUP
-60
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Displacement (mm)
Post-Liquefaction Group Effects
(10th 200 mm Cycle)
80
100
60 Lead Row-Group
80
Single Pile
Middle Row-Group
(kN)
40 Lead Row-Group
60
(kN)
Middle
Trail Row-Group
Row-Group
Load
Load
40
20 Trail Row-Group
Pile
Pile
20
0
Average
Average
0
-20
-20
-40
-40
-60
-60
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
Overall Conclusions
▪ Group interaction effects become less significant as
soil strength decreases.
▪ Separate p-multiplier vs. pile spacing curves
necessary for piles in sand and in clay
▪ Special attention necessary for soil properties
within depth of 5 to 10 pile diameters
▪ Single pile lateral loading tests are very useful for
calibrating model because of low test cost.
Come visit us in Utah!
Natural Arches An Engineer Can Appreciate
Questions?
Kyle Rollins, rollinsk@byu.edu

Rollins Pile Group References
▪ Rollins, K.M., Olsen, R.J., Egbert, J.J., Jensen, D.H., Olsen, K.G.,
and Garrett, B.H. (2006). “Pile Spacing Effects on Lateral Pile
Group Behavior: Load Tests.” J. Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 10, October, p.
1262-1271.
▪ Rollins, K.M., Olsen, K.G., Jensen, D.H, Garrett, B.H., Olsen, R.J.,
and Egbert, J.J. (2006). “Pile Spacing Effects on Lateral Pile Group
Behavior: Analysis.” J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engrg.,
ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 10, October, p. 1272-1283.
▪ Rollins, K.M., Lane, J.D., and Gerber, T.M. (2005). “Measured and
Computed Lateral Response of a Pile Group in Sand.” J.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engrg, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 1
Jan., p. 103-114.
▪ Rollins, K.M., Gerber, T.M., Lane, J.D. and Ashford. S.A. (2005).
“Lateral Resistance of a Full-Scale Pile Group in Liquefied Sand.”
J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 131,
No. 1, p. 115-125.
▪ Rollins, K.M., Snyder, J.L. and Broderick, R.D. (2005). “Static and
Dynamic Lateral Response of a 15 Pile Group.” Procs. 16th Intl.
Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotech. Engineering, Millpress,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Vol. 4, p. 2035-2040.
The Evolution of Deep Foundations
for Transportation Projects
- from Minor to Major
Tony O’Brien
Global Practice Leader - Geotechnics
April 2019
anthony.obrien@mottmac.com
Evolution of piling requirements
• Conventional pile
groups for bridge
foundations
• Over site
developments (OSDs)
above underground
metro stations
Industry trends
Buildings Basements and piles Crossrail Lee Tunnel and Tideway Shaft diameters
Bigger, taller larger and deeper deeper deeper wider
Larger, – hi rise tower – 50 to 80MN O Cells in – into – in Chalk – 30m becoming

boom in Farringdon and Lambeth common in London
Deeper London Canary Wharf in chalk Group (HS2/Tideway) and up
to 60m (Tideway)
Closer Tideway Crossrail, NLE, VSU, HS2 etc Major underpinning works Development of
(over, to – piling in close – catalyst for urbanisation. All – domestic basements in – piling methods, load
the side vicinity of have oversite development west London; planning tests and I&M
sewers load requirements controls limit size of these – development of new
and ‘iceberg basements’ finite element methods,
under) 2D + 3D
Current state of industry practice
• Fragmentation – “silo working”; consultants/specialists and

main contractors
• Commercial risks – “fair” procurement?
• Industry and code focus on single pile geo ULS capacity
• Hence, limited innovation
BUT
• Health/safety and buildability concerns
• Foundation construction – critical path for whole project

Industry drivers
• Increasing urbanisation -
50% increase in urban
population, by 2050
• Digital economy and

Digital design
• Availability of specialist
skills reducing
Industry drivers
• “Green” politics (?)
• Climate change
• Need for low carbon, sustainable

construction
• Locally – procurement
encourages low carbon solutions
• Significant environmental
constraints
Industry drivers
In UK, Government strategy is aiming for:
• 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
• 33% reduction in costs
• 50% reduction in time for project delivery
• embracing Digital technology

Outline of lecture
1. Over-view of Pile Group design
2. Pile Group design – case history
3. Practitioner’s view of Piled-Raft design – a simple

conceptual framework
4. Deep Foundations for OSD’s (Over Site Developments,

above underground Metro Stations)
5. Innovation – combining Deep Ground improvement with

Piles, a Singapore case history
Pile group design
• Contractor often responsible
• Designer often responsible
• Delivery of state-of-art solutions –

need single party responsibility
Pile group design – vertical loading
• Ground-structure interaction leads to non-

uniform distribution of structural loads on
piles across a pile group
• Codes offer limited guidance
• Key issue is clear definition of - “STIFF”

(versus flexible) pile cap, hence consider
OVERALL geo ULS capacity of the pile
group (not of an individual pile)
• Then, can focus on pile group deformation

and ensuring adequate structural strength
and stiffness Rigid pile cap,
non-uniform axial forces
• Second key issue – recognition that

the relevant ground modulus (for C
linear elastic solutions) is SMALL Contours of
STRAIN STIFFNESS, eg Go! deviatoric strain
around a pile 30m
• Awareness amongst practitioners long when factor
of safety = 2.0
remains limited on the relevance of
Go for practical design
Theoretical predictions vs. field observations
• Current practice often uses commercial

software:
− Linear elastic ground behaviour
− Rigid pile cap
− Zone immediately adjacent to pile, either
ignored or characterised by a single
interface
• Linear elastic analyses over-predict

axial loads in corner piles
• Over-predictions become worse as pile
group size increases
• Predictions improved if non-linear
stress-strain models used
Pile group design –
horizontal/moment loading
Parameter selection
• Predicted bending moments are highly

sensitive to the selected shear
modulus profile
• Non-linear stiffness characteristics

(both of ground and piles) more
important for pile groups subject to
large horizontal loads
Pile group design – case history
Crewe Green Link Road - Underbridge substructure
• A “typical” pile group design for a rail

bridge, over new highway
• BUT – piles had to be installed

adjacent to live railway
• Bridge deck – placed during track

possession
• Time for foundation construction on

critical path
Loads - large horizontal and moment loads
F
Mx
N
Fb
My
Sr
N Vertical load 7.0 MN

F Lateral load 6.2 MN
Mx Bridge deck moment 15.2 MN.m
My Bridge deck moment 0.9 MN.m
Fb Braking forces 1.7 MN
Original GI - Ground conditions
Made Ground
• Alluvial deposits Upper Sand

SPT ‘N’ → 5 – 15, av. 10
loose – med dense
over ~2.5
Glacial deposits
Upper Clay Firm (Su ~ 40 to 50)
(outwash deposits moderately
over-consolidated, interbedded ~5.5
sand/clay sequence)
Lower Sand SPT ‘N’ → 10 – 25, av. 15
• Groundwater table – close to med dense
ground surface
~9.5
• CFA piles – preferred pile type, Lower Clay Soft - stiff (Su ~ 30 to 70)
depth and reinforcement (?)
Small strain shear modulus, Go - empirical correlations
Go MN/m2
0 50 100 150 200 250
UUT 300 and Muladic (MAX)
+ PI Larsen Estimated Go scatter using
0 available GI and various
UUT + PI Larsen and Muladic (MIN)
literature correlations
depth below ground level (m)
CPT Su + PI Larsen and Muladic (max)

5
CPT Su + PI Larsen and Muladic (min)
OCR + Po' Atkinson (MAX)

Design line – moderate
10 increase with depth
OCR + Po' Atkinson (MIN)
Po' Seed and Idris (MAX)

15
Po' Seed and Idris (MIN)
SPT Clayton (MAX)

20
SPT Clayton (MIN)
CPT Rix and Stokoe

25
Additional GI – Reinterpretation of Ground Conditions
Made Ground
Upper Sand (silty) Med dense to dense

qc → 5-15 MPa
• CPT/Piezocone ~2.5
• pronounced macro-fabric Upper Clay

Firm, Su ~40 to 60
qc → 0.5-1.0 MPa
• at depth, Silt rather than Clay
~5.5
Med dense to dense
Lower Sand (silty)
qc → 6-18 MPa
~9.5
Su ~60 to 80
Interbedded qc → 1.2-1.8 MPa
Clay + Sand PI → 15-35%
~12.5
Lower Clay (laminated)
~18.0
Su ~80 to 100+
Silt qc >2 MPa
Additional GI - Reinterpretation of Ground Conditions
Field measurements of G0 Go MN/m2
0 100 200 300
0
Go profile
•
depth below ground level (m)

Seismic Cone Siesmic cone
(scpt1)
• Go profile, limited scatter 5 Go profile
Seismic cone
• significant increase in Go at depth >18m (scpt1) LR
10 Go profile
siesmic cone
(scpt2)
Go profile
15 siesmic cone
(scpt2) LR
Bender
20 element
25
Preliminary pile load tests
• 900mm dia CFA pile, 23m deep

Verify with pile tests
• Test piles - similar initial stiffness, different 4.0

ULS (3.9 vs 5.3MN) 3.5
3.0
• Higher capacity than original estimate, 2.5
drained end-bearing (?)
Force (MN)
2.0 CEMSET best
estimate
1.5
• Also, shaft effective stress rather than total 1.0
Test pile 1
stress - better match with observed response Test pile 2
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)
Test pile 1 – Repute comparison
4.0
3.5
• Fleming’s hyperbolic model used to
3.0
simulate non-linear load-displacement
behaviour of single pile 2.5
Force (MN)
2.0
P tot inc el sh
• Repute’s non-linear hyperbolic model
1.5
calibrated against test pile data TP1
1.0
0.5 Repute 2 calibrated
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement (mm)
Pile Group Deformation and ULS Capacity
Fixed head (pile to pile

• Calibrated non-linear model then used cap rotational stiffness)
to simulate group behaviour
• Field Go profile key input parameter,

for overall group response
Pile group, fixed head, under lateral

and moment load
Pile Group – load-displacement under vertical loading
• Additional GI – revised Go profile indicated 8

much stiffer overall response 7
6 Original
5 model
•
Load (MN)
Test piles and effective stress analysis 4
also indicated higher capacity in 3
Revised
interbedded/laminated sequence 2 model
1
0
• Pile lengths reduced, overall 25% saving 0 2 4 6 8
Displacement (mm)
• Critically reduced time required for piling!

ULS Capacity – independent Checker approvals.
• Initial problem – getting Mobilised loads and factored resistances

approval from
independent Checker
• Unhappy with some piles

not having “code” FoS
• Following discussions –
approvals were eventually
gained (otherwise CFA railway
not viable)
> Factored capacity
• Pile cap/sub-structure – Mobilised EC7 factored 70-100 %
very stiff, can redistribute capacity of individual piles 40- 70 %
loads across group < 40 %
Deformation at WL
Estimation Monitoring
west east
6-7 mm 6-7 mm 2-3 mm 4-5 mm
Convergence measured at bearing

Conclusion
6
Group capacity and deformation is 5
cumulative 4
key; individual pile capacity versus transverse 3
code not the significant issue. displacement
(mm) 2
1
Guidance for HS2 – definition of a 0
-1
“stiff” pile cap, hence group capacity -2
can be used.
Piled-raft design
• Piled-raft behaviour is complex
• Practitioners need a simple

conceptual framework – “get the
concept right”
• ICE MOGE (O’Brien, Burland,

Chapman, 2012) – useful to consider
2 types of piled-raft
• “Raft-enhanced pile group” – extra

capacity from raft allows fewer piles
• “Pile-enhanced raft” – piles used to

reduce peaks of stress in raft, reduce
differential settlement
Piled-raft design
Simple conceptual framework
• A “raft-enhanced pile group” – relatively stiff,

but piles operating more efficiently. Relative
stiffness between piles and raft is key
• A “pile-enhanced raft” – overall stiffness much

lower, key is control of differential settlement,
pile geo ULS capacity fully mobilised (pile
response must be ductile)
• For “simple” design –avoid intermediate zone,

for different load cases will be highly sensitive
to assumed non-linear stress-strain
characteristics
Piled-raft design
Raft-enhanced pile groups, preliminary design
• Load sharing at working loads –

empirical relationships (eg Mandolini
et al, 2005)
• Elastic theory (eg Randolph, 1994),

pile-raft interaction factors only vary
across a small range
Piled-raft design
Raft-enhanced pile group, preliminary design
• Care required in assessing plausible upper and

lower bound stiffness of raft and pile group
• Raft stiffness can often be under-predicted using

routine methods
• Although assumed to be “pseudo-elastic”,

non-linear stiffness should be considered in kr
assessing appropriate secant stiffness moduli
• Number of piles can often be reduced to a half to

two-thirds of conventionally designed pile groups
Piled-raft design
Preliminary design
• Poulos, 2001 – simplified tri-linear

load-settlement curve, useful for
preliminary design
• A raft-enhanced pile group should

operate within initial stiff zone (ie
applied loads < P1)
• A pile-enhanced raft should operate

in second “softer” zone (applied
loads > P3)
• For plausible range of design loads

should avoid traversing across P1
Piled-raft design
Preliminary design
• Katzenbach et al, 1998: helpful insights

into behaviour - small number of long
piles similar settlement as much larger
number of short piles
• Viggiani, 1998: back analysis of

Stonebridge Park – indicated a third of
the piles (117 vs 350), only 5 to 10mm
increase in settlement; with raft
carrying about 25% of load
OSD Deep foundations
Compensated piled-raft design
• Presence and magnitude of a

“buoyant” force (raft is below water
table) – significant effect on overall
behaviour and load sharing
• Pile behaviour and load distribution

– modified by excavation and pile
installation sequence
• Typically piles take a smaller

proportion of overall load
OSD Deep foundations
Effective stress changes, deep foundation capacity changes
Average shaft friction plotted with Average shaft friction plotted with
average vertical effective stress average horizontal effective stress
For clays the use of total stress methods is inappropriate

Non-linear stress-strain model
Bespoke A* Model
Revised model
• Integration of insitu and lab data
• Research in Japan and UK
• Combine field Go (Geophysics)

and lab decay curve
Estimating an In-Situ Non-Linear Stress-Strain Curve; A* Model
Revised A* model stiffness decay curve Benefits
• Integration of insitu and lab data • Multiple sources of data – improve reliability
• Combine field Go (Geophysics) and lab decay curve • Routine data can be integrated with
advanced data
Source
G G
Input Empirical or Site specific
In situ 4 parameters needed In situ
theoretical Sitemeasurements
specific
Go Go
In situ Go, εo, εf , shear strength Gvh and G hh from down-hole
Insitu
andgeophysics
cross -hole
Laboratory Bender element respectively
tests (lab)
G0 G0 ~ f(PI, OCR, p 0’) geophysics
(field). column (lab)
Resonant
Bender element tests (lab).
Directly measurable,
Tangent G
Tangent G
physically meaningful, S u ~ f(c’, Φ’, Af) Triaxial tests
Triaxial (lab)
tests (lab).
parameters! Su
SBP,SBP, SPT,CPT
SPT, CPT (field).
(field)
εf Technical literature Triaxial

Triaxial tests
tests (lab).
(lab)
ε0 Technical literature
εo Shear strain
εf Shear strain
Application for Deep Foundations
Example for stiff clays
• Variation Su with depth

• Variation of Failure Strain with depth
Failure strain (%)
Proposed A* framework
Go (field)
Lambeth Group Advanced triaxial test
Small strain stiffness (lab)
• Complex interbedded unit Advanced triaxial

test at 32mbgl
• new framework enabled realistic
stiffness decay curve to be derived
Case history, London
Compensated piled-raft for Metro Station and OSD
• Piled-raft - raft 22m bgl
• Stiff clay at raft level
• Deep foundations – deep

diaphragm walls, discrete piles
and raft
• Also deep retaining wall for

Metro station “box”
• Metro tunnels connect into box

For approximate load comparison, consider GL18-20 as typical
OSD Deep foundations, detailed design
Calibration of numerical modelling
Prior to detailed design –

calibration of non-linear model
against case history data.
Reliable prediction of load-

sharing and settlement?
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Calibration
-0.005 of numerical modelling Predictions Measured
Uz, mm
Centre
Centre Centre
Edge
Edge Edge
-0.01
• Numerical model predictions – realistic 0.01
compared with observations

-0.015 0.005
• Main uncertainty is the time dependent

0
change
-0.02 in groundwater pressure following 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
bulk excavation
-0.005
Uz, mm
-0.025
• Hence, impact on buoyancy Time
force and
(months)
-0.01
effective stress
-0.015
• Mass permeability of ground?
-0.02
• Sensitivity studies to ensure robust design
-0.025
Time (months)
Plaxis 3D model
• Representative 12m
section through Metro box
• D-walls – plate elements
• Piles/barrettes –
embedded pile elements
• Coupled effective stress

analysis
Foundation load share
70%
60%
Load sharing between D-
walls/piles and raft varies during
50%
loading history, sensitive to
assumed construction scenario.
Load/Total Load
40%
DFE %
D-walls/piles – need to act as Raft %
Remaining %
tension elements if OSD 30%
construction delayed!
20%
For illustrated scenario, raft load

share increases once buoyancy 10%
force develops.
0%
Install B1 & B2 Slabs Activate Station Loads Activate OSD Consolidate
OSD Deep foundations, detailed design OSD Load Increment
Settlement and differential settlement 0.01
0
60 65 70 75 80 85
-0.01
• One construction scenario is illustrated,
PUz (m)
-0.02
“early OSD construction”
-0.03
Station Load Increment

• Piles 62m long (toe at 39m OD) – 1 in 0.01
-0.04
1700 differential 0
60 65 70 75
-0.05
80 85
-0.01 Raft
Raft
Piled raft, toe at 39m

Piled Raft
PUz (m)
• Piles 41m long (toe at 60m OD) – 1 in -0.02
Toe @ 60m raft, toe at 60m
Piled
900 differential -0.03
Total
-0.04
0.01
-0.05
• Tensile capacity of deep foundations – 0
60 65 70 75 80 85
OK if OSD delayed -0.01
Uz (m)
-0.02
• Shorter piles acceptable – buildability,
-0.03
health/safety, programme benefits
-0.04
-0.05
OSD Deep foundations – very soft clay
Combining deep ground improvement with piling – Singapore
014
010
015 016
011 012 013
009
–Phase II (1970-1971) Phase I (1966-1970)
008
007
006 Phase VII (1979-1985)
005
004
003
001 002
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
N
Conventional design – deep ground improvement and piles
First Reserve
Grout block formed by Ground Level
deep soil mixing (DSM) – 6m 6m
minimise tunnel
settlement as soft clay 2m Grout Block
3m 3m 3m 3m
consolidates. Properties:
cu = 800kPa
Future allowance for OSD Eu = 280MPa
within “first reserve” –
deep piles.
Deep piles penetrate

through DSM and below
“old alluvium”. Old Alluvium Minimum 1m penetration into
OLD ALLUVIUM
Innovative alternative – “trouser leg” DSM geometry
2m above tunnel crown

3m below tunnel invert
Fill
UMC
~33.7% grout block F2
volume reduction 6m 6m 6m LMC
F2
O(C)
Grout Block O(B)
Eu= 280Mpa
cu= 800kPa
O(A)
Ground improvement trial and preliminary pile load test
• DSM block formed, 40m deep
• DSM properties checked
• Pile load test – 1.8m dia pile, 24m long,

8m into DSM
• Pile WL = 16.8 MN
• Load test to 41MN

Plaxis 3D model
• Back analysis of pile load test
• Main focus is behaviour at WL and up

to 1.5 times WL
• Simple Mohr-Coulomb model used for

preliminary back-analysis
Pile load vs Settlement curve (DSM - Eu = 280MPa, Cu = 800kPa, R-inter = 0.75)
Based on initial assumed properties for

DSM and pile/DSM interface – predicted
settlement >> test pile settlement (25%
and 33% over-estimate at WL and 1.5WL).
Increasing DSM Eu to 1000 MPa and Cu

to 2.1 MPa improved match with test pile
up to 1.5WL (but unsafe for loads > 2 WL).
DSM exhibits brittle behaviour, so cautious

design parameters needed.
Load transfer curve (test pile vs. Plaxis 3D)
Back analysis parameters gave

good match with observed load
transfer curves (based on strain
gauge data) up to 1.5 WL.
Mobilised skin friction about

500 kPa up to 1.5 WL.
Mobilised skin friction,

increased to about 750 kPa at
2.5 WL. Maximum skin friction
not fully mobilised.
Settlement vs. Time
GI 1 GI 2 Greenfield
Greenfield
(FULL) (Reduced) (0.5k)
r (mm) 4 14 541 560
• Ground Improvement
• ERL Tunnels
• (t= 35 years)
560mm 541mm
First Reserve
Base of Fill
Pile length can be reduced if

resistance from GI block is considered
• Singapore is underlain by deep very soft marine clays
• Coastal reclamation has induced consolidation of the

marine clay
• Metro schemes and future building developments (OSDs)

are now planned through these areas
• Innovative solution: combine ground improvement and

piling - cost-effective solution. Limiting settlement of Metro
tunnels and future OSDs – circa 35% reduction in DSM
and 65% reduction in piling (lengths reduced from 70m to
about 24m)
Summary - Pile Groups and Piled-Rafts
Pile group design

• Often over-conservative
• Improved Practice needs – single point design responsibility for
“total foundation system”; field measurements of Go; acceptance of
criteria for “stiff” pile cap, hence “group ULS” rather than single pile
Piled-raft design
• Communication of simple conceptual framework may encourage
practitioners
• “Raft-enhanced pile group” – relatively stiff system, pile group
operates efficiently
• “Pile-enhanced raft” – small number of fully mobilised ductile piles,
reducing “peaks” of stress/differential settlement across a raft
Summary – Compensated Piled-Rafts
• City Metro schemes use OSDs to support major urban

redevelopment
• Must consider changes in effective stress, and

buoyancy force from long term water table level
• Several scenarios must be considered – construction

sequence, timing of OSD construction, etc.
• Detailed design – carefully calibrated non-linear NM

can justify more economic design
• Differential settlement often the key issue – realistic

criteria? Robust discussion often needed!
Concluding remarks – from “minor to major”
• Future developments – increasing urbanisation will

place increasing demands on the deep foundation
industry
• Society expectations – reduced environmental

impact, lower carbon use
• Considerable opportunities for innovation
• Foundation systems – quicker, safer, easier to build
• Technology is available, but will procurement

practice encourage innovation?
Immersive Geotechnical Engineering
MAY 24, 2019
4 TH I.S.G.E
Dimitrios Konstantakos, P.E. 1
Overview
History of deep excavation design
Where we are today
Where we are heading
I skimped a little on the foundation, but no one will
ever know it!
2
Famous Quote by Terzaghi
“Unfortunately, soils are made by nature and not by man,
and the products of nature are always complex… As soon as
we pass from steel and concrete to earth, the omnipotence
of theory ceases to exist. Natural soil is never uniform. Its
properties change from point to point while our knowledge
of its properties are limited to those few spots at which the
samples have been collected. In soil mechanics the
accuracy of computed results never exceeds that of a
crude estimate, and the principal function of theory
consists in teaching us what and how to observe in the
field.”
3
Peck – Observational
Approach
The observational method
Continuous managed and integrated
process of design, construction control,
monitoring and review enabling
appropriate, previously defined
modifications to be incorporated
during (or after) construction.
• All aspects demonstrably robust
• Objective – achieve greater economy
4
Terzaghi‐Peck Apparent Pressures
5
Where we started from
In the beginning there was …a
6
WES Honeywell DPS/8
Cyber 865?
7
8
Fishin… with FLAC (May 1995)
9
3D Analyses
distribution
beams
3.60
5.60
9.00
12.0
0
Courtesy of August Lucarelli, Ph.D., ITASCA
10
3D FE Excavation
11
Deep 2001 (Deep Excavation)
12
DeepEX 2019
13
SOE Software today: Analysis
Wide range of applications:
 Limit‐equilibrium and conventional analysis
methods
 Beam on springs solutions
 Finite elements (2D, 3D)
 Finite difference (2D, 3D)
 Neural Networks (research)
14
SOE Software ‐ Expertise
 FE programs are not expert GEO systems
they require expert engineers
 Expert systems
 Guide users
 Provide warnings and diagnostics
 Optimize solution
 Advanced capabilities
15
Guiding the
SOE Engineer
Wizard:
16
In SPT they… trust ……
 SPT is still used to estimate soil response
 Our greatest challenge is still getting
meaningful geotechnical data, and
understanding
GIGO – Garbage In – Garbage Out
Lo juro por SPT,

a decir verdad, y solo la verdad para el suelo,
así que ayúdame Terzaghi-Peck
17
The major challenges….
Black box solutions
 Powerful tools – lack of real
understanding by engineers
Current systems do not learn from
previous experience
18
SOE Design and Practice 2035
Neural network design
Genetic evolution design
Big data
Innovative construction methods
Immersive geotechnical design
19
Neural Network Design
Teach neural networks
Excavation performance
Soil response
Good quality data needed
20
21
Genetic Evolution GEO Design
Engineer to provide an initial design or set
of parameters
Software to perform massive search of
alternatives with cost estimates
Design to evolve at each calculation step
Design adjustments with monitoring data
22
Big Data ‐ GEO
Big data – GEO
Massive reanalysis of GEO
performance
Machine learning
23
Future Foundation
Equipment
Equipped with machine
learning
Learn from previous
projects, learn from current
project
Equipment connected to
design
24
Real Time – Observational
Approach
Observational approach on steroids!
Monitoring data feeding automatically to
design software.
Design adapts with updated information.
25
Construction & Monitoring
Integrated follow up
Real time VR from office
Drone info to SOE BIM
Adaptive design based on SOE performance
26
Immersive Geotechnical
Design
Step into the design‐drawing
Live interaction with
elements/computer
Real immersion beyond today’s VR/AR
systems
27
28
Field
Inspection!
(Image courtesy of Andrew
Baxter GEI)
29
Pile Installation & Inspection
30
Today’s Technology
31
Good morning deep
excavation
Interacting with A.I. SOE software like never before
DK: Hey SOE
SOE: Hi Dimitrios
DK: I have a new deep excavation project
SOE: That is great. Where?
DK: New York city, 31st Street & Park Avenue.
SOE: Would you like me to pullout some relevant data?
DK: Yes, please do so.
32
Good morning deep
excavation
SOE: I have found two excavations in adjacent blocks, a geological map,
and 30 borings. Would you like to review this information?
DK: Yes, please….
DK: We also have some new geotech data… SPT values and laser testing.
Could you please import from P350917
SOE: Sure, importing please wait… Would you like me to prepare
geotechnical sections.
DK: Please do so. Could you also import relevant adjacent building
information from the building department?
SOE: Sure
33
Good morning deep
excavation
SOE: I have prepared the relevant information, but as you are aware the
building department requires approval by a professional engineer.
Please review.
DK: Will do, give me sometime I am not as fast as you are….
What is our degree of certainty on this profile?
SOE: 65%
DK: Please layout a wall perimeter around this area and an excavation
support system. We are going 50ft down.
SOE: This will take a little time. I can compare with our knowledge data
base. Would you like me to prepare a genetic evolution SOE design?
DK: Yes, I will grab lunch and come back..
34
Interacting
DK: Hi SOE, what’s your status?
SOE: I have investigated 5240 alternatives, and the following five appear
to be the most promising. Would you like to review them?
DK: Yes…… ok, I like alternatives 2 & 4. Could you prepare a cost
estimate range?
SOE: It is already done. You should anticipate a range between …
DK: Great! Please prepare an immersive model so we can discuss with
the owner
SOE: Sure
35
Challenges
Industry is not leading the
technological revolution
Geotech market is “niche”
Adoption by engineers – shift in
paradigm
36
Geo‐
Automation
37
Why Geotechnical Engineers
will still have jobs in 2045
Soil is not standard
Every solution is unique
Engineering judgement over automated
solutions
SPT
38
Thank you!
dimitrios@deepexcavation.com
Connect on LinkedIn
39
May 25, 2019, Santa Cruz, Bolivia
May 29, 2019, Lima, Peru
Dimitrios Konstantakos, P.E.

CEO Deep Excavation LLC, Adj. Professor, NYU
Chair of ASCE/G-I, TCC 1
2
1. Introduction 11.Voice control
2. Soil properties 12.Slope stability
3. Wall sections 13.Nonlinear analysis
4. Cantilever walls
14.Frame analysis
5. External surcharges
15.ASD vs. EC7
6. Analysis methods
7. Supports in DeepEX and 16.Building damage module
examples
8. Wall elements
9. Lateral earth pressure options
10.Wall friction
3
` Software for design of deep excavations
` User friendly & interactive
` Multiple stages
` Multiple design sections
` Geotechnical design
` Structural design
` Code compliance
` 1200 users worldwide
4
An excavation, typically deeper than 3.5m that
requires structural support.
Webinar examines vertical cut excavations that
require structural support.
5
` A deep excavation system has to retain earth,
water, and neighboring structures
` Unknown factors and risks
` Protect adjacent properties
` Design issues
` Code issues
` Economy
` Constructability
6
` Deep excavations always require staged
construction.
` Even wall construction can affect
performance.
` Start from at-rest conditions (or before)
7
8
` Right click on main model
9
` Define angle for slope surface
` Define V/H for slope surface
` Define elevation next to the wall
` Define bench offset
` Define bench elevation
Figure: Slope/bench surface options
Figure: Slope surface Figure: Bench surface
10
` Click and drag mouse
` Define surface elevations in General tab
11
12
` Click to edit the soil properties
` Define soil name
` Define soil type
` Define default soil behavior for
clays (drained/undrained)
` Define soil cohesion
` Define soil friction angle
` Define soil permeability and
Poisson's ratio
` Define soil model (for non-linear
analysis only)
` Define soil loading-reloading
elasticity parameters, exponent
etc. (non-linear)
` Define ultimate bond resistance
for tiebacks
PROPERTIES IN YELLOW ARE THE

MOST ESSENTIAL FOR ANALYSIS
Figure: Define general soil properties and Estimation tools
13
` Soil unit weights:
◦ γt = total soil unit weight below water table
◦ γd = soil unit weight above water table
◦ Note: do not use boyant weights
` v = Poisson ratio, used in some elasticity
equations for surcharges
` Kx = horizontal permeability
` Ky = vertical permeability (10 x Kx)
` KoNC = At-rest earth pressure coefficient for
normally consolidated conditions
14
` Look for the for general recommendations
` The shows you an additional tab for
determining soil properties
15
` Click to edit the Stratigraphy
` Define top of the soil
elevation and soil type
` Define OCR
` Add multiple borings
` Define SPT or CPT test
records
Figure: Define stratigraphy
16
` Edit SPT Record
17
` Soldier pile walls
◦ Steel beams
◦ Reinforced concrete
◦ Timber piles
` Sheet piles
` Secant & tangent pile walls
` Slurry walls
` SPTC walls
` Combined king pile-sheet piles
` Box sheet pile walls
18
` Double-click on the wall to edit the wall properties
` Define wall section
` Define top of the wall
elevation
` Define wall length
` Define wall position
Figure: Edit wall properties
19
` Double-click on the wall to edit the wall properties
` Define wall type
` Define reinforcement
section
` Define lagging
properties
` Define materials
` Define wall spacing
` Define Passive, active
and water pressure
widths
Figure: Edit wall section properties
20
` The following wall types are available
Soldier pile and lagging walls Secant pile walls Tangent pile walls
SPTC walls Diaphragm (slurry) walls Sheet pile walls
Combined sheet pile walls Box sheet pile walls Custom walls
21
22
` S= Horizontal pile spacing
` Sact = active spacing below exc. for soil
pressures = (1 to 2 x pile diameter)
` Spass = passive spacing below exc. For soil
pressures (2 to 3 x pile diameter)
` Swater = width for water pressures
` Change width for predrilled holes (filled with
grout)
23
24
` Timber lagging
` Shotcrete
` Steel plate
` Lagging position (affects clear span)
` Analysis methods
25
` Calculation method > Determine soil
pressure
◦ CALTRANS trenching and shoring manual
◦ Full active (exact soil pressures)
◦ Percentage of soil pressures
` Bending and shear calculations
◦ Simple span
◦ 50% pressure at center
◦ User defined equation M = alpha x w L2
26
27
` Consider concrete in stiffness
` Consider axial strength increase due to

concrete
` Consider strength reduction due to threads
28
29
` Can consider percentage of concrete between
beam flanges
30
` Add reinforcement
` Steel beams
` Section analysis with method of slices
` Add internal HP12x74
31
` Theory
` Examples (Limit-Equilibrium Method)
32
` Free earth method (balance Moment)
` Fixed earth method (balance moment-shear)
` Driving earth pressures: Active
` Resisting pressures: Passive or /Safety Factor
Fixed earth method
33
Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall in DeepEX
We will use AZ 17 sheet piles
A. Define soil properties and stratigraphy
Figure: Define soil properties Figure: Define stratigraphy
34
B. Define wall and wall section properties
Figure: Define wall properties Figure: Define wall section properties
35
C. Add a new stage and excavate 3.5 m
Figure: Model in Stage 1
36
D. Run the analysis and review results – Moment and wall deflection
Figure: Wall moment and wall deflection, Stage 1
37
E. Review results (continue) – Soil pressures and wall embedment FS
Figure: Soil pressures and wall embedment FS, Stage 1
38
F. Wall embedment optimization
` Select to optimize wall embedment in the Design tab of DeepEX

and define the required safety factors
` Run the analysis. The wall length is optimized
39
` Use CALTRANS approach for more reasonable
displacements
40
41
Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall in DeepEX
We will use HP12x74 piles, not in drilled holes
42
43
44
45
46
Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall in DeepEX – Predrilled holes
We will use HP12x74 piles, installed in 0.7m drilled holes
47
48
Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall in DeepEX – Predrilled piles
49
50
51
` Balances out moment
` Shear not balanced
` Increase length by 1.2 to get FS 1.0
` Then apply additional safety factors
52
` Surcharge options in DeepEX
` Different methods of analysis
53
` Select tool, click to add the load and define
load properties through dialogs
` Surface strip surcharge
` Surface line load
` Strip surcharge on wall
` Linear load on wall
` Prescribed displacement
` External moment on wall
` 3D Surface load
` Footing load
` 3D Building
Figure: Loads in DeepEX
54
` Strip surcharges or trapezoidal
` Typ: 0-3.5m 10 kPa
3.5 to 7m 5 kPa
55
` Strip load
◦ Theory of elasticity
◦ Distribution angle
` Field surcharge (applied
on vertical stress)
56
57
Elasticity 1-Way Distribution 1-Way Distribution
Elasticity σv 2-Way Distribution CIRIA Approach
58
` Estimate loads from floors etc
` Use footings or mat
59
` Wall line loads
` Moments loads applicable only in non-linear
analysis
` Prescribed displacement loads applicable only
in non-linear analysis
60
` 3.5m cantilever excavation
` Draw loads on the wall
` Draw footing loads
` Draw building loads
` Draw a 12.5 kPa strip surcharge
◦ On the surface
◦ Below the ground
◦ On the wall (from 0 to -10ft)
61
` Conventional
` Non-linear with BEF
62
` Conventional methods
` Beam on elastoplastic foundations
63
` Assume lateral earth pressures.
` Determine fixity locations for forces at subgrade.
` Analyze wall beam with assumed loads.
` Advantages: Easy method to verify. Gives a back check for
more rigorous methods.
` Disadvantages: Soil-structure interaction ignored.
64
65
` Horizontal force
` Moment
` Length
66
` Envelopes captured maximum force from all
stages
` Wall moments were almost never measured!
` Wall moment recommendations may not be
reasonable!
67
Peck, 1969
FHWA
68
Where m=1 according to Henkel (1971). The total load is then
taken as:
Henkel’s mechanism of base failure
69
` Blum’s method
` FHWA method with simple spans (GEC-4)
` Mix between FHWA and Blum’s
` CALTRANS Trenching and Shoring Manual
` WMATA approach
70
` Pinned supports – continuous beam
` Point of zero net soil shear below subgrade.
` Use point of zero shear as a virtual support.
Reaction for Virtual

embedment suppor Available FS.passive
Fxb t resistance Rx
71
` Pin support at excavation base, simple spans

Fxb t resistance Rx
72
` Pinned supports – simple span
` Point of zero net soil shear below subgrade

Fxb t resistance Rx
73
` Pinned supports – simple span
` Base at point of zero moment below bottom support
` Shears and moments balance out
No Reaction Virtual
embedment suppor FS.rotation
t
74
` Simple span may be very conservative
` Assume negative moments (20% of simple span)
No Reaction
Negativ Virtual
embedment FS.rotation
e suppor
Moment t
75
` Similar to Blum’s
` Fixity at subgrade
76
A 15m deep excavation is to be analyzed with different
analysis methods. The purpose of this example is to
illustrate different analysis methods and their
differences. Ground water level is assumed at 10m
depth. Soil layers consist of the following:
` 0m to 15m: Sand with friction angle 30 degrees,

unit weight 19 kN/m3
` 15m and below: Sand with friction angle 36 degrees,
effective cohesion c’= 5 kPa, and a unit weight of
19.5 kN/m3
1) Water pressures are calculated with a
simplified 1D flow analysis. In the FHWA
approach we need to determine first the total
active thrust above the excavation subgrade.
2) Multiply thrust with a 1.3 multiplier.
3) Distribute the total thrust in an apparent
earth pressure envelope, with the top and
bottom triangular portions established at 2/3
of the clear height to the first support, and
2/3 of the clear height from the excavation to
the bottom support.
El. -15 (driving side) El. -23 (resisting side)
` Integrate active thrust above excavation
Blums's FHWA Simple FHWA Mixed CALTRANS CALTRANS - Nonlinear
method span Blum Method negative analysis*
Maximum support
reaction 33.68 23.91 27.66 30.08 30.08 30 – 31.8
(kips/ft)
Maximum
Moment 58.25 36.78 74.29 99.41 87.45 65 – 86
(kips/ft)
Maximum Shear
18.13 13.14 15.49 17.77 17.77 17.4 - 20
(kips/ft)
Blums's FHWA Simple FHWA Mixed CALTRANS CALTRANS - Nonlinear

method span Blum method negative analysis*
Maximum support
reaction 38.51 31.81 31.81 34.36 34.36 31.6 - 34.6
(kips/ft)
Maximum
Moment 66.74 43.46 83.95 112.33 98.63 76.9-101.5
(kips/ft)
Maximum Shear
20.41 16.94 17.45 20 20 19.5 - 22.2
(kips/ft)
84
Not physically possible specifications
Active pressures
=19kN/m3
Ma.dry = 30 D
Ma.wet = 15 D
Results in Ka= 0.24
and = 37.8 degrees
Passive slope produces

Kp= 2.4, thus
= 24.32 degrees
85
86
` Select support type, click to add the support and
define properties through dialogs
` Ground anchors (tiebacks)
` Struts
` Slabs
` Rakers
` Fixed supports
` Spring supports
Figure: Tiebacks and struts in DeepEX
` Waler supports
Figure: Rakers in DeepEX Figure: Fixed, spring supports and slabs

in DeepEX
87
Soldier Pile Wall with tiebacks in DeepEX
We will use HP12x74 piles, FHWA and Peck apparent pressures
88
89
C. Add a new stage and excavate 3.5m
90
D. Add a new stage and add first tieback row at El:-3m – support properties
Figure: Edit tieback properties Figure: Edit tieback section properties
91
92
D. Add a new stage and add first tieback row – model
93
E. Add a new stage and excavate 3.5m
94
F. Add a new stage and add second tieback row at El:-6.5ft
95
G. Add a new stage and excavate 3.5m(final exc. level at El:-10.5m)
96
H. Add a new stage and define a traffic load behind the wall
We will assign a 30kPa strip surcharge for 5.5m, starting 0.5m behind the wall
Figure: Model in Stage 6 – External strip surcharge
97
I. Add a new stage and change apparent pressures to Peck 1969
In the Analysis tab of DeepEX choose to change the driving side pressures
Figure: Choose to use Peck apparent pressures in the new stage
98
J. Add a new stage and change apparent pressures to FHWA
In the Analysis tab of DeepEX choose to change the driving side pressures
Figure: Use FHWA apparent Figure: Define FHWA pressures

pressures options
99
K. Add a new stage and change beam analysis method to CALTRANS
In the Analysis tab of DeepEX choose to change beam analysis method
Figure: Use CALTRANS method for beam analysis
100
` Go to design tab
` Factors can be changed on any stage
` Select use Soil bond values…
` Coef.str = 0.6
101
L. Review results – Moment and wall deflections, Stages 3 and 5
Figure: Moment and wall deflection Figure: Moment and wall deflection
diagrams – Stage 3 diagrams – Stage 5
102
M. Review results – Soil pressures – Peck and FHWA apparent
Figure: Peck 1969 apparent pressures Figure: FHWA Apparent pressures
103
N. Review results – Wall moments – Blum’s and CALTRANS method
Figure: Wall moments, FHWA pressures Figure: Wall moments, FHWA pressures
and Blum’s method and CALTRANS method
104
Diaphragm wall with struts in DeepEX – Model wizard
We will use the model wizard to create a braced excavation with 3 levels of struts
A. Define analysis methods
` Define analysis method
` Define apparent
pressures
` Define beam analysis
method
Figure: Define analysis method
105
B. Define general project and strut properties
` Define project type
` Define general project
properties
` Select/define strut
section
` Define strut spacing
Figure: Select project type, define project and strut properties
106
C. Define soil properties and stratigraphy
` Define soil properties
` Define stratigraphy
Figure: Define soil properties and stratigraphy
107
D. Select wall section
` Select wall section
` Edit wall section
properties
108
E. Define support elevations – create stages
` Define depth for each
support level
` Define excavation depth
below each support
level
109
G. Define external load
` Define strip surcharge
magnitude and position
110
H. Define structural and geotechnical codes
` Define structural codes
` Define geotechnical
codes
111
I. Review created model
Figure: Model, Stage 7
112
I. Review results – Moment and wall deflection, Stage 5
Figure: Moment and wall deflection diagrams, Stage 5
113
J. Review results – Wall shear and soil pressures, Stage 7
Figure: Wall shear and soil pressure diagrams, Stage 7
114
115
Hydrostatic 1D Flow Full flow net
116
117
` Consider all stages
` 5m excavation with raker@3m
` Raker@ 30 deg from horizontal
` Heelblock at base
` Consider all stages
` HE340A@2.5m in 0.7m holes
` Water level at 10m
118
119
` Add stage
` Create berm, right click on model
120
121
` Add stage
` Draw heelblock near bottom
122
123
124
` Add stage
` Right click, set right surface level
125
` Set analysis to LEM and run
126
` Interaction between passive wedge from wall
and heel block not considered
` Place raker sufficiently behind passive zone
` GEO stress check 0.5 to 1/1.5 = 0.6
` Program does not look at bearing capacity of
heelblock
127
` Change wall section with depth
` Create liner or basement walls
128
` Use wizard, create 30ft deep excavation with
struts
` Create basement wall section (0.6m)
129
130
131
132
` Model base slab
` Vertical unbraced
length
` Change 40cm slab
` Slab used as an
approximation,
more detailed
analysis required
133
134
135
136
137
` Tension gap effects can be modeled in NL
analysis
` LEM analysis:
◦ when wall & elements overlap is approximate
Distribution of moments based on stiffness
◦ Wall displacement based on base wall
138
` Different options
` FHWA
` Peck
` Adaptive
` User defined
` Passive pressures
139
` Explore
different
options
140
` Active x load factor
(select inside box)
` Between Ka and Ko
141
` Ko controlled from borehole OCR
142
143
` m for stiff clays
144
145
Challenge, change B until pressures match FHWA from Ka
146
147
148
` Kp = Passive
` Kp/FS
` Kp = At-rest
` Ko x multiplier
` User defined
` User defined
passive slope &
start pressure
` Max. pressure
149
` Control minimum driving pressures
150
` Interface friction angle between soil & walls
` Decrease in acting pressures
` Increase in passive resistance
` Keep in mind of Thrust options
151
` Ka -> Coulomb (very close to logspiral)
` Kp -> Caquot-Kerisel (tables) when no
seismic
` Kp -> Lancellota equations consider log-
spiral values
152
` Undrained/drained conditions at any stage
15
3
154
` Used active earth pressures are calculated
` If not specified, then with stiffer clays
pressures can be zero
` Drained analysis (effective properties)
represent long term conditions
155
156
`
157
` Windows 10, voice recognition
` Microphone required (headphones for less
noise)
` Can quickly create a model
158
` Create a new model then:
` Say: What can I say
` Create a 13 meter deep excavation with tiebacks

` Create a 13 meter deep excavation with struts
` Add stage and install tieback
` Add stage and excavate 3 meters
` Excavate right 3 meters
` Backfill right 3 meters
159
` Perform global stability analysis
` Bishop method
` Spencer
` Morgenstern-Price
` Activate-Deactivate wall
160
161
` Circular failure only
` Move search rectangle
162
163
` Fundamentals
` Setting up elasticity properties
` Limitations
164
165
` Linear elastic perfectly plastic
` Exponential
` Subgrade modulus
Reloading stiffness linear 3 to 5 x loading E
166
167
` Soldier pile wall HE360A@0.7m hole@2.5m
` Wall 12m long
` Tieback @20 deg, 3m depth, @2.5m
` 3m: ,
`
`
168
169
170
171
17
2
173
` Add stage and draw tieback
174
175
` Change model limits
176
177
178
179
` Troubleshoot
` Look for FS passive
` Mesh density
` Increase wall embedment
` Ignore arching stage 0 to Stage 3
` Optimize & iterate
` Experiment with prestress
180
3D Frame Analysis Module of DeepEX
Using the base model created in the previous example, we will use the DeepEX
3D Model Wizard to create the 3D Frame model
D. Review 3D Model
` Review each strut level
` Click on any strut or waler or wall
part to change the structural
section and edit the properties
` Choose to add/remove struts and
tiebacks on each support level
` Use beak points to create more
composite shaft shapes
Figure: Generated 3D Model
181
` View in 3D or Virtual Reality
` Prepare models in DeepEX
` Export to HoloDeepEX
` Go to Microsoft App Store and Download
HoloDeepEX
182
` Evaluate building damage
` Crack width analysis
` 2D methods
` 3D methods
183
184
` Change the out of plane y coordinate
185
186
187
` Conference organizing committee
` Deep excavation team members
` You for joining us!
188
For attending this Workshop.
dimitrios@deepexcavation.com
Visit us at:
www.deepexcavation.com
Connect on LinkedIn
189
AXIAL & LATERAL LOAD
TRANSFER IN DRILLED SHAFTS
PERMANENT CASING &
HIGH-STRENGTH REINFORCEMENT
Dr. Antonio Marinucci, MBA, PE

V2C Strategists, LLC
Co-authors:
Dr. Armin W. Stuedlein, P.E.
Dr. Qiang Li
OBJECTIVES
 Oregon DOT Bridge Design Group concerns

with seismic-related design issues
 Increased seismic loads → increased steel
reinforcement
 Evaluation & recommended use of:
1.High(er) strength steel reinforcement bars
(80 ksi vs 60 ksi)
2.Permanent steel casing in design
(flexure & lateral loading)
3.Hollow bars - dual purpose elements (structural &
CSL access), compare to TIP thermal wires
OBJECTIVES
 Axial Load Transfer

 Evaluate side resistance (t-z) & end resistance (q-z)
 Develop t-z & q-z curves for Willamette Valley soils
 Recommend axial load transfer reductions (cased)
based on installation
 Lateral Load Transfer

 Compare p-y curves - uncased & cased, & in
commercial software
 Compare development & location of plastic hinging in
test shafts
 Develop p-y curves for Willamette Valley soils
EXPERIMENTAL
PROGRAM
 4 Test Piles (drilled shafts)
 2 uncased & 2 cased
 Testing
 Axial - Top-down compression testing
 Lateral - Two similar pile types laterally tested
simultaneously w/ hydraulic ram/jack
Drill Casing Wall Volume Internal &

Depth
diam. diam. thick. concrete external steel
MIR 36 in 60 ft --- --- 21.0 cu yd 2.0 %
HSIR 36 in 60 ft --- --- 20.0 cu yd 1.5 %
CIR 36 in 60 ft 37 in 0.5 in 17.4 cu yd 7.2 %
CNIR 37 in 60 ft 37 in 0.5 in 17.3 cu yd 5.3 %
SITE EXPLORATION
& TEST LAYOUT
ACIP/CFA Reaction Piles - 30 inch diam x 55 ft deep

SUBSURFACE
CHARACTERIZATION
stiff-very stiff;
silty CLAY to
clayey SILT
stiff sandy SILT

& med. dense
silty SAND
(w/ gravel)
stiff-very stiff;
silty CLAY to
clayey SILT
UNCASED SHAFTS
▪ Hole diam. = 36 in
▪ No casing
MIR ▪ Steel bars – fy = 60 ksi
(Mild Internal
Reinforcement) ▪ Steel ratio = 2%
3 – PVC
▪ Concrete volume CSL TUBES
9 – #14 GR.
= 21.0 cu yd 60 REBAR
▪ Hole diam. = 36 in 6 – #11 GR.

80 REBAR
▪ No casing
HSIR
(High-strength ▪ Steel bars – fy = 80 ksi
Internal ▪ Steel ratio = 1.5%
Reinforcement)
▪ Concrete volume 3 – 73/56 GR. 80
= 20.0 cu yd FULL THREAD
HOLLOW BAR
CASED SHAFTS
HOLE DIAM.
= 36 IN
▪ Hole diam. = 36 in
▪ Casing OD= 37 in
CIR
(Cased, Mild ▪ Steel bars – fy = 60 ksi
Internal ▪ Steel ratio = 7.2% 3 – PVC
Reinforcement)
▪ Concrete volume CSL TUBES
9 – #14 GR.
= 17.4 cu yd 60 REBAR
3 – PVC
▪ Hole diam = 37 in CSL TUBES
▪ Casing O.D.= 37 in
CNIR
(Cased, No ▪ Reinf. for gauges only
Internal ▪ Steel ratio = 5.33% 8 – #4 GR.
Reinforcement) 60 REBAR
▪ Concrete volume
= 17.3 cu yd HOLE DIAM.
= 37 IN
INSTRUMENTATION
 TIP thermal wires in MIR, HSIR, CIR

 CSL tubes and probes
 Strain gages
 18 levels - concrete
embedment strain gages
 6 levels - resistance
strain gages
 Load cells
 In-place inclinometers
 String potentiometers
 Displacement dial gauges (top of shaft)
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
 Wet method using polymer slurry

 Concrete was placed using tremie method
 Design: 4,000 psi; Actual: 9,270 to 10,500 psi
 Casing vibrated into place after drilling
 Axial testing 10 mths after construction; Lateral later
CONSTRUCTION
TIP METHOD – ASTM D7949
 Concept
 Measure / record data during curing of concrete
 Uniform temperature profile → good quality shaft
 Temperature depends on
 Pile diameter, mix design, time of measurement,
distance from TIP sensor to center & edge
 Measurements (Quality Assurance)

 Cooler –inclusions, necking or poor quality concrete
 Warmer - bulges outside of cage diameter
 Variation b/t diag opposite pairs - cage misalignment
TIP TESTING RESULTS
 Peak heat of hydration at ± 46 hrs

 Profile of diameter
 Critical for interpreting measured strains
 Uncased Shafts (MIR & HSIR)
 Temperature similar, but definite differences
 HSIR - 1 inch smaller radius than MIR
 MIR - consistently > 36 inch diam. auger
 Cage slightly off-center (max 0.75 inch)
TIP TESTING RESULTS
Radius
vs Depth
TIP TESTING RESULTS
Ground Ground
Surface Surface
Steel Rebar Cage

Gap b/t soil
& casing
(load transfer) Radius of
Casing
CSL METHOD - ASTM D6760
 Uses ultrasonic pulse velocity;

transmitter & receiver probes
 PVC tubes & hollow bars
 CSL through hollow bar
 Should provide similar results as
PVC tubes
 Threads should improve bond at
concrete / steel interface
CSL METHOD - ASTM D6760
 Compressive (p-wave)
velocity
 Straight-line path (only)
 Function of density, age, &
Young’s modulus of concrete
 Need to wait 7 to 10 days
for concrete to achieve
strength
 Potential anomalies
 Deviations in expected p-wave
RESULTS FROM CSL TESTING
2” PVC block-outs
(for actuators)
clearly identified
Note:
“anomalies”
at regular 10 ft
intervals
(couplers in
hollow bar)
MIR MIR HSIR HSIR

RESULTS FROM CSL TESTING
1000
750 CIR - PVC Tubes

HSIR - Hollow Bar
Crosshole Signal (millivolts)
500
250
-250
-500
-750
-1000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time (microseconds)
 Comparison of signals
 Clear difference in signal quality
 Signal through hollow bar - clear, undamped, regular
 Signal through PVC - erratic, muddled
 Observations reflected in the “waterfall” plots
AXIAL COMPRESSION LOAD TESTS
 Uncased shafts >> capacity than cased shafts

 Resistance fully mobilized (plunging) for cased
shafts before end of test
 Applied loads << expected test loads
 Cased shafts - very stiff, rigid
AXIAL RESPONSE
- UNCASED SHAFTS
 Similar initial response; then
mostly hardening-type
response
 Auger-induced belling at mid-
shaft produced largest t-z
response
 HSIR performed slightly better
than MIR despite slightly
smaller diameter
 MIR – 1,300 kips at 0.15 inch displ.
 HSIR - 1,400 kips at 0.15 in displ.
 0.15 in = 0.4% norm. displ.
AXIAL RESPONSE
- CASED SHAFTS
 Construction effects
 Gap b/t casing & borehole
 Substantial influence by method
 CIR - drilled w/ 36 inch auger
 CNIR - drilled w/ 37 inch auger
 Vibrated casing after drilling
 Axial resistance
 CIR – 375 kips at 1.0 in displ.
 CNIR – 280 kips at 1.0 in displ.
 1.0 in = 2.7% norm. displ.
 2.0 in = 5.4% norm. displ.
AXIAL LOAD TRANSFER
- UNCASED SHAFTS
 Unit side resistance
 120 to 6,200 psf
 Differences from 0 to 22 ft
 Bending & as-built geometry
 Water content in near-surface soil
 0.84 inch of rain 7 days before
testing HSIR
 1.47 inch of rain 4 days before
testing MIR
AXIAL LOAD TRANSFER
- CASED SHAFTS
 Unit side resistances
 175 to 700 psf
 Only used data from 26 to 59 ft
 Due to gaps b/t casing & soil
 CIR had greater unit side
resistance than CNIR
 Due to installation method
AXIAL LOAD
TRANSFER
CIR CNIR
MIR HSIR
LATERAL LOAD TESTS
 Hydraulic actuator applied load @ 30 inch

above ground
 Tested shaft pairs simultaneously (MIR &
HSIR; CIR & CNIR)
 Criteria – limitation of actuator
LATERAL LOAD RESULTS
 Similar initial behavior

 MIR and HSIR slightly stiffer
response (larger diameter)
 Minimal differences b/t

similar shaft types
 Cased response governed by
steel casing
 Differences in soil variability
(layer thicknesses, stiffness,
consistency)
 Mobilized resistance
 Uncased – fully @ 180 kips
 Cased – not fully
LATERAL RESPONSE
- UNCASED SHAFTS
 Similar response Displacement, y (in) Displacement, y (in)
for small lateral -3

-3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
(b)
-10
(a)
loads (<95 kips) 0 0
Ground
 Dissimilar as 3
Surface
10
lateral load
Depth, z (ft)
Depth, z (m)
6 20
MIR HSIR
increased 9 30
V = 170 kN (39 kips)
V
 Mobilized soil
h
12 V = 280 kN (63 kips)

V h 40
V = 425 kN (96 kips)
Vh
reaction around 15
Vh= 720 kN (162 kips)
V
Vh= 885 kN (199 kips)
50
V
12 ft or 4D 18
Vh= 920 kN (207 kips)
V
60
-3 -10
(c) (d)
0 0
Depth, z
Depth,
LATERAL RESPONSE 9
V = 170 kN (39 kips)
Vh
30
- CASED SHAFTS 12 V = 280 kN (63 kips)

Vh 40
V = 425 kN (96 kips)
V
h
Vh= 720 kN (162 kips)
V
15 50
Vh= 885 kN (199 kips)
V
Vh= 920 kN (207 kips)
V
 Similar response 18
-3
(c) (d)
60
-10
for small lateral 0 0
loads (<90 kips) 3 10
 Dissimilar as 6
Depth, z (ft)
Depth, z (m)
20
CIR CNIR
lateral load 9 30
increased 12
Vh= 275 kN (62 kips)
V
V 40
Vh= 745 kN (167 kips)
 Mobilized soil 15 Vh= 925 kN (208 kips)

Vh= 1,350 kN (304 kips)
50
reaction around 18
Vh= 1,540 kN (346 kips)
V
60
30 ft or 10D Displacement, y (mm) Displacement, y (mm)

LATERAL RESPONSE
- UNCASED VS. CASED
Displacement, y (in) Displacement, y (in)
-3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
-3 -10
 Greater displacements for

(a) (b)
0 0
Ground
uncased shafts than for 3

Surface
10
cased shafts
Depth, z (ft)
Depth, z (m)
6 20
9
MIR HSIR 30
 Stiffer shafts mobilize soil 12

V = 170 kN (39 kips)
V
V
h
V = 280 kN (63 kips)
h
V = 425 kN (96 kips)
V
40
h
reaction to greater depths 15

Vh= 720 kN (162 kips)
V
Vh= 885 kN (199 kips)
V
50
 Uncased – 12 ft or 4D
Vh= 920 kN (207 kips)
V
18 60
-3 -10
(c) (d)
 Cased – 30 ft or 10D 0 0
 Depth of significant soil-foundation 3

CIR CNIR
10
displacement 6
Depth, z (ft)
Depth, z (m)
20
 Mainly due to flexural rigidity 9

V
30
 Lesser so due to soil 12 Vh= 415 kN (93 kips)

V
Vh= 745 kN (167 kips)
V
40
15 Vh= 925 kN (208 kips)

50
Vh= 1,350 kN (304 kips)
V
Vh= 1,540 kN (346 kips)
V
18 60
Displacement, y (mm) Displacement, y (mm)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
– AXIAL RESPONSE
 Uncased vs cased shafts
 Enhanced response for uncased shafts
 Better bond at concrete-soil interface than for steel-to-soil
 Larger as-built shaft diameters for uncased shafts
 Presence of gaps between soil and casing for cased shafts
 Grouting may be required when using permanent casing
 Unit shaft resistance

 For a cased shaft compared to uncased
 3 - 15% (avg 7%) in stiff sandy silt & dense silty sand
 11 – 23% (avg 17%) in stiff sandy clayey silt
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
- LATERAL RESPONSE
 Gr. 80 vs. Gr. 60 response (uncased shafts)
 Similar lateral load transfer response
 Similar pre-cracking flexural response
 Response for cased vs. uncased shafts

 Mobilized soil resistance to greater depths
 Produced significantly stiffer response (>> uncased shafts)
 Steel casing dominated lateral response

 Response w/ & w/out internal reinforcement were similar
 May not need internal reinforcement if full-depth permanent
casing used
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
THANK YOU !

Managing Director
Phone: 347-670-2006
Email: amarinucci@v2cstrategists.com
ANCHORED EARTH
RETENTION SYSTEMS
Design & Construction
Considerations

Managing Director
WALL CLASSIFICATION &
TYPES OF AER WALLS
AER WALL SYSTEMS DEFINED
 A system that stabilizes & retains an
unstable in-situ soil or rock mass using top-
down construction concurrent with the
excavation of in-situ ground
 Systematic pattern of drilled-&-grouted ground
anchors or bracing used in combination with a
structural facing
 Maintains a difference in elevation between two
ground surfaces
TEMPORARY & PERMANENT WALLS
 Design Life
 Temporary: < 2 to 3 years
 Extended: between 2 & 5 years
 Permanent: > 5 years up to 100 years
 More restrictive requirements on
 Material durability
 Lower resistance factors (i.e., lower loads)
 Performance
 Overall appearance
 Corrosion protection
 Function of ground aggressiveness, design life, risk
potential, risk tolerance
APPLICATIONS
 Support of excavation
 New or widened highways
 Groundwater cut-off barriers
 Grade separations
 Bridge abutments & wing walls
 Cofferdams
 Slope stabilization
WALL CLASSIFICATION
1. Load support mechanism
 Externally stabilized
 Loads supported by external structure
 Internally stabilized
 Loads supported by soil-reinforcement interaction
2. Construction method (fill or cut walls)

 For AER walls → CUT → constructed in top-down
manner, removing in-situ soil to expose face of wall
3. System rigidity (rigid or flexible)

 For AER walls → FLEXIBLE → redistribution of soil
pressure, bending deformations
WALL SUPPORT SYSTEMS
Cantilever Wall Raker System Braced Wall
Anchored Soil Nail

Wall Wall
TYPES OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS
 Narrow
 AER wall with struts
 AER wall with ground anchors
 Building sized
 AER wall with struts with intermediate support
 AER wall with raker bracing
 Soil nail walls
 Wide
 AER wall with raker bracing
 Soil nail walls
NARROW EXCAVATIONS
(Finno, 2016)
BUILDING EXCAVATIONS
(Finno, 2016)
www.ecdny.com
(Finno, 2016)
(Finno, 2016)
BENEFIT OF GROUND ANCHORS
(Finno, 2016)
TYPES OF WALL SYSTEMS
Discrete Wall Elements Continuous Walls
Wood or precast
Concrete lagging
5 to 10 ft
TYPES OF AER WALL SYSTEMS
 Soldier Pile-and-Lagging Walls
 Sheet Pile Walls
 Tangent / Secant Pile Walls
 Soil Mixed Walls
 Diaphragm Walls
 Soil Nail Walls
SOLDIER PILE-&-LAGGING WALL
 Different types & lagging placement
 Advantages / benefits
 Wide range of pile sections
 High bending resistance
 Can penetrate hard strata
 Piles can be spliced
 Soldier piles can be driven into place or a hole
predrilled an then the soldier pile is set in the hole
and grouted into place using lean concrete
 Limitations
 Wall generally free draining
 Susceptible to corrosion
 Greater ground displacements
 Potential ground loss during excavation
 Not applicable below groundwater table
 Compared to stiffer walls such as tangent pile or
slurry
SHEET PILE WALLS
SHEET PILE WALLS
 Top-down construction
 Provides temporary & permanent support
 Reduced quantity of excavation
 Reduced quantity of backfill
 Narrower work area
 Faster construction time
 Can provide seepage barrier
 Can support vertical loads
SHEET PILE WALLS
 Limitations
 Specialized construction techniques
 More complicated soil-structure interaction
 Performance greatly dependent on construction
method & quality
 Components susceptible to corrosion for exposed
steel sheeting & soldier beams
 Cannot penetrate hard layers
 Length limited to about 30.5 m (100 ft)
TANGENT / SECANT PILE WALLS
Tangent Pile Wall Secant Pile Wall

 Constructed using conventional drilled shaft
excavation equipment & procedures
 Less construction / staging space requirements
than for diaphragm walls
 Wide range of pile sections
 High bending resistance
 Can penetrate hard strata
 Piles can be spliced
 Limitations
 Specialized construction techniques
 Complicated soil-structure interaction
 Performance greatly dependent on construction
method & quality
 Need good verticality control
 Increased seepage through vertical joints
(especially for tangent piles)
 Difficult connections at face of wall
 Rough and irregular exposed face
SOIL MIXED WALLS
 Consist of a system of overlapping soil-
cement columns formed by mixing a binder
with the soil in-situ
 Goal - produce soil-cement with improved properties
 Binders - cement, lime, fly ash, slag-cement blends...
(courtesy of Jafec USA)

SOIL MIXED WALLS
(courtesy of Schnabel Foundation Co)

SOIL MIXED WALLS - VIDEO
SOIL MIXED WALLS
 Can be performed in a broad range of soils
 High production rate
 Reduces or eliminates settlement of adjacent
structures
 Dewatering may not be necessary
 Reduces disposal - smaller volume of spoils
 Minimum environmental concerns
 Low noise, vibration and impact on surroundings
SOIL MIXED WALLS
 Limitations
 Specialized design, construction, specifications
and quality control / quality assurance
 High unit & mobilization costs
 Obstructions & cobbles must be removed &
replaced with suitable soil
 Relocation of utilities may be required
 Elements limited to vertical installation
SOIL MIXED WALLS
 Soils
 Very soft-to-medium stiff clays
 Very loose-to-medium dense sands
 Very soft-to-medium stiff organic soils
 Typical depth limit of 130-foot

 Wet method
 Physical space on site required for equipment yard,
slurry batch plant & equipment maneuvering
 Limited by cobbles, boulders, etc.

SOIL MIXED WALLS - EQUIPMENT
 Many types of mixing equipment, such as
 Vertical axis with one or more shafts
 Cutter type on two wheels
 Chainsaw type of mixers
 Binder injection
 Ports located at or near
the cutting & mixing
blades or teeth
Courtesy of
Geosystems, L.P.
DIAPHRAGM WALLS
DIAPHRAGM WALLS
DIAPHRAGM WALLS
 Relatively impermeable wall
 Very high bending resistance
 Smaller ground displacements
 Support vertical loads
 Can be incorporated into permanent structures
DIAPHRAGM WALLS
 Limitations
 Specialized equipment & methods
 Requires large construction area
 Significant spoils generated
 High cost – mobilization and unit cost
WALL SELECTION
CONSIDERATIONS
WALL SELECTION
WALL SELECTION
 Factors affecting wall selection
 Ground type
 Groundwater location
 Construction considerations
 Speed of construction
 Easements and right-of-way issues
 Aesthetics of the final wall facing
 Environmental concerns
 Durability & maintenance
 Contracting practices & tradition
 Costs
FACTORS AFFECTING WALL COSTS
 Type of structure
 Project demands – performance, watertightness,
wall facing, temporary or permanent…
 Materials - how much steel, concrete…
 Labor and equipment
 Specialization, availability, requirements
 Easements and right-of-way
 Disposal of excavation & spoils
 Drainage requirements
FACTORS AFFECTING WALL COSTS
 Life cycle costs
 “A structure with the least construction cost may
not be the most economical alternative”
 Schedule
 Permitting
 Site constraints
 Environmental constraints
GEOTECHNICAL SITE
CHARACTERIZATION
SITE CHARACTERIZATION PURPOSES
 Develop picture of site conditions, layering,
soil types, in-situ parameters, variability…
 Obtain information about geology
 Define vertical & lateral distribution of soil & rock strata
 Define and evaluate effects of groundwater
conditions
 Determine potential geo-hazards
 Unstable slopes, rock joints, problematic soils…
 Perform sampling and (in-situ and lab) testing
 Identification, classification, engineering properties
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
 Optimum amount of money spent early (&
properly) can lead to cost savings later
(structure, time, litigation, etc.)
 Every test should have a distinct purpose
 What affects costs / time?
 Quantity, location, depth of borings / probes?
 Groundwater testing?
 Specimens for lab testing? Quantity, type, quality?
 In-situ testing? Quantity and method(s)?
 Advanced testing?
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
 Cost or Investment?
SITE CHARACTERIZATION LAYOUT
 Recommended
maximum
distances
 Capture
information in
front & behind
wall alignment
SITE CHARACTERIZATION LAYOUT
 Groundwater
 Corrosion potential of metallic components
 Reduction in frictional resistance between soil &
structural component
 Excavation dewatering and special drilling &
grouting procedures
 Liquefaction potential of loose, cohesionless soils
 Soil / rock slope instability resulting from seepage
 Average high & low groundwater levels
LATERAL EARTH
PRESSURES
GENERAL
 Lateral pressure (𝝈𝒉 )
 Function of vertical overburden pressure (𝝈𝒗 )
𝜎ℎ = 𝐾𝑖 𝜎𝑣
 𝐾𝑖 = coefficient of lateral earth pressure

 Influenced by material, structure and lateral strain
 Limiting states of stress
 Active (𝐾𝑎 ) = max. wall movement away from soil
 At-Rest (𝐾0 ) = no wall movement
 Passive (𝐾𝑝 ) = max. wall movement into soil
EARTH PRESSURE
EARTH PRESSURE
Semi-Empirical Earth Pressure Diagrams
 Related to theoretical triangular distributions
 Provide envelope to observed behavior
 Flexible walls undergo
bending deformations
→ tend to shift load
from “weak” areas to
“strong” areas
 Provide conservative
designs for anchored
walls
APPARENT EARTH PRESSURES
 Based on work with braced excavations
 Envelope of maximum pressures
 Reflects variability in construction
 Does not include water pressure or surcharge(s)
Sands
Terzaghi &
Peck AEP
for soft-to-
medium
clays
APPARENT EARTH PRESSURES
Semi-Empirical Earth Pressure Diagrams

 Related to theoretical triangular distributions
 Provide envelope to observed behavior
 Flexible walls undergo
bending deformations
→ tend to shift load
from “weak” areas to
“strong” areas
 Provide conservative
designs for anchored
walls
WATER PRESSURE - DESIGN
 Water loads / pressures can be significantly
greater than earth pressure loads / pressures
 Consider effects of groundwater drawdown
 Consider “permeability” of wall itself
 Many failures caused by poor drainage
 i.e., higher water pressures than considered in
design
HYDROSTATIC WATER PRESSURE
SEEPAGE PRESSURES
SURCHARGE LOADS & PRESSURES
 Types
 Point loads
 Line loads parallel to wall
 Strip loads parallel to wall
 Uniform surcharge
 Causes
 Railroads, highways, buildings, sign/light
structures, electric/telecommunications towers,
construction equipment, material stockpiles, etc.
 Effects
 Increased lateral earth pressures
 Effects
 Increase lateral earth pressures
 Types
 Point loads
 Line loads parallel to wall
 Strip loads parallel to wall
 Uniform surcharge
 Causes
 Construction equipment, material stockpile,
adjacent structures, roadways, railroads, etc.
 Methods of Analysis
 Uniform surcharges
 Equivalent backfill height
 Other surcharges
 Semi-empirical formulas
from elastic theory &
experiments on
unyielding walls
 Used for line loads, point
loads, and surface loads
GROUND ANCHORS:
CONVENTIONAL & SBMAS
GROUND ANCHORS - BAR
 Diameters = 26 mm up to
75 mm (1 inch to 3 inch)
 Common diam. = 26 to 44
mm (1 inch to 1-3/4 inch)
 Grade 150 ksi (1034 MPa)
GROUND ANCHORS - STRAND
 Diameter = 13 mm (0.6 inch)
diameter, 7-wire strand
 Grade 270 ksi (1862 MPa)
TYPES OF GROUND ANCHORS
Type A:
Straight shaft gravity-grouted
Type B:
Straight shaft pressure-grouted
Type C:
Post-grouted
Type D:
Underreamed
GROUND ANCHORS – HOLLOW BAR
 Diameter = 30 to 103 mm
(1-1/4 to 4 inch)
 Suitable in collapsing
hole conditions
 No casing required
 Simultaneous drilling &
grouting
GROUND ANCHORS
 In a given soil deposit,
actual anchor resistance
will depend on:
 Method of drilling, including
quality of drill hole cleaning
 Period of time that drill hole
is left open
 Diameter of drill hole
 Method & pressure used in
grouting
 Length of anchor bond zone
GROUND ANCHORS - DETAILS
CORROSION PROTECTION
 Function of ground aggressiveness, design
life, risk potential, tolerance to risk...
 Aggressive ground & moisture conditions
 Soils & environmental conditions that promote the
corrosion of steel at relatively fast rates
Severely corroded strand

exhibiting slippage through
wedges after 18 months in
service
 Part of design, and protection must
 Accommodate elastic movements during testing &
stressing
 Withstand damage during storage, handling, &
construction
 Resist attack in aggressive environments
 Allow elastic movements after lock-off
 Permanent Anchors
 Protect free length
 Protect anchor head
 Routine Applications
 Grease & sheath in free length
 Only grout in bond length
TYPES OF CORROSION
Generalised attack
Localised attack
Stress corrosion
cracking
DESIGN LIFE & CORROSION
 Limits for assessing corrosion potential
Test Units Threshold for Non-Aggressive Test Method
pH --- 5.0 < pH < 10 AASHTO T-289
Resistivity Ohm-cm > 3,000 AASHTO T-288
Sulfates ppm < 200 ASTM D4327
Chlorides ppm < 100 ASTM D4327
Organics % by weight < 1% AASHTO T-267
 Effect of Resistivity on Corrosion Potential

Corrosion Potential / Aggressiveness Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Very corrosive < 700
Corrosive 700 – 2,000
Moderately corrosive 2,000 – 5,000
Mildly corrosive 5,000 – 10,000
Non-corrosive > 10,000
 Class I
(Double)
 Grease inside
sheath - provides
protection as well
as a free length.
 Class II
(Simple)
 Grease inside
sheath - provides
protection as well
as a free length.
Anchor
Head
Protection
▪ Cover for
anchor not
embedded in
concrete.
Critical location from a corrosion point of view. In documented failures of

anchors due to corrosion, corrosion took place at / near face of wall.
Prefabricated
Trumpet
GROUND ANCHORS
 Advantages
 Eliminates internal bracing
 Provides open work area with excavation
 Generally straightforward installation
 Reliable load capacity → each anchor load tested
 Provides more uniform load distribution
GROUND ANCHORS
 Limitations
 Not suitable for some soils
 Pull-out resistance
 Long-term creep
 Requires penetration through wall
 Vertical load component → could be large
 Interference with utilities, basements, etc.
 Corrosion potential of the steel elements
 Requires skilled labor and specialized equipment
 Easement needed → temporary and/or permanent
GROUND ANCHORS
 Soils unsuitable for ground anchors
 Organic soils
 Cohesive soils (i.e., clays)
 LI > 0.2 LI = (wn – PL) / PI
 LL > 50
 PI > 20 (High creep potential)
CONVENTIONAL ANCHOR & SBMA
Conventional
Ground Anchor
SBMA
Ground
Anchor
LOAD MOBILIZATION - TENDON
Anchor
Loading
Tendon
Bond
Stress
Progressive
Loading
Initial
Loading
Ultimate
Residual Loading
bond stress
0 Fixed anchor length = max 10 m (typ.)
Mobilization of bond stress for tension anchor
LOAD MOBILIZATION
SBMA
Conventional
Anchor
Anchors with 100%

efficiency mobilize peak
grout-to-ground bond
stress over entire length SBMAs efficiently mobilize ground
strength over multiple of short unit
lengths, where each unit length is
designed individually
EFFICIENCY FACTOR, 𝒇𝒆𝒇𝒇
 Ostermayer (1974)
 Relationship b/t fixed length & unit side friction (bond
stress) - in clays & sands, post-grouted or not
 Anchor load
 Function of fixed length and distribution of load, per
efficiency factor → 𝑓𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 1.6 ∙ 𝐿−0.57
 = 𝜋 ∙ 𝑑ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒 ∙ 𝐿𝑏 ∙ 𝜏𝑢𝑙𝑡 ∙ 𝑓𝑒𝑓𝑓
 Conventional anchors
 𝜏𝑢𝑙𝑡 = average along fixed length
 SBMAs
 𝜏𝑢𝑙𝑡 = average along fixed length for each unit SBMA
 Design length to ensure same load in each unit SBMA
EFFICIENCY FACTOR, 𝒇𝒆𝒇𝒇
 Barley (1995)
 Ultimate load is NOT proportional to fixed length
= 𝜋 ∙ 𝑑ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒 ∙ 𝐿𝑏 ∙ 𝜏𝑢𝑙𝑡 ∙ 1.6 ∙ 𝐿−0.57
SBMA STRESSING SYSTEMS
Hydraulically synchronised stressing Single hollow ram jack to

system – 4 unit SBMA stress and test a SBMA
(in Simsima Limestone in Doha, Qatar) (in Turkey)
REMOVABLE SBMAS – WHY?
Cutting tool tied up by prestressing strand left in ground

(Moscow, Russia)
REMOVABLE SBMAS
2M LONG
PLASTIC
ENTIRE STEEL BAR
HOLLOW STEEL
TUBE 70 X 70 X
TENDON FULLY 70 CM
WITHDRAWN
FROM THIS
BOREHOLE
PLASTIC
SHEATHING
GROUT
GREASED AND SHEATHED

PRE-STRESSED STRAND
PULL STRAND
SADDLE
REMOVABLE SBMAS - MECHANISM
STAGE I: STAGE II: STAGE III:

Pre-Stress & De-Stress Strand
Lock-off Removal
Borehole Removable Greased plastic

grout strand sheathing
SBMAS – USAGE EXAMPLES
 Conventional anchors for SOE
 Design load = 600 kN (135 kip) not
achieved due to creep displacement
 Highly heterogeneous soils → low
strength clays, sands, & sandy silts
 3,600 SBMAs with grouting
 End-of-casing grouting in granular soils
Kuntsevo Plaza Development
(Moscow, Russia)
 Post-grouting in cohesive soils
 Test results
 Max. working loads = 580 to 780 kN
(130 to 175 kip)
 Lateral wall deformations
 ≤ 7.5 mm (5/16 inch)
 SBMA capacity
 > 2x conventional anchors
SBMAS – USAGE EXAMPLES
• 400 anchors with corroded strands 1,537 removable SBMAs, Simsima

Limestone (Al-Quds Tower Project,
• Original - replace with 400 new
Doha, Qatar)
conventional anchors with working
load of 1,500 kN (337 kips)
• Alternative - 200 SBMAs in weak
rock with working load 3,800 kN
(855 kips); 3 unit anchors each 6.3
m long (82 m long overall)
CLOUD-BASED SOFTWARE
 AnchorTestTM
 Innovation for ground anchor industry
 Cloud-based mobile tool to process & store data
stressing records for post-tensioned ground anchors
 Can optimize analysis & data management
processes
 Paperless, intuitive & cost-saving
AnchorTestTM
Analyzes stressing data &

assesses conformance to
acceptance criteria in real-time
(together with auxiliary plotting)
Testing incorporates on-screen

guidance & data plotting w/ built-in
timer & image capture capabilities
AnchorTestTM
Collates data in MS Excel™ files &

transmits instantaneously to office
via AnchorTest™ Cloud
DESIGN OF EXTERNALLY
STABILIZED AER WALLS
GENERAL DESIGN STEPS
Step 1 Establish project requirements.
Step 2 Evaluate soil and rock parameters.
Step 3 Evaluate design soil & rock parameters &

resistance factors. Select corrosion
protection.
Step 4 Select lateral earth pressure distribution.
Step 5 Evaluate factored loads for appropriate

limit states.
Step 6 Compute horizontal anchor loads &
subgrade reaction; evaluate anchor
horizontal spacing.
Step 7 Evaluate anchor inclination.
Step 8 Select tendon type and check tensile
resistance.
Step 9 Evaluate anchor bond length.
Step 10 Evaluate factored bending moments and
flexural resistance of wall.
Step 11 Evaluate bearing resistance of wall below
excavation subgrade.
Step 12 Evaluate overall stability of anchored wall
at service limit state.
Step 13 Estimate max. lateral wall movements &
ground surface settlements.
Step 14 Select lagging. Design walers, drainage
systems, and connection devices.
EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAMS
 For “flexible” walls, apparent earth pressure
(AEP) diagrams can be used
 AEP diagrams are semi-empirical & developed to
account for relatively complex deformation pattern
associated with relatively flexible AER systems
 Many anchored walls are flexible walls (e.g.,

soldier pile & lagging)
 AEP diagrams are generally conservative for
anchored walls
EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAMS
 Location of anchor / strut / bracing affects
the lateral load distribution
 Cohesive soils
 Su is weighted average value of soil retained by
wall with depth of cut = H
 Granular soils
 Use average drained shear strength
EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAMS (Finno, 2016)
Terzaghi & Peck AEP Envelopes

 Measured loads in struts (flexible wall systems)
 For a given soil condition
 At each excavation
 Loads in each brace divided by tributary area
 Selected max. apparent pressure (each level)
 For all excavations, defined envelope of maxima
 Developed loading diagrams for sand, stiff clay, &
soft clay
AEP FOR SANDS
Terzaghi & Peck Recommended
𝑄𝑖
𝑄𝑖
ℎ𝑖
𝑄𝑖
a
Total Load = 0.65 ∙ 𝐾𝐴 ∙ 𝛾 ∙ 𝐻 2

𝐾𝐴 = tan2 45 − 𝜙Τ2
𝑄𝑖 = 𝑝 ∙ ℎ𝑖 ∙ 𝑏
AEP FOR SOFT-TO-MEDIUM CLAYS (Finno, 2016)
𝑄𝑖
p=1.0 ∙ 𝐾𝐴 ∙ 𝛾 ∙ 𝐻
𝑄𝑖 4𝑆𝑢
ℎ𝑖 𝐾𝐴 = 1 − 𝑚
𝛾𝐻
𝑄𝑖 = 𝑝 ∙ ℎ𝑖 ∙ 𝑏
𝑄𝑖
m=1 unless soft clay extends

to significant depth below
bottom of cut, for Mexico City
conditions, m=0.4
AEP FOR STIFF-TO-HARD CLAYS (Finno, 2016)
 Magnitude of pressure does not depend on strength

of clay
AEP FOR CLAYS (Finno, 2016)
 How to determine when to use the soft clay

or stiff clay diagrams?
4𝑆𝑢
𝐾𝐴 = 1 −
𝛾𝐻
 when 𝐾𝐴 ≥ 0 → use soft clay diagram
 when 𝐾𝐴 < 0 → use stiff clay diagram
 No net lateral load acts on wall for undrained
conditions & Rankine assumptions
ANCHOR LOADS & REACTION
Tributary Area Method Hinge Method
ANCHOR LOADS & REACTION
 Anchor Load Calculations
𝑻𝒉 = 𝑻𝒉𝒊 ∙ 𝑺𝒉
𝑻 = 𝑻𝒉 Τcos 𝜽
𝑻𝒗 = 𝑻 ∙ sin 𝜽
 𝑻𝒉 = nominal horizontal anchor load
 𝑻𝒉𝒊 = horizontal component of 𝑻𝒉 per unit width of wall
 𝑺𝒉 = horizontal spacing between anchors
 𝑻 = nominal anchor load
 𝑻𝒗 = vertical component of 𝑻𝒉
 𝜽 = angle of inclination of anchor below horizontal
TENDON SPACING
 Vertical spacing (𝑺𝒗 ) between anchors
 Common = 2.4 to 3.0 m (8 to 10 ft)
 Horizontal spacing (𝑺𝒉 ) between anchors

 Load in an anchor is linearly proportional to
horizontal spacing between anchors
 Bending moments in wall element (for discrete
elements) are proportional to horizontal spacing
 Minimum (whichever is greater)
 1.2 m (4 ft) or 3*drill hole diam.
 Range = 2.4 to 3.0 m (6 to 10 ft)
ANCHOR LENGTH CRITERIA
Bond zone must be established

behind potential slip surfaces
ANCHOR INCLINATION
 Install as close to horizontal as possible to
minimize vertical loads from lock-off loads
 Common = 15 to 30 degrees
 Grouting of anchors installed at angles less than 10
degrees not common unless special grouting
techniques are used.
 Can be as steep as 45 degrees

 e.g. - To get around utilities & to get to better
ground (but more vertical load on wall)
SELECT ANCHOR TENDON
 Prestressing steel element of tendon
 Must be capable of safely transmitting load in bond
zone to structure without tendon breakage
 Maximum proof test load (𝑇𝑛 ) shall not

exceed 80% of GUTS
 Guaranteed Ultimate Tensile Strength (GUTS)
𝐺𝑈𝑇𝑆 ≥ 𝑇𝑛 Τ𝜙
 = 0.8
 Select tendon with: (high strength steel)
Σ𝛾𝑖 𝑄𝑖
𝐺𝑈𝑇𝑆 >
𝜙
ANCHOR BOND LENGTH
 Preliminary bond length
𝑇
𝐿𝑏 ≥
𝜙𝑄𝑛
 𝐿𝑏 = anchor bond length

 𝑇 = factored anchor load
 𝜙 = resistance factor
= 0.65 (cohesionless soil)
= 0.70 (cohesive soil)
= 0.50 (rock)
= 1.00 (with proof tests to a specified load)
 𝑄𝑛 = nominal anchor pullout resistance
ANCHOR BOND LENGTH
 Minimum bond length
 Soil = 4.6 m (15 ft)
 Rock = 3.0 m (10 ft)
 Maximum bond length

 Soil = 12.2 m (40 ft)
 Rock = 6.1 to 9.1 m (20 to 30 ft)
 Overburden Cover
 Minimum = 4.6 m (15 ft)
 In soils
 Long bond zone > 10 m (33 ft) are not practical or efficient
 Large deformation of anchor (stretch) required to mobilize load
& to transfer load to deep anchors
ANCHOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE
𝑸𝒏 = 𝝅 ∙ 𝒅𝒉𝒐𝒍𝒆 ∙ 𝝉𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘 ∙ 𝑳𝒃
 𝑄𝑛 = nominal anchor pullout resistance
 𝒅𝒉𝒐𝒍𝒆 = diameter of drill hole
 𝝉𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘 = nominal anchor bond stress
 𝑳𝒃 = anchor bond length
 In cohesionless soils
 Pressure grouting significantly increase normal
stresses acting on grout body (increases
confinement)
 Increases 𝝉𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘
ANCHOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE
 Actual resistance in field depends on
 Method of drilling, including quality of drill hole
cleaning & period of time that drill hole is left open
 Diameter of the drill hole (𝒅𝒉𝒐𝒍𝒆 )
 Method & pressure used in grouting
 Length of anchor bond zone (𝑳𝒃 )
 Actual bond stress (anchor bond length)

 Verified in field through load testing every anchor to
at least the factored anchor load
STABILITY (Sabatini et al, 1999)
STABILITY (Sabatini et al, 1999)
STABILITY
Bearing capacity
at bottom of wall
should also be
evaluated
 For multiple levels of anchors, failure surfaces should be

checked that pass just behind each anchor
 If external stability requirements cannot be met, anchors may
be lengthened or methods to improve anchor bond or load
transfer mechanisms may be used.
WALL & GROUND MOVEMENTS
 Numerous factors influence amount of wall
& ground movements:
 Subsurface conditions
 Cohesive or granular soil, groundwater
 Type of wall
 Stiffness, continuity, support spacing
 Installation procedures
 Preloading, disturbance, sequencing, time
 External factors
 Surcharge loads, weather
WALL & GROUND MOVEMENTS
(Clough and O’Rourke, 1990)
Curves assume average conditions, good workmanship

ANALYTICAL MODELS
 Soil Structure Interaction (SSI)
 Can be developed & analyzed using commercially
available software packages
 DeepEX, PYWALL, Shoring Suite, Plaxis, WALLAP…
 Previous methods not amenable to stage
construction analysis
 Provide a more accurate estimate of wall forces,
moments, shear, & deflections
 Results greatly influenced by soil shear strength
ANALYTICAL MODELS
(Deep Excavation; www.deepexcavation.com)

ANALYTICAL MODELS
 Representative results for bending moment,
shear force, & deflection profiles
Bending Moment (in-kips) Shear Force (kips) Deflection (in)
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
0 0 0
5 5 5
10 10 10
15 15 15
20 20 20
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
25 25 25
30 30 30
35 35 35
40 40 40
45 45 45
50 50 50
WOOD LAGGING SELECTION
(Goldberg et al, 1976)
BRACING CONNECTIONS
 Details for common support elements
Strut Components
Wale  Struts
Wall  Wales
Plate
 Walls
 Stiffeners
Stiffeners
 Plate
BRACING CONNECTIONS
 Details for common support elements

ANCHOR CONNECTIONS
 Typical
connection to
sheet pile wall
 Back-to-back
channel
sections as Anchor
head
wales
Channel
sections
ANCHOR CONNECTIONS
Connections to secant pile wall

SOIL NAIL WALLS
(INTERNALLY STABILIZED
AER WALL SYSTEMS)
SOIL NAIL WALLS
DEFINED
 Stabilization method of in-situ ground using
systematic pattern of drilled-&-grouted steel
reinforcement bars (nails) with shotcrete facing
 Nails experience tensile force
 As ground deforms laterally in response to excavation
 Acts across potential failure surfaces through ground,
which increases shearing resistance
 Produces block of reinforced ground that can

support itself, external loadings, & unreinforced
ground behind
BASIC COMPONENTS
BASIC COMPONENTS
BASIC COMPONENTS
Temporary Soil
Nail Walls
BASIC COMPONENTS
Permanent Soil
Nail Walls
BASIC COMPONENTS
 Soil nails
 Drilled hole, nail tendons, centralizers, washers,
bearing plate, lock nut
 Grout
 Simple mix - water and cement
 Drainage elements
 Geocomposite strips – 305 to 460 mm (12 to 18 in)
wide, centered b/t nails, weep holes, foot drains
 Structural wall facings
 Temporary shotcrete facing, permanent wall
facings, architectural face treatments
MATERIALS – SOIL NAIL BARS
 All-thread bars, Grade 75 ksi (517 MPa)
 Diameter = No. 6 to 28 (3/4 to 3-1/2 inch)
Solid Bars Hollow Bars Epoxy Coated

Solid Bars
MATERIALS – CENTRALIZERS
For solid bar soil nails
For hollow bar soil nails

DESIGN LIFE
 Temporary wall
 Less than about 2 years
 Extended
 Between about 2 & 5 years
 Permanent wall
 More than 5 years
Class Description
A Encapsulation of soil nail in plastic
sheathing
B Epoxy coating or galvanizing tendon
Yes or & connection components
Unknown Aggressive No
C Consists of a bare tendon with no
Soil?
protective coatings other than
surrounding grout
Class A
Encapsulation Low Risk High
Tolerance?
Class A Intermediate
Encapsulation
Class C Also, need to protect
Class B
Bare Steel
Epoxy Coated
or Galvanized
(sacrificial steel) the Nail Head
RISK TOLERANCE
 Owner should consider the following when
assessing risk with respect to corrosion:
 Corrosive or non-corrosive soil
 Extent of testing to characterize the corrosive
nature of the soil
 Ability of the Owner to inspect and maintain
existing structures
 Consequences of failure
CLASS A PROTECTION
CLASS B PROTECTION
CLASS C PROTECTION
MATERIALS – GROUT
 28-day minimum
compressive strength
= 3,000 to 4,000 psi
 Water/cement (w/c)
ratio = 0.4 to 0.5
 Specific gravity (SG
or Gs) = 1.8 to 1.9
 Tremie method for
solid bars
Effect of water content on grout properties
Source: Littlejohn and Bruce (1977)
MATERIALS – GROUT QA/QC
Testing specific gravity
of fluid grout with a
mud balance
Preparation of
grout cubes for
compression testing
 Prior to nail hole grouting
 Hole should be inspected for slough and caving
 Grout should be placed as soon as possible

after drilling to prevent caving
 Tremie methods or grout tubes should be
used to ensure grout fills entire hole
 Grout pump strokes should be counted to
calculate the volume of grout placed
 Why? If most holes are taking 6 strokes to fill & 1
hole takes 3 strokes, there is a problem!
 Grouting through casing is acceptable
 Specific gravity
 Indirect measure of grout strength when correlated
to water cement (w/c) ratio of the grout
 Grout cubes
 Provide a direct measure of grout strength when
there is a failing nail test
 Will either eliminate or confirm one potential reason
for the failed test
 Take cubes for each grouting operation
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION STEPS
Step 1: Excavate Step 2: Drill Hole Step 3: Install and Grout

Small Cut for Nail Nail and strip drain
Step 4: Place drainage

Strips, reinforcement,
shotcrete, bearing
plates/washers/nuts
Step 5: Repeat Process to Step 6: Place Final Facing

Final Grade (on Permanent Walls)
(Soil Nail Walls; Lazarte et al, 2014)
WALL LAYOUT – NAIL PATTERN
 Wall batter
 0° to 10°
 Nail spacing
 𝑆ℎ = 1.2 to 1.8 m
(4 to 6 ft)
 𝑆𝑣 = 1.2 to 1.8 m
(4 to 6 ft)
 Nail inclination
 10° to 20°
 Not enough soil nails?
SEQUENCING – DRILL HOLE
 During Drilling
 In a horizontal plane, the drill hole should be
perpendicular to the wall face (when possible).
 In a vertical plane, the hole should be inclined at a
10° to 20° downward angle.
 Water usually is NOT be used to remove cuttings.
 Minor pattern adjustments will be required in the field.
 Adjustments of more than 25% of the nail spacing
should be approved by the wall designer(s).
 During Drilling
 Watch for larger piles
of drill spoils.
 Watch for holes that
take longer to drill.
 Watch for holes that
drill too fast.
 If any of these occur
then a proof test may
be warranted.
SEQUENCING – INSERT TENDON
SEQUENCING – MIXING GROUT
SEQUENCING – GROUT HOLE
SEQUENCING – INSTALL DRAINAGE
STRIPS & REINFORCING BARS
SEQUENCING – APPLY SHOTCRETE
SEQUENCING – FINAL TEMP WALL
SEQUENCING – FINAL FACING PREP
SEQUENCING – FINAL FACING PREP
SEQUENCING – FINAL FACING
Surface is treated
and textured to
blend in to
geologic formation
ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS
 Smaller ROW and work areas
 Redundancy of support elements
 Fast installation
 Easy to modify
 No overhead restrictions
 Large number qualified contractors
 Reduced quantity of excavation & backfill
 Combines both temporary & permanent
support
PERFORMANCE ADVANTAGES
 Relatively flexible & can accommodate
comparatively large total & differential
movements
 The measured deflections usually within
tolerable limits
 Perform well during seismic events
 More redundancy than anchored walls
LIMITATIONS
 Not suitable for some ground conditions
 Standup time & soil types
 Utilities behind wall will create restrictions to

location, inclination, & length of soil nails
 Large amounts of groundwater seepage
 Requires underground easements
 Greater displacement than anchored walls
FAVORABLE GROUND CONDITIONS
 Excavated soil can stand unsupported in a 1.2 -
1.7 m (4 - 6 ft) high vertical cut for 1 to 2 days
 Above groundwater (permeable ground)
 Able to drill a stable, open hole (with no casing)
 Ground types
 Dense to very dense granular soils (apparent cohesion)
 Stiff to hard fine-grained soils
 Weathered rock
 Residual soils
UNSUITABLE GROUND CONDITIONS
 Cohesionless soils
 Loose granular soils → 𝑁𝑆𝑃𝑇 < 10 blows; 𝐷𝑟 < 30%
 Cohesionless soils of uniform size
 𝐶𝑢 < 2 → 𝐶𝑢 = 𝑑60ൗ𝑑10
 Certain cohesive soils

 Shear strength, 𝑆𝑢 < 50 kPa (1000 psf)
𝑤𝑛 −𝑃𝐿
 Liquidity Index → 𝐿𝐼 > 0.2 𝐿𝐼 =
𝐿𝐿−𝑃𝐿
𝐿𝐿−𝑤𝑛
 Consistency Index → 𝐼𝑐 < 0.9 𝐼𝑐 =
𝐿𝐿−𝑃𝐿
 LL > 50
 PI > 20 (High creep potential)
UNSUITABLE GROUND CONDITIONS
 Organic soils
 Rubble fills
 Below permanent groundwater table
 Highly corrosive soils
 Weathered rock with unfavorable weak planes
 Anywhere stand up time is not sufficient
DIFFICULT GROUND CONDITIONS
 Open graded coarse granular material
 Highly corrosive soil (cinder, slag, etc.) or
groundwater
 Rock with open joints or voids, &/or with
weak or adversely oriented jointing
 Issue with potential grout loss
 Frost susceptible & expansive soils

 Issue with potential face durability
SOIL NAIL BOND STRENGTH
 Factors affecting bond
 Soil type
 Overburden stress
 Drill hole diameter
 Installation method
 Drilling technique
 Drill hole cleaning
 Grouting technique (high
or low pressure)
 Grout characteristics
SOIL NAIL BOND STRENGTH
(Mod. after Elias and Juran, 1991)
 Coarse-grained soils (tremie grouted)

Drill-Hole Bond Strength
Soil Type
Drilling Method qu (psi)
Rotary Drilled Sand/gravel 15 – 26
Rotary Drilled Silty sand 15 – 22
Rotary Drilled Silt 9 – 11
Rotary Drilled Piedmont residual 6 – 17
Rotary Drilled Fine Colluvium 11 – 22
Driven Casing Sand/gravel w/low overburden 28 – 62
Driven Casing Dense Moraine 55 – 70
Driven Casing Colluvium 15 – 26
Augered Silty sand fill 3–6
Augered Silty fine sand 8 – 13
Augered Silty clayey sand 9 - 20
ULT. PULLOUT RESISTANCE (rPO)
(Mod. after Sabatini et al. 1999)
 Tremie grouted
Relative SPT Ult. Pullout Resistance
Soil Type Density/ (N1)60 per Unit Length, rPO
Consistency Range (k/ft)
Sand and Gravel Loose 4 – 10 10
Sand and Gravel Med. Dense 11 – 30 15
Sand and Gravel Dense 31 – 50 20
Sand Loose 4 – 10 7
Sand Med. Dense 11 – 30 10
Sand Dense 31 – 50 13
Sand and Silt Loose 4 – 10 5
Sand and Silt Med. Dense 11 – 30 7
Sand and Silt Dense 31 – 50 9
Silt-clay mix of low plasticity or Stiff 10 – 20 2
fine micaceous sand or silt mix
Silt-clay mix of low plasticity or Hard 21 - 40 4
fine micaceous sand or silt mix
STRESS TRANSFER
▪ Interaction between
soil nails, soil behind
wall, & facing is
complex
▪ Interaction causes
redistributions of
tensile forces in nails
▪ Mobilized shear
stress along grout-
soil interface, q, is
not uniform &
changes in direction
along nail length
LOAD TRANSFER
LOAD TRANSFER
 Tensile force that can
develop in a tendon
depends on location
where nail crosses
slip surface.
 Location of maximum
nail tensile forces
 Close to (generally
does not coincide with)
critical slip surface in
stability analyses.
 Location of maximum
load & magnitude of
loads change from
nail to nail.
LOAD TRANSFER
 Intersection of soil
nail with slip surface
determines length
(Lp) of that soil nail
that can develop
pullout resistance.
 Stability contribution
 T1 = relatively small
because Lp is relatively
small for this nail
 T2 & T3 = greater
because Lp is greater
NAIL STRENGTH ENVELOPE
 Soil nail pullout

resistance, RPO
 Tendon tensile
resistance, RT
 Facing
resistance, RF
1. Establish criteria
 Geometry, loading, performance criteria,
constraints, corrosion protection
2. Evaluate subsurface conditions & develop

geotechnical properties
 Design parameters, subsurface profiles…
3. Select appropriate loads and pressures

 Lateral earth pressures, surcharge, other loading
 Unfactored service loads, load combinations,
load/resistance factors
4. Establish nail configuration and materials
 Define ROW, location of bearing strata,
obstructions, utilities
 Develop - wall layout, cross sections, nail pattern
on wall face, nail horizontal splaying
 Calculate individual nail loads
5. Analyze internal & external stability
Nail-Soil Pullout Global Stability Basal heave

6. Check strength limit states (geotechnical &
structural)
 Pullout resistance, sliding stability, nail tensile
resistance, facing resistance (flexural/shear), facing
headed stud resistance…
7. Check service limit states (deformations)

 Lateral wall movements & surface settlements
8. Define drainage details

 Evaluate internal drainage, surface water runoff,
develop details
SERVICE LIMIT STATE ANALYSIS
Estimated Deformation
Ground Type Horizontal / Vertical
Weathered Rock 1 H / 1000 V
Sands 2 H / 1000 V
Clays 4 H / 1000 V
LIMIT STATES
 Overall stability
 Internal stability
 Global stability
 Strength limit states
 Lateral sliding
 Nail pullout
 Nail tension
 Facing
 Extreme limit states
 Seismic
 Service limit states
 Lateral displacement
 Vertical deformation (i.e., wall settlement)
LIMIT STATES
LIMIT STATES
 Factors
affecting soil
support under
nail head:
 Size of bearing
plate in relation
to drill hole
 Grout condition
at face
 Soil disturbance
from drilling
 Soil type
LIMIT STATES
 Reinforcement for facing in bending
LOAD TESTING
 Why is it necessary to test the soil nails?
 Verify nail design load can be carried without
excessive deformation.
 Verify long-term behavior is as anticipated.
 Verify the adequacy of the Contractor’s equipment
and drilling, installation and grouting operations.
 Verify nail design capacity if soil conditions change.
 Verify nail design capacity if Contractor’s means
and methods change.
LOAD TESTING
 Verification load testing
 Proof load testing
 Creep load testing

LOAD TESTING
 Proof Testing
 At least on 5% of production nails.
 Verification Testing
 Project specific
 More verification testing is required for the
following conditions:
 Larger number of different soil types exist
behind the wall (high heterogeneity)
 Higher variability of soil properties even if there
is one soil type
 Larger and longer walls.
OBSERVATIONS OF ACTIVITIES
 Daily observations of the site should look for
the following:
 Cracks in the soil above the wall.
 Soil failing out from under already placed
shotcrete.
 Water seepage.
 Erosion.
 Bent or damaged nails or studs or anchor plates.
THANK YOU !

Managing Director
Phone: +1 (347) 670-2006

Email: AMarinucci@V2CStrategists.com
Luis Raygada Rojas
Gerente de Ingeniería
INCOTEC Cimentaciones del Perú
Aciertos y Desaciertos de los Sistemas de Contención de Sótanos en

Zonas Urbanas en Perú
4° Congreso Internacional de Fundaciones Profundas
Introducción
Aspectos técnicos relevantes
Buenas prácticas constructivas
Conclusiones y comentarios finales

Altura máxima de sostenimiento:

- Grava arenosa: 5.0m
- Arcilla dura: 3.0m
- Arena med. densa: 2.0m
Tomado de la NTP E.050 2018

Tomado de Suarez 2012

Obra más profunda de Lima al 2018

Distrito de Santiago de Surco
26 pisos + 10 sótanos
Cota -37.23m
Tomado de la Presentación NTP-E.050. Prof. Jorge Zegarra

Aspectos técnicos relevantes
•Características y condiciones del suelo

•Características del proyecto
•Características de las estructuras colindantes
•Interferencias
Miraflores, abril 2008
La Victoria, diciembre 2007

La Molina, enero 2015

Cajamarca, noviembre 2018

San Miguel, mayo 2017

Piura, marzo 2019

Calzaduras Calza cimentación vecina
Se profundiza la calzadura a medida que se profundiza
Limitación de profundidades
Muro Suelo rígido/muy denso/duro

Anclado Sin Nivel Freático
Se construye por bataches a medida que se excava terreno
Deformaciones inherentes al método
Se construye desde la superficie

Muro
Muchas veces se requiere de lodos tixotrópicos
Pantalla
Requiere murete guía en el perímetro
Podríamos requerir de trépano, pre perforaciones, hidrofresa
Sistema similar al Muro Pantalla

Pantalla
Las condiciones del sistema se relacionan directamente al tipo de pilote
de
En caso de pilotes FOW no necesita murete guía
Pilotes
Pilotes Suelo Cemento DSM
Se construye por bataches a medida que se excava.

Soil
Cuidado con suelos sueltos y el nivel freático
Nailing La deformación es inherente al método
Requiere evaluación de las etapas constructivas
Aprovecha el suelo de fundación
Muro
Incorpora lechada a gran presión mezclándola con el suelo
CSM Remoción mínima de desechos
No necesita provisión de concreto premezclado
BUENAS PRÁCTICAS CONSTRUCTIVAS
Inspección previa:
- Identificar las posibles
fisuras pre existentes,
Sistema de Monitoreo: - Posibles malas prácticas
• Inclinómetros, constructivas
• Celdas de carga, - Indicativos que nos evite
El comportamiento y • Puntos de control problemas futuros
desempeño de los sistemas topográficos
de contención en zonas • Otros
urbanas pueden ocasionar
daños irreparables en los
colindantes.
COMENTARIOS FINALES
• Existen en el medio diversos sistemas de contención que nos permiten
realizar el trabajo de manera segura y óptima desde un punto de vista
ingenieril, que optimice plazos, costos manteniendo la seguridad.
• Se debe buscar las mejores alternativas que se ajusten a las
particularidades de cada proyecto y no ajustar el método a las necesidades
del proyecto.
• Es importante realizar un buen estudio geotécnico en cada proyecto para
obtener información suficiente que nos permita realizar una correcta
predicción numérica del comportamiento del sistema de contención.
COMENTARIOS FINALES
• Se debe tener en cuenta la heterogeneidad del suelo, existencia del nivel
freático para definir si se deprime la napa o se emplean sistemas de
contención impermeables, identificar capas blandas/sueltas, otros.
• Identificar plenamente las interferencias existentes en la periferia de cada
proyecto.
• Dependiendo de la dificultad y temporalidad de cada proyecto, se sugiere
realizar sistemas de monitoreo acorde a las necesidades del proyecto.
“Para conseguir el éxito, las organizaciones

deben preocuparse actualmente por innovar
incesantemente”
(Marquina 2019)
MUCHAS GRACIAS
MBA Ing. LUIS RAYGADA ROJAS

luis.raygada@incotecperu.com.pe
33
Recent experiences with urban excavations
in Buenos Aires, Argentina
Dr. Alejo O. Sfriso

Universty of Buenos Aires materias.fi.uba.ar/6408 asfriso@fi.uba.ar
SRK Consulting (Argentina) latam.srk.com asfriso@srk.com.ar
AOSA www.aosa.com.ar asfriso@aosa.com.ar
4th Bolivian International Conference on Deep Foundations, May 2019
Sfriso on Urban Excavations - 4th Bolivian Conf. on Deep Foundations
Geotechnical setting
0m | 2m: man-made fills
2m | 7m: interbedded soft clay and silt
7m | 9m: fine loose silty sand
9m | 24m: stiff to hard cemented silts
24m | 28m: stiff plastic clays (impervious)
28m | 50m: very dense clean sands
normally consolidated,
aged plastic clays
2 (Núñez 1986)
Vista Tower
• 16 m to 20 m deep
excavation in the city center
• Street side: pile-supported
anchored wall
• Interior sides: sequential
anchored excavation and
cast-in-place wall
3
Street-side wall: fast

and productive using
piles
• Metro station 6 m apart
• Note steep inclined anchor
• Piles required to balance
vertical loads
4
(Santa Cruz 2017)
Street-side wall: fast

and productive using
piles
• Pile-supported wall required
only three rows of anchors
• Pro: faster and cleaner
• Con: wall thickness
5
(Santa Cruz 2017)
Interior walls: slow and painful using

sequential excavation and buttresses
• 11-storey buildings around

• Seven rows of piles required
• Sequential excavation was slow
6
7
Why using these soil structures

from the middle ages?
Code demands all excavations

wider than 2.0 m to be supported
• Good and safe requeriment
• Misunderstanding: restriction
applied to each and every little
construction phase
8
9
Opportunity one:
get rid of buttresses
Opportunity two: don’t use
final wall as primary support
We humble engineers seem not to be able to convince stellar-

architects who require perimeter walls to be 30 cm thick, maximum
10
A procedure deserving an opportunity
Use the restriction of 2.0m

span smartly
• Excavate a long strip,
2.0 m high
• Carve the anchor plates
in the neighbour’s ground
(he/she won’t notice)
• Use a 10 cm temporary
shotcrete wall
• Move fast-forward!
11
12
America Pavilion
A case under construction:
13
America Pavilion
Excavation sequencing
to control uplift pressure
F W F
u
Deep excavations come closer to
water-bearing sand formation:
risk of uplift W
• Sequential excavation
W
• Piles an anchors
u
F W F
u
14

L’Avenue Libertador
18.5m deep excavation

supported with anchored
diaphragm walls
• Some panels used as
columns: note
shotcrete 2nd panels
Located at the toe of
the Pampeano cliff
• 6.5 m clay plug
must resist 15.5 m of
unbalanced uplift
pressure
15

L’Avenue Libertador
• General excavation to
safe level
• Excavation of bottom
five meters in sectors
• Figure shows 1-A
• Stage 1-B more
interesting
16
Interesting challenge
excavaying Stage 1-B
• Ingress of water from bottom

• Risk of erosion and piping
• Geotextile and gravel bed
enough to prevent damage
17
What comes next: risk and reliabilty

in design engineering
• We geotech people apply

“engineering judgement”
• Structural engineers apply
LRFD: risk and uncertainty
properly accounted for
• We must get rid of FoS
concept as design tool
• Reliability-based procedures
in geotechnical engineering
now feasible
• FEM based Montecarlo method
still expensive: resort to FOSM
18

• Identify aleatory variables

including stratigraphy
• Determine 𝜇 and 𝜎
• Perform up to 2𝑁 simulations
• Compute 𝑃𝑜𝐹 (Ledesma 2019)
19

• Identify most influencing pars:

optimize ground inv. program
• Inform a range, make your
client aware of risks (Ledesma 2019)
20 𝑈𝑦 [𝑚𝑚] 𝑈𝑦 [𝑚𝑚]
We respectfully pay tribute to this people, who built the whole Metro Line A
21 A in 35 months, 12 years before the publication of Erdbaumechanik (END)
Retaining Systems in Urban Excavations
Santa Cruz, 2019-05-24,

Franz-Werner Gerressen , Director Method Development
© BAUER Maschinen GmbH, D-86529 Schrobenhausen
The need for retaining walls
Prevent collapse of excavation
Prevent water ingress
Avoid movement and settlement

of adjacent structures

Retaining Wall Systems - Comparison
Deflections Permeability Duration

Systems
Flexible Stiff Permeable Watertight Temporary Permanent
Pile Walls
Intermittent, Contiguous
Secant
Soldier pile walls

Timber lagging
Concrete lagging
Soil mix lagging
Sheet pile walls
Diaphragm walls

Retaining Wall Systems - Comparison
Soldier pile walls Sheet pile walls

(timber lagging)
Diaphragm walls
Pile Walls (secant) Soldier pile walls (soil mix)
Retaining Wall Systems - Pile Walls

Retaining Wall Systems - Pile Walls
intermittent
5 - 10 cm
contiguous
secant

Secant Pile Wall - Typical Working Sequence and Interlock
PRIMARY PILE SECONDARY PILE
1 5 2 6 3 7 4
pile numbers indicate construction sequence !
Diameter 800 mm 1.000 mm 1.500 mm

Depth
to 15 m 70 mm 100 mm 150 mm
to 20 m 100 mm 150 mm 200 mm

25 m and more 100 mm 200 mm 250 mm
Secant Pile Wall - Construction Procedure
40mm
AUGER EXCAVATES SOIL
CASING CUTS PILE
120mm
750mm

Secant Pile Wall - Remarks
Do you see any difference?
CFA - method CCFA – Cased CFA

method
CFA tool
Secant Pile Wall - Using CCFA - Verticality
Very high verticality due to:

• Double wall casings (long casings)
• Relative stiffness of combined drill string is
much higher than CFA augers only
• Casings is 3-times guided
• Counter rotation of casing and auger
References
. Verticality tolerance of 1 in 150 or better has been
achieved in the past (Coventry UK, Bath UK)

Secant Pile Wall - Using CCFA - Working procedure

CCFA Job Site References

Secant Pile Walls

for transferring bending moments and vertical, structural loads
Retaining wall Retaining wall for infrastructure

3 - 4 basement excavation projects (roads, railways, metro)
permanent transfer of vertical loads
Job Site References

Job Site References

Job Site References
Project: Secant Pile Wall, Naples, Italy
Equipment: BG 28 with BTM
Diameter: 750 mm
Depth: 15 m
Performance:
Primary pile:
unreinforced, 20 min/pile
Secondary pile:
reinforced, 60 min/pile

Job Site References
Production time
unreinforced reinforced
Positioning 2 min 2 min
Drilling 8 min 16 min
Concreting 9 min 9 min
Installation of
reinforcement 35 min
Auger cleaning 1 min
Total: 20 min 62 min
• Very confined space

• Good job site management in regards of positioning of concrete pump
• No problem with groundwater, very dry spoil
Job Site References
Installation time for reinforcement relatively long

• 3-section cages
• 2-time connecting during installation
Soil Mixing

Soil Mixing - Basics - Working Principle
cement water
mixing tool
soil
cemented
soil
Soil Mixing - Basics - Working Principle
Soil Mixing
basic idea
Improvement of the properties of the soil by mixing a slurry into the ground
3000
Strength Permeability

Soil Mixing - CSM (Cutter Soil Mixing) - Working Sequence

Soil Mixing - CSM (Cutter Soil Mixing) - Applications
Foundation
Slope Stabilization
Retaining Wall
Cut-Off-Wall

CSM Job Site References

CSM (Cutter Soil Mixing) - References
Antwerp, Belgium
retaining wall
approx. 3.000 m²
550 mm wall thickness,
max. 12 m panel depth
9 m excavation depth
soil conditions
silty sand

Vittorio Veneto, Italy
retaining wall
approx. 2 500 m²
550 mm wall thickness,
max. 12 m panel depth
CSM retaining wall

soil conditions
sand
specific feature
CSM barrette
barrettes for tie downs made with
CSM panels


Diaphragm Wall

Diaphragm Wall using Trench Cutter
B-Tronic B-Report

Diaphragm Wall using Trench Cutter - Slurry Circuit

Working sequence
1. Pre - 2. Excavation of 3. Excavation of 4. Installation of

excavation primary panel primary panel reinforcement cage
(main bites) (center bite)
5. Concreting of 6. Excavation of 7. Installation of 8. Concreting of

primary panel secondary panel reinforcement cage secondary panel
How to deal with difficult soil conditions?
Hybrid Cutter Wheel
Standard Cutter Wheel Round Shank Chisel Roller Bits
50 MPa 100 MPa

Rock Strength
Diaphragm Wall with Cutter
Job Site References

Las Vegas, USA
COSMOPOLITAN RESORT AND CASINO


Excavation along Jockey Club


Shanghai, China
Yunlingxi Deep Shaft
梦排
清江
叶
园福泵
家
建站
宅昌
北
Yunlingxi Schacht 平
苗 Shanghai Foundation 中
圃云山
岭 Suzhou 公
西 River 长园
风
1570m 2550m 2700m 2400m 1400m 2100m 2550m 2000m
Total Length 15.3 km

Shanghai, China

Shanghai, China
• Part of the Suzhou River “Deep

Tunnel” project
• Construction of deep drainage,
regulation and storage pipeline
• Total length of 15.3 km
• Maximum depth of 105 m, and various
widths
ID 34 m
3 test panels to 150 m

High demands on verticality 1/1000

Shanghai, China
35 m Silty clay and

clay
Various layers of stiff silty clay and

65 m
sandy silt
90 m Dense sand
Alternating layers of dense sands

150 m
and hard clays

Shanghai, China
• 24/7 non stop operation

• Installation of cage 149 m

Shanghai, China
Overcut joint system ZQ3
High demands on trench

alignment
The requirement for trench

verticality was defined by
1/1.000
Less than 15 cm in both

directions

First cutter 2006
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
2044:
-160
250 m
150 m test in 2018
Santa Cruz, 2019-05-24,

Franz-Werner Gerressen , Director Method Development
RETAINING WALL PERFOMANCE IN
COLLAPSIBLE SOILS
Engineer Carlos Medeiros Silva, Ph.D.

Embre Engenharia Geotécnica e Uniceub – Centro Universitário de Brasília
4º Congreso Internacional de Fundaciones Profundas de Bolívia

PRESENTATION STRUCTURE
▪ Retaining Wall behaviour history in the Federal District of Brazil;
▪ Present 4 work site cases (Technical Literature);
▪ Present Soil Characterization of the sites;
▪ Behaviour Comparison of Piles and Anchors installed in collapsible soils;
▪ Final Remarks;

Location and Geology

Brasília, Brasil - world cultural heritage

Historic – Central Bank of Brazil
Setor Bancário Sul – Brasília-DF
Active Anchors
Height 20.0m
Maximum anchor
25.0m
length(f=0,125m)
Displacement 0.25m
Costa Nunes e Dias (1977) e Dias et al (2016)
Verification of Retaining Wall –Costa Nunes (1970)

Historic –Parque da Cidade Building
Setor Comercial Sul – Brasília-DF
1st STEP
Active Anchors
Height 11.0m
Maximum anchor
25.0m
length(f=0,125m)
Displacement 0.20m
Costa Nunes (1974)
2nd STEP
Active Anchors
Height 9.0m
Maximum anchor
25.0m
length(f=0,125m)
Design: Costa Nunes(1974)-Silva(2004) / Installation - SOLOTRAT Curtain Displacement 0.01m

Silva et al (2006)
Identified Pathologies by Pitta et a( ( 2006)

Historic –Financial Center Building
Setor Bancário Sul – Brasília-DF
Andrade
Passive Anchors
Height 18.90m
Maximum anchor
12.0m
length(f=0,20m)
Curtain Displacement 0.005m
Medeiros (2005) e Medeiros et al (2006)
Design – Cunha (2010) / Installation - EMBRE

Historic –Multi Brasil Building
Setor Comércial Norte – Brasília-DF
Active Anchors
Height
23.0m
Maximum anchor
28.0m
length(f=0,125m)
Curtain Displacement 0.02m
Design –Prof. Carlos Medeiros / Installation - EMBRE

Main Techniques Applied
Sprayed Reinforced
Concrete Active Zone Concrete
Passive Zone
Soil Nailing Anchored Wall

Main Techniques Applied
Piles
Active Zone
Piles
Passive Zone
Soil Nailing Anchored Wall
Types of Pile Curtain Wall Spacing Application
Secant Water Level
Tangent Frictional Soils
Juxtaposed Cohesive Soils

Main Pile Curtain Wall Types
Juxtaposed Piles with

Passive Anchors
Juxtaposed Piles with

Active Anchors

Main Anchors Type
BASE
Active Anchors – Monobars

(DSI Dywidag System)
String Active Anchors (RB 190-

ArcelorMittal)
Passive Anchors
(CA 50 Steel - Gerdal)

Anchors Type
BASE
Active Anchors – Monobars

(DSI Dywidag System)
String Active Anchors (RB 190-

ArcelorMittal)
Passive Anchors
DYWEXPANDER (CA 50 Steel )

BRASÍLIA SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
▪ Fine, high porosity and weathered Soil;
▪ Pseudo-Stable Structure that it has structure collpase due to loading or

wetting;
▪ Load or saturation increase collapse.

Voids
Clay bonding
Grain
Camapum de Carvalho, (2012)

Typical profile characterization by means of Field and Laboratory Tests
 SPT probes with moisture profile determination
Silva et al (2016)

Brasília Porous Clay
Oedometric Test
Guimarães, 2002)

ANCHOR BEHAVIOUR IS SIMILAR TO PILE BEHAVIOUR IN COLLAPSIBLE SOILS
 PC21 – Flooded soil at surface and 3 and 7 m depth
Load Test Saturation Type

PC 1 No Saturation
PC2 At surface
PC3 In depth
18
ANCHOR BEHAVIOUR IS SIMILAR TO PILE BEHAVIOUR IN COLLAPSIBLE SOILS
Silva et al (2016)
Load Test Saturation Type Maximum Load (kN) Stress (kPa) Settlement (mm)
PC 1 No Saturation 353 37 41
PC2 At surface 324 34 42
PC3 In depth 177 19 (~50%) 58

Case Study 1– Central Bank of Brazil
Setor Bancário Sul
Active Anchors
Height 20.0m
Maximum
anchor 28.0m
length(0,125m)
Curtain
0.25m
displacement
Stress 30-50kPa
Costa Nunes e Dias (1977) e Dias et al (2016)

3 to 13% Anchor load capacity reduction

Case Study 2–Parque da Cidade Building
Junta 1
Junta 2
Junta 3
Junta 4
Junta 5
A A A
Setor Comercial Sul
➢ Soil characterized in1975 and 2007. Collected Samples (4,5 m depth near the
0
retaining wall ).
A A
Well 1-1975 Well 5- 2007
Junta 6
Junta 8
Junta 7
Junta 9
A B Moisture(%) 41 46
Specific dry density 1,01 1,10

(g/cm3)
A Relative Density 2,64 2,63

TRECHO BC (g/cm3)
Junta 10
Junta 11
B A
120
CORTE AA
C Void Ratio 1,61 1,41
1000
Saturation Degree 67 86
250
800 1000
(%)
250
600 1000
800
250
600
Cohesion (kPa) 22 0
120
800
A
Curtain Wall designed by Brazilian Method and Ostermayer Method (1970). Friction Angle (o) 24 26

Case Study 3–Pátio Capital Building
Setor de Indústria e Abastecimento
Active Anchors
Height 11.00m
Maximum anchor
18.0m
length (0,125m)
Curtain displacement -0.008m
Provisional Anchors 700KN (Test Load 1050kN)
Cement (L/0,5m) 100 150 200 250
Diameter (cm) 32 37 44 49
Failure Load (tnf) 50-67 67-84 84-105 105

Stress (kPa) 50/67 58/72 60/75 67
Silva (2016)

Case Study 3–Pátio Capital Building
Setor de Indústria e Abastecimento
Carga (tf)
Load(KN)
0.0 0,0
10.0 100,0
20.0 200,0
30.0 300,040.0 400,050.0 500,0 60.0600,0 70.0700,0 800,0
80.0 900,0
90.0 1000,0
100.0 1100,0
110.0
0
10
20
Displacement ((mm) 30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Diameter - 32 cm 37 cm 44 cm 49cm
100
2 sc
2 SC 33SC
sc 4SC
Provisional Anchors 700KN (Test Load 1050kN)
Cement (L/0,5m) 100 150 200 250
Diameter (cm) 32 37 44 49
Failure Load (tnf) 50-67 67-84 84-105 105

Adhesion Stress (kPa)
50/67 58/72 60/75 67

Case Study 4–Financial Center Building
Setor Bancário Sul
Passive Anchors
Height 18,90m
Maximum anchor
12,0m
length (f= 0,32m)
Curtain Displacement 0,005m
Medeiros (2005) Medeiros et al (2006)
Andrade Medeiros (2005)

Low Anchor/soil stress– 25 a 50kPa

Case Study 4– Financial Center Building
Setor Bancário Sul
Direct Shear
Direct Shear Excavation SPT
Sample
Results Depth (m) (Blows)
7
18
Obs. Sample with lateritic concrections, high friction angle at 12,5m depth
DMT TEST RESULTS
Medeiros (2005)
Case Study 4–Financial Center Building
Setor Bancário Sul
Direct Shear
Excavation SPT
Sample Depth (m) (blows)
7
18
Obs. Sample with lateritic concrections, high friction angle
Pullout Test ( l=6,0m)

Load (tf)
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
0
10 Provisional Anchors
20
Anchor Level(m) 4 12,5
30
Displacement (mm)
40 Diameter (m) 0,20 0,20

50
Length (m) 6,0 6,0
60
Failure Load (tnf) 15-20 25-30
70
Adhesion stress (kPa) 40/53 67/80
80
90
H=4,00m H=12,5m
100
Low Anchor/soil stress– 25 a 50kPa

Case Study 5–CasaBlanca Residential
Inclinometer
Pile Wall Lifespan displacements
Displacement (mm)
Palmeira (2014)
Passive/Active Anchors
Projeto - EMBRE / Execução - EMBRE

Case Study 5–CasaBlanca Residential
Inclinometer
Pile Wall Lifespan displacements
Displacement (mm)
Palmeira (2014)
Active Anchors

FINAL REMARKS
➢ Curtain Wall design choice(Secante, Tangent or Juxtaposed Piles) depends
on geotechnical and geological conditions;
➢ In Curtain Walls and passive/active anchors installed in collapsible soils, the

soil collapse due to the degree of saturation and load increase must be
considered.
➢Special attention must be given to seasonality, superficial drainage and the

maintenance of hydraulic networks in the surrounding area;
➢ In the tieback/soil interface, on collapsible horizon, a Safety Factor (SF)> 1.5

must be adopted → proposed by Aoki and Cintra (2009);
➢ The shear stress in failure on the soil/anchor interface, being them passive or
active, present the same order of magnitude due to similar injection
procedures;
➢In Retaining Wall Structures on collapsible soils, soil nail or anchors can be
applied with satisfactory performance. Althought, the load capacity and soil
displacement depends on the collapsible behaviour of the soil.
GRACIAS
carlos@embre.com.br

Mini curriculum (Carlos Medeiros Silva) - Possui graduação em Engenharia Civil pela Universidade de Brasília
(1989) e doutorado em Geotecnia (fundações) pela Universidade de Brasília (2011). Atualmente é Professor do
Departatamento de Engenharia Civil do UNICEUB (Centro Universitário Brasília) e na Pós-Graduação do
INBEC/UNIP. Coordena as Comissões Técnicas da ABMS - Associação Brasileira de Mecânica dos Solos e
Engenharia Geotécnica e é Diretor técnico da EMBRE Engenharia e Fundações ltda. e do LTEC laboratório de
Solos Ltda. Possui ampla experiência na Engenharia Civil com ênfase na área Geotécnica onde é responsável
técnico por mais de 3000 obras e trabalhos técnicos. Participa ativamente do desenvolvimento da Engenharia
Brasileira por meio do apoio técnico e financeiro as pesquisas cientificas aplicadas à prática. Esse envolvimento
redeu a publicação de aproximadamente 40 trabalhos técnicos científicos publicados em congressos e periódicos
no Brasil e no Exterior e um capítulo de livro. Recebeu os Prêmios: Professor José Henrique Feitosa Pereira
Concedido pelo Programa de Pós - Graduação em Geotecnia da Universidade de Brasília pelas Contribuições ao
Desenvolvimento de Pesquisas Geotécnicas no Distrito Federal, 2003; o Prêmio Costa Nunes da ABMS auferido ao
autor da melhor Tese de Doutorado defendida em instituição brasileira no Biênio 2011-2012; e o Prêmio CBIC
Inovação e Sustentabilidade Falcão Bauer na Categoria Pesquisa concedido pela CBIC - Câmara Brasileira da
Industria da Construção ao autor da melhor pesquisa aplicado a Construção Civil no ano de 2012. Atua como
revisor das Revistas Técnicas nacionais e internacionais da área geotécnica, como a Soil and Rocks, a Geotecnia,
a Fundações e Obras Geotécnicas, entre outras, sendo ainda membro do corpo editorial da Revista Fundações e
Obras Geotécnicas. Atua em três áreas de Pesquisa, Ensino e Extensão relacionadas ao meio ambiente urbano
sustentável são elas: fundações, muros de contenções, e novas fontes de energias renováveis. Orientou e
coorientou alunos em seus trabalhos de conclusão do curso de graduação, de Mestrado e de Doutorado da
Universidade de Brasília ou de Universidades estrangeiras conveniadas. Teve participação em cerca de 20 bancas
de defesas de Teses, Dissertações e trabalhos de conclusão de curso. Ministrou 5 cursos de extensão na área
geotécnica em instituições brasileiras. Atualmente coordena 2 projetos de pesquisa científica.
Walter I. Paniagua
Santa Cruz, Bolivia
Mayo, 2019
Excavación profunda, en zona centro de la ciudad de México, ca. 1955
Rascacielos en México (2017)
Fuente: blog.abilia.mx
Proyecto Altura, m Nº pisos Año terminación

Condicionantes:
Torre Puerta Reforma 335 65 2022
Torre Reforma Colón 310 73 2021 Edificios más altos

Excavaciones más profundas
Torre Insignia 330 77 2020 Espacios más reducidos
Programas de construcción más exigentes
TO.P Torre 1 305 63 2019
Mitikah Torre A 267 68 2019
Torra Bora - 55 2020 Fuente: skyscraperpage.com

Cimentaciones Sótanos
1980-2000 2000-2010 2010-2020
1950-1980
1980-2000
2000-2010
2010-2020
Perfil del suelo: Santoyo et al, 2005

Retos en el futuro
Citius, altius, fortius*
*Pierre de Coubertin
Ingeniería de
cimentaciones
Más rápido, más profundo, más resistente**
**Nuestros clientes
Excavaciones profundas en la ciudad de México, 2011- 2017
Récords CDMX
Zona del Lago 40 m
Zona de Transición 40 m
Zona de Lomas 50 m
Excavaciones profundas en la ciudad de Monterrey
Récord MTY
Prof 30 m
Fotos cortesía E León

Excavaciones profundas en la ciudad de Guadalajara
Récord GDL
Prof 20 m
Fotos cortesía E León

Excavación profunda en la ciudad de México
Espacio Condesa
CDMX, NME = 41 m
Anclas de 188 t
Cortesía CIMESA
Contención de excavaciones –procedimientos constructivos
Parte 1: Sistemas de contención
Muros pantalla (milán) colados en sitio

Muros pantalla prefabricados
Muros berlín
Tablestacas de concreto
Tablestacas de acero
Pilas
Concreto lanzado
Soil mixing
Parte 2: Sistemas de apuntalamiento
Anclas
Puntales
Berma-talud
Losas estructurales (Top-down)
Autosoportables (muros circulares)
Contención de excavaciones – sistemas de apuntalamiento
Muros pantalla Anclas
Tablestacas Puntales
Pilas Bermas
Concreto lanzado Top - down

Contención de excavaciones en el mundo
60%
50% 48%
40%
30%
19%
20%
10% 10%
10% 8% 8%
5%
0%
Muros milán Pilas Soil mixing Jet grouting Muros berlín Soil nailing Tablestacas
Modificado de Bottiau, M. (2006)

MUROS PANTALLA
Muro milán- secuencia de excavación
Llave de cortante circular
Muro milán colocación de concreto
Muro milán terminado: Deprimido 5 Señores, Oaxaca
Muro milán terminado: Municipio Libre, Col. Del Valle, DF
Muros precolados, Hotel W, ciudad de México
MUROS BERLÍN
Muro Berlín , procedimiento constructivo
•  Instalación de vigas H
(en etapas sucesivas)
•  Excavación
•  Colocación de madera y
puntales
Muro Berlín
Muro berlín
Muro Berlín
TABLESTACAS
Tablestaca de concreto- excavación y apuntalamiento
Tablestaca de acero, secciones típicas
Perfil Sección Aplicación Uso Ventajas Desventajas

Sección
Simétrica
sobre su eje
neutro.
Z --
Excavaciones
Cuando los Mayor
momentos momento de
Muelles
flexionantes inercia
gobiernen el
Apoyos de Momento de
diseño
puentes inercia bajo
debido a que el
U --
eje neutro
coincide en la
unión.
Cuando la
Estructuras
resistencia a
celulares
la tensión de Momento de
Plano circulares --
la conexión inercia nulo
Estructuras
gobierne el
cerradas
diseño
Tablestaca de acero, hincado
Con martillo vibratorio Con martillo diesel

PILAS
Pilas secantes
Equipos de
Técnica Resistencia concreto
perforación
Igual en pilas primarias y Par de torsión alto

secundarias
Diámetros entre 60 y
duro / duro Hasta fć=350 kg/cm2 150 cm
Pilas primarias con Par de torsión bajo

cemento-bentonita
suave / duro Pilas secundarias con Menor costo

concreto
Pilas secantes
Separación
S = 0.8 a 0.9 D
Pilas secantes - Construcción de brocal de concreto
Métodos de perforación para pilas secantes
Rotario estándar CFA con ademe
Con osciladora
Tolerancias alcanzables en pilas secantes
Tipo de pila secante Procedimiento Tolerancia vertical

constructivo
Duro/suave Rotario estándar 1:100
Osciladora 1:200
CFA 1:75
CFA con ademe 1:150
Duro/duro Osciladora 1:200
CFA con ademe 1:150

Acero de refuerzo para pilas secantes
Lumbreras con pilas secantes
20 m profundidad
Tolerancia 1:440
Pilas tangentes, estado de Hidalgo
Pilas separadas
SOIL MIXING
Esquema de ejecución de columnas cilíndricas y páneles rectangulares
Soil mixing
Soil mixing
CONCRETO LANZADO
Lanzado de concreto
Lanzado de concreto
ANCLAS
Secuencia de colocación de anclas
Habilitado de anclas
Perforación de anclas
Muro milán anclado
PUNTALES
Excavación troquelada
Muro milán apuntalamiento con troqueles
Puntales en excavación
BERMA-TALUD
Núcleo central para áreas grandes:
Muro Milán y puntales Exavación central con berma-talud perimetral
En el núcleo central ya está construida la estructura
Ataque en tramos para instalar el 2º nivel de puntales
TOP-DOWN
Sistema top-down -principio
•  Ejecución de muros de sostenimiento y columnas precimentadas desde la

superficie.
•  Construcción simultánea de sótanos y superestructura.
•  Disminución del plazo total de ejecución por superposición de ambas

actividades.
•  Excavación y construcción de sótanos en forma simultánea.
•  No se utilizan anclajes postensados, ni puntales de sostenimiento.

Top Down -Procedimiento General
Columnas prefundadas
(Nivel de plataforma de
PT PT trabajo)
-NF
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 1
Construcción de fundaciones profundas y colocación de columnas prefundadas
Top Down
Procedimiento General
PT PT trabajo)
-NF
pie PM
pie PM
Fundaciones profundas
(pilotes o barretes)
Etapa 2
Construcción de sistema de abatimiento de nivel freático
Top Down
Columnas prefundadas Zona acceso a la

excavación y
PT evacuación de material
Losa nivel "0"
-NF
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 3
Construcción losa Nivel "0"
Top Down
Columnas prefundadas Superestructura Zona acceso a la

excavación y
-NF Excavación
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 4
Inicio excavación e inicio superestructura
Top Down

excavación y
-NF Excavación
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 5
Construcción sótano 1 y continuación superestructura
Top Down

excavación y
-NF Excavación
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 6
Top Down

excavación y
-NF Excavación
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 7
Top Down

excavación y
-NF Excavación
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 8
Construcción sótano 4 (Losa de fondo) y continuación superestructura
Top Down

excavación y
-NF Excavación
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 9
Construcción de complemento de columnas
Excavación entre puntales
Top Down
Procedimiento Constructivo- Torre Libertad
SISTEMAS
AUTO-SOPORTABLES
Excavación circular con muro milán
25 1
24 2
23 3 26
22 4 28
21 5
20 6 27
19 7
18 8
17 9
16 10
15 11
14 13 12
Esfuerzos tangenciales
Despiece de muros
81
Lumbreras con muros milán
82
Muro milán Harinera La Espiga, CDMX
Diámetro 17 m
Profundidad 16 m
Downtonwn Santa Fé -excavación terminada
80 m diámetro
34 m profundidad
DJS -muro en voladizo
COMENTARIOS FINALES
Excavaciones -fallas
Herramientas del ingeniero geotécnico para excavaciones urbanas
Concreto
lanzado
Soil Muros
Pilas mixing berlín
separadas
Pilas
tangentes
Pilas
secantes
Tablestacas
Muros Top-down
pantalla
Berma-talud
Puntales
Anclas
Sistemas de contención –comparativa cualitativa
Sistema Rigidez Impermeabilidad Costo Instalación Suelos

relativo
Muro milán colado en Muy Sí Alto Difícil Todos

sitio buena
Muro milán prefabricado Buena Sí Muy alto Difícil Todos
Tablestaca de concreto Media Sí Alto Media Cohesivos blandos

Granulares sueltos
Tablestaca de acero Buena No Alto Fácil Cohesivos N < 15

Granulares N < 40
Pilas secantes Buena Sí Alto Difícil Todos
Pilas tangentes Media No Medio Fácil Todos
Pilas separadas Baja No Bajo Fácil Cohesivos

Granulares F > 12%
Concreto lanzado Baja No Medio Fácil Cohesivos

Granulares F > 12%
Soil mixing Baja Sí Medio Difícil Cohesivos

Granulares F > 12%
Sistemas de apuntalamiento –comparativa cualitativa
Sistema Condiciones de Ventajas Desventajas Costo Instalación Suelos

proyecto relativo
Anclas Colindancias Excavación de Afectación a Medio Media Granulares

subterráneas núcleo a cielo colindantes Roca
libres abierto F < 40%
Puntales Ancho de Limitación en Pocos usos Alto Media Todos

excavación desplazamientos Pandeo horizontal/
pequeño horizontales vertical
Bermas Dimensiones en Bajo costo Flexible Bajo Fácil Cohesivos

planta amplias Excavación lenta al
final
Top-down Dimensiones Limitación en Excavación núcleo Medio Difícil Todos

amplias desplazamientos lenta y costosa
No es posible horizontales
utilizar anclas Compresión del
programa
Auto- Geometría de la No requiere No permite otra Bajo Difícil Todos

soportados estructura circular apuntalamiento geometría en el
perímetro
¡Gracias por su atención!
Walter I. Paniagua
Santa Cruz, Bolivia
Mayo, 2019
2
Santa Cruz, Bolivia
Ciudad de México
Santa Cruz, Bolivia
Ciudad de México
Edificios altos en Bolivia (2019)
Fuente: wikipedia.org
Edificios altos en proyecto/propuestos en Bolivia (2019)
Fuente: wikipedia.org
Contención de excavaciones –procedimientos constructivos
Parte 1: Sistemas de contención
Muros pantalla (milán) colados en sitio

Muros pantalla prefabricados
Muros berlín
Tablestacas de concreto
Tablestacas de acero
Pilas
Concreto lanzado
Soil mixing
Parte 2: Sistemas de apuntalamiento
Anclas
Puntales
Berma-talud
Losas estructurales (Top-down)
Autosoportables (muros circulares)
Otros métodos
Contención de excavaciones – sistemas de apuntalamiento
Muros Milán Anclas
Tablestacas Puntales
Pilas Bermas
Concreto lanzado Top - down

MUROS PANTALLA
El World Trade Center, NYC, ca. 1970
Metro de la ciudad de México, ca. 1967
Estación Salto del Agua

Metro de la ciudad de México, ca. 1967
Brocales (muros guía)
Precisar la posición topográfica de los muros incluyendo los ángulos y las curvas necesarias.
• Comprobar que no hay instalaciones municipales, ductos o cables en la traza del muro.
• Controlar la operación de excavación obligando a que la almeja entre en la posición correcta.
• Estabilizar la parte superior de la excavación y evitar caídos locales.
• Confinar el lodo y facilitar el control de su nivel durante la excavación.
• Facilitar la colocación de la junta y en caso necesario servir de apoyo para sostenerla.
• Soportar la jaula del acero de refuerzo en posición fija para evitar que penetre o se levante.
• En caso necesario servir de apoyo al paso de la maquinaria pesada de excavación y maniobra.
• En caso necesario, servir de apoyo a extractores de juntas
• Superficie de trabajo para personal
Muro milán- secuencia de excavación
Almeja mecánica de caída libre
26
Acción estabilizadora del lodo
Excavación
Empuje suelo
Empuje lodo Empuje agua

Estabilidad de la zanja, arcillas
c ⎛ D ⎞
FS = ⎜ 2 + 0.94 ⎟
⎛ 4W ⎞ L ⎠
D⎜ γ − β2 γ f + 2 m ⎟ ⎝
⎝ D L ⎠
γs 4W cu ⎛ 2 0.94 ⎞
P = D−D − 2 m − ⎜ + ⎟
γ f D Lγ f γ f ( FS ) ⎝ D L ⎠
Estabilidad de la zanja, arenas
Arenas secas
2 γ sγ f tan φ
FS =
γ s −γ f
Arenas saturadas
2 γʹ′s γʹ′f tan φ

FS =
γʹ′s − γʹ′f
γ f − γ w = γʹ′f
Bentonita
Silicato de aluminio hidratado
Familia de la montmorilonita
(Na,Ca)0.33(Al,Mg)2Si4O10(OH)2·(H2O)n.
Existen dos tipos: sódica y cálcica
Se forma del intemperismo de la ceniza volcánica, en presencia de agua
En reposo En movimiento
Federation of Piling Specialists (2006)

Soporte con lodo bentonítico
Suelo compacto
Suelo suelto
Bentonita en saco
Instalación esquemática de la operación de lodos
Bentonita en saco
Mezcladores para lodo bentonítico
Mezclador
de chiflón
Mezclador
“Coloidal”
Planta de lodos
Plantas de lodos
Estabilización de zanja con lodo
Desarenador de lodo bentonítico
hidrociclón
entrada
motores lodo
vibratorios
salida
de
arena
bomba
salida lodo
Desarenador de lodo bentonítico
Medición de propiedades en campo
Balanza de lodos
Cono Marsh
DOSIFICACIÓN TÍPICA DE LODO BENTONÍTICO
Viscosidad
kg de bentonita / m3 % Densidad
de lodo bentonita kg/dm3 Marsh s Cps
0 0 1.000 27 1.0
20 2 1.010 28 1.1
Sugerencia de inicio WP
30 3 1.020 30 2.2
40 4 1.025 35 3.7
50 5 1.035 40 6.6
60 6 1.035 40 12.0
70 7 1.040 45 19.0
80 8 1.045 55 35.0
90 9 1.070 60 68.0
100 10 1.075 70 92.0
Medidores de pH
Modificar el pH con carbonato de sodio (soda ash) Na2CO3
•  Precipita el calcio soluble
•  Incrementa el pH a 8.5 – 9.5
•  0.25 – 0.5 kg / 380 litros de agua
pH (1%) 11.4
Gravedad específica
2.51
Dispositivo para determinar el contenido de arena en lodos
Polímeros
Polímero sintético Polímeros vinílicos

PHPA: poliacrilamidas parcialmente
hidrolizadas
Polímeros sintéticos en el mercado de Slurry pro Dry vinyl (CDP)

perforación Slurry pro Liquid vinyl (CDP)
Super mud
E-Z mud
Shore Pac GCV
Slurry pro EXP
Floset CE-131 (SNF)
Polímeros naturales Revert (goma de guar)

Cellex (CMC)
Drispac (CMC)
Efecto del polímero en el suelo
Polímero 800X Polímero interactuando con

arena de Ottawa 100X
SOPORTE CON POLÍMERO SINTÉTICO
Ventajas Desventajas
•  No requiere mezclado especial •  No mantiene sólidos en suspensión
•  No requiere desarenado •  Densidad limitada
•  No forma costra •  Manejo cuidadoso
•  Menor volumen/m3 de lodo
•  Algunos son biodegradables
PLANTA PARA FABRICACIÓN DE POLÍMERO SINTÉTICO
Uso de polímero vinílico
Pilas
Muro milán
Con lodo bentonítico Con polímero

Planta de lodos
Excavación de paneles con perforación previa
Uso de trépano y almeja alternados

Perforación previa en suelos duros
Perforación previa en suelos duros
Juntas de colado para formar el machihembrado del muro milán
Tipos de juntas más comunes en México
Junta circular
Llave de cortante circular
Tipos de juntas más comunes en México
Junta trapezoidal
Muro milán acero de refuerzo
Izaje de armado
Muro milán liga con losas
Con conectores mecánicos Con placas de acero Con cajas de poliestireno

Colocación de concreto en pilas
Revenimiento del concreto ± 18 cm Revenimiento insuficiente

Temperatura de concreto
Tubería tremie
Tubería tremie
Instalación de tubería Tremie
Colado bajo lodo con tubería tremie
Colado bajo lodo con tubería tremie
Recorte de tubería tremie sin

extraer la tubería del concreto
Muro milán panel “T” terminado
Junta de
panel
primario
Acero colocado, tubería tremie y juntas
Muro milán terminado: Deprimido 5 Señores, Oaxaca
Muro milán terminado: Harinera la Espiga, Vallejo
Muro milán terminado: Municipio Libre, Col. Del Valle, DF
Muro milán terminado: Moliere, Col. Polanco, DF
Muro milán terminado: Nodo Juárez-Serdán, Puebla
Fresado de muro milán
Muro milán Edificio Tres Picos, Ciudad de México
Muro milán, Edificio Tres Picos, Ciudad de México
Torres JV, Puebla de los Ángeles, Muro milán como cimentación
Características generales
Dos torres separadas < 10 m

25 niveles (casi 100 m de
altura)
Relación de esbeltez 1:5
Estructuración con marcos de
concreto
(9 columnas)
Caracterización geotécnica
Solución de cimentación 1
Pila por apoyo
diámetro 1.80 m
campana de 3 m,
longitud 13.50 m
Solución de cimentación 2
Campo de 45 pilas
diámetros 0.80, 1.20 y 1.40 m

longitud 16 m
Base
ampliada
Solución de cimentación 3 (definitiva)
Muro milán continuo
11 m de longitud
0.7 m de ancho
Capacidad de carga admisible por fricción lateral: 15,

682 t
Capacidad de carga admisible por punta:
4,776 t
Capacidad de carga admisible estática total:

20,458 t
Despiece de paneles para muro milán
9.20 9.20
0.80
9.20
9.20
0.80
PLANTA DE EXCAVACIÓN PARA LA CIMENTACIÓN DE LA TORRE JV
SIMBOLOGIA
PRIMERA ETAPA
SEGUNDA ETAPA
TERCERA ETAPA Acotaciones en : m
Muro milán, Torres JV
Excavación
para cajón
Soporte con polímeros

Torre JV Juárez
MUROS PANTALLA
PRECOLADOS
Muros precolados, ventajas
•  Muros prefabricados en planta u obra

•  Anchos entre 0.2 y 1.2 m
•  Menor apuntalamiento
•  Acabado definitivo
•  Compresión del programa general de construcción
Muros precolados, proceso constructivo
•  Fabricación de muro
•  Construcción de brocales
•  Excavación de zanja con almeja guiada
•  Colocación de muro precolado
•  Lodo fraguante
(cemento-bentonita-agua)
Fabricación de muros presforzados
400 cm b = 100 cm
L = 14 m
100
cm
b = 55 cm b = 65
cm
L = 10. 5 m
L = 13 m
Fabricación –muros presforzados
Muros prefabricados -detalles
Muros prefabricados -detalles
Llave de
cortante
Bandas de PVC en los costados y

conexión con la losa
Conexión
con la
losa
Izaje y transporte de muros precolados
Junta entre muros (1)
(a)  Con pvc, junta de hule

(b)  Con piezas de concreto
(c)  Con lodo fraguante
Junta entre muros (2) -Bachy
Conexión de gancho
en la base del panel
precolado
Junta entre muros (3) -Soletanche
Antes de
inyección Colocación del panel “n”
Colocación del panel “n+1”

Panel Después
Pieza metálica de
para guía de inyección
Junta inflada
junta
Placas
metálicas
para guía
Junta entre muros (4) – llave de cortante
geotextil
Nivelación y plomeo de muros precolados
Lodo fraguante -proporcionamiento
Colocación de lodo fraguante
Procedimiento Ventajas Desventajas
Excavación usando lodo fraguante como n Avance continuo n Uso de lodo fraguante vs.
lodo estabilizador n Zanja lista para lodo bentonítico
Soletanche colocación de muro n Tiempos de colocación
Edificio Arquímedes, embajada Francia, L-8 de muro estrictos
Excavación + n Uso de lodo n Tiempos

de colocación
colocación de lodo fraguante c/ tremie + bentonítico de muro estrictos
colocación de muro n Volumen de lodo
fraguante controlado
Bachy
L-9
Excavación + n Uso de lodo n Posible

contaminacion de
colocación de muro + colocación de lodo bentonítico lodo fraguante si no se
fraguante c/ tremie n Volumen de lodo coloca adecuadamente
Pilotec fraguante controlado
L-8, Hotel W, DJS, Judicatura Toluca, n Mayor tiempo para
Deprimido Moliere colocación de muro

Sistema Bachy
(1) Excavatción del panel con lodo (3, 4) Colocación de panel

prefabricado dentro del lodo
(2) Colocación de lodo fraguante fraguante
desplazando el lodo bentonítico
Resistencia de lodo fraguante
Ejemplo:
W= 50 t
Al = 4 m x 13 m x 2 caras = 52 m2
Resistencia mínima lodo = 50/52 = 0.96 t/m2

= 0.1 kg/cm2
Retiro de vigas después

de 4 – 5 days
Tubo para colocación de lodo fraguante
Montaje de muros precolados
Muro precolado, Pasos deprimidos Oceanía, ciudad de México
Nivelación y plomeo de muros precolados
Excavación de núcleo
Con anclas Con troqueles
Muro milán típico con troqueles

Excavación de núcleo
Con elementos
precolados definitivos
Elementos precolados
+
troqueles
Muros precolados,Hotel W, ciudad de México
Muro precolado, Distribuidor Juárez-Serdán, Puebla
Muro precolado, Pasos deprimidos Oceanía, ciudad de México
MUROS BERLÍN
Muro Berlín
Muro Berlín
Muro Berlín
Pilotes soldado para muros berlín
Muro Berlín ,Hincado de “pilotes soldado” – viguetas
Muro Berlín , instalación de “pilotes soldado”
Perforación Colocación de viguetas Vaciado de Concreto

Instalación de viguetas soldado
Muro Berlín , procedimiento constructivo
•  Hincado de viguetas H
(en etapas sucesivas)
•  Excavación
•  Colocación de madera y
puntales
Muro Berlín , proyecto tipo
Inicio de excavación
Separación de colindancia!!
Muro berlín , excavación + instalación de puntales
Muro berlín , excavación + instalación de puntales
Título da Apresentação 142
Muro Berlín anclado
PLANCHA DOBLE
PLANCHA DOBLE
Plancha en Perfil Metálico

concreto
Aislamiento del
Suelo en contacto Perfil
con la contención
Montaje en la obra
Muro definitivo
EXCAVACIONES PROFUNDAS
•  Muro Berlín con puntales (excavación a 13 m)

Muro berlín apuntalado a pilas de cimentación
Muro Berlín prefabricado
Secuencia constructiva general
  Excavación de zanja con lodo fraguante

  Colocación de muro Berlín prefabricado (viguetas + madera)
Alternativa SPTC (Soldier Pile Tremie Concrete Walls)

  Excavación de zanja con lodo bentonítico
  Colocación de viguetas
  Colocación de concreto
Muro Berlín prefabricado , excavación con lodo fraguante
Muro Berlín prefabricado - montaje
Muro Berlín prefabricado + troqueles
Muro Berlín prefabricado + anclas
TABLESTACAS
Tablestaca de concreto, sección típica
Pieza de esquina
Tablestaca de concreto- fabricación
Tablestaca de concreto- brocales
Con vigas metálicas y madera Con brocal de concreto

Tablestaca de concreto, equipo para hincado
Tablestacas de concreto, equipo para hincado
Tablestaca de concreto, dificultades durante el hincado
Tablestaca de concreto -espolón para limpieza de junta
Tablestaca de concreto -espolón para limpieza de junta
Tablestacas de concreto hincadas
Tablestaca de concreto- excavación y apuntalamiento
Rotura de tablaestaca de concreto por no respetar el procedimiento de excavación
Rotura de tablaestaca; protección del talud para evitar caidos
Proceso de rolado de tablestacas en frío
Perfil Sección Aplicación Uso Ventajas Desventajas

Sección
Simétrica
sobre su eje
neutro.
Z --
Excavaciones
Cuando los Mayor
momentos momento de
Muelles
flexionantes inercia
gobiernen el
Apoyos de Momento de
diseño
puentes inercia bajo
debido a que el
U --
eje neutro
coincide en la
unión.
Cuando la
Estructuras
resistencia a
celulares
la tensión de Momento de
Plano circulares --
la conexión inercia nulo
Estructuras
gobierne el
cerradas
diseño
TABLESTACAS Z
Combinaciones con perfiles “Z” y “H”
Tablestaca de acero baleros y soportes de hincado
Tablestaca de acero, hincado
Con martillo vibratorio Con martillo diesel

Tablestacas de acero, Planta de Bombeo, ciudad de México
Hincado de tablestaca con equipo Giken San Juan de Ulúa, Ver.
PILAS
Pilas secantes
Técnica Resistencia concreto Equipos de perforación
Igual en pilas primarias y Par de torsión alto

secundarias
Diámetros entre 60 y 150 cm
Hasta fć=350 kg/cm2
duro / duro
Pilas primarias con cemento- Par de torsión bajo

bentonita
Pilas secundarias con concreto Menor costo

suave / duro
Pilas secantes
Separación
S = 0.8 a 0.9 D
Planta de pilas primarias
N° de pilas primarias: 41
Construcción de pilas secundarias
N° de pilas secundarias: 41
Pilas secantes - Construcción de brocal de concreto
Métodos de perforación para pilas secantes
Rotario estándar CFA con ademe
Con osciladora
Tolerancias alcanzables en pilas secantes
Tipo de pila secante Procedimiento Tolerancia vertical

constructivo
Duro/suave Rotario estándar 1:100
Osciladora 1:200
CFA 1:75
CFA con ademe 1:150
Duro/duro Osciladora 1:200
CFA con ademe 1:150

Pilas secantes – Procedimiento CFA
Concreto para pilas secantes CFA
TMA 18 mm
Fć entre 350 y 450 kg/cm2
Revenimiento > 22 cm
Longitud del acero de refuerzo

15 – 18 m concreto normal
Hasta 27 m concreto autocompactable
Revenimiento del Concreto autocompactable

concreto > 22 cm
Diámetro >650 mm
Tiempo para obtener un

círculo de 500 mm < 5 sec
199
Acero de refuerzo para pilas secantes
Lumbrera con pilas secantes
20 m profundidad
Tolerancia 1:440
Pilas secantes CFA con y sin ademe
CFA sin ademe CFA con ademe

Pilas tangentes, estado de Hidalgo
Concreto lanzado como acabado de pilas tangentes
Pilas separadas
Pilas separadas
CONCRETO LANZADO
Lanzado de concreto
Lanzado de concreto
Lanzado de concreto
Lanzado de concreto
Lanzado de concreto
Lanzado de concreto
Lanzado de concreto
Lanzado de concreto
Lanzado de concreto
SOIL MIXING
Esquema de ejecución de columnas cilíndricas y páneles
rectangulares
Equipo para Soil mixing
Procedimiento CSM
Factores que afectan la resistencia del
material para DSM
1. Tipo y resistencia del agente 

I. Características de los agentes cementantes 2. Calidad 
3. Agua para mezcla y aditivos
1. Propiedades minerales y fisico-químicas del suelo

2. Contenido orgánico
II. Carácterísticas y condiciones del suelo
3. pH  
4. Contenido de agua
1.  Fuerza de mezclado

III. Condiciones de mezclado 2.  Tiempo de mezclado
3.  Cantidad de agentes cementantes
1. Tenperatura 
2. Tiempo 
IV. Condiciones de curado
3. Humedad  
4. Mojado y secado, congelamiento y descongelamiento, étc.
Soil mixing
Secuencia de ejecución para
columnas y páneles DSM
Soil mixing
Columnas y pilas CFA
Soil mixing
Soil mixing
Soil mixing
ELEMENTOS MECÁNICOS
EN EL SISTEMA
ANCLAS
Muro de retención anclado
Secuencia de colocación de anclas
Principales componentes de un ancla
Ancla de barra de acero
Ancla de barra de torones
Habilitado de anclas
Anclas instaladas antes de inyección
Central de inyección
Detalles del tensado de un ancla y apoyo
Reporte de avance de anclaje
Muro milán anclado
Muro Milán con anclas postensadas
PUNTALES
Apuntalamiento de lado a lado
Se avanza hacia atrás y se colocan los puntales; la retroexcavadora está complementada con una
mini.
Al frente se observa la varilla de las pilas pues se comienza inmediatamente a construir la losa fondo y
los sótanos
La retroexcavadora avanza hasta el final, para después retirarse por un costado

En la zona contenida se inicia rápidamente la construcción de la cimentación y muros de

contención
Progreso de la construcción de la cimentación y muros de contención

Detalle en el sistema de apuntalamiento para colar el muro perimetral

Procedimiento para excavar la parte final

Procedimiento para excavar la parte final

Muro milán apuntalamiento con troqueles
Muro milán con puntales de acero. Excavación a 11 m
Cabezales de puntales
Cabezales de puntales
BERMA-TALUD
Berma-talud
Principal ventaja:
Incremento en la eficiencia y,
en consecuencia, el corto
periodo de ejecución;
comparado con otros métodos
de apuntalamiento, requiere
menos puntales y reduce los
costos de la instalación y retiro Principal desventaja:
de los mismos. Juntas poco resistentes entre
la estructura principal y las
otras estructuras alrededor,
además, grandes deflexiones y
movimientos de suelo
especialmente en suelos
blandos.
Núcleo central para áreas grandes:
Muro Milán y puntales Exavación central con berma-talud perimetral
En el núcleo central ya está construida la estructura
Ataque perimetral por etapas para instalar los puntales;
Viga madrina a nivel de terreno y primer nivel de puntales
Detalle en la reacción del puntal contra la estructura
Excavación para instalar el 2º nivel de apuntalamiento
Excavación para alcanzar el nivel de desplante
Excavación para alcanzar el nivel de desplante; en el caso de muro Berlín se deja el espacio para colar el muro definitivo
TOP-DOWN
Sistema top-down -principio
•  Ejecución de muros de sostenimiento y columnas prefundadas

desde la superficie.
•  Construcción simultánea de sótanos y superestructura.
•  Disminución del plazo total de ejecución por superposición de

ambas actividades.
•  Excavación y construcción de sótanos en forma simultánea.
•  No se utilizan anclajes postensados de sostenimiento.

Top-down -procedimiento general
PT PT trabajo)
-NF
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 1
Construcción de fundaciones profundas y colocación de columnas prefundadas
Columnas precimentadas
Top Down
PT PT trabajo)
-NF
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 2
Construcción de sistema de abatimiento de nivel freático
Top Down
Columnas prefundadas Zona acceso a la

excavación y
Losa nivel "0"
-NF
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 3
Construcción losa Nivel "0"
Top Down

excavación y
-NF Excavación
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 4
Inicio excavación e inicio superestructura
Top Down

excavación y
-NF Excavación
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 5
Top Down

excavación y
-NF Excavación
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 6
Top Down

excavación y
-NF Excavación
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 7
Top Down

excavación y
-NF Excavación
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 8
Construcción sótano 4 (Losa de fondo) y continuación superestructura
Top Down

excavación y
-NF Excavación
pie PM
pie PM
Etapa 9
Construcción de complemento de columnas
Procedimiento Constructivo
Torre Libertad (MEXICO)
Procedimiento Constructivo
Torre Libertad (MEXICO)
Sistema Top- Down
Museo El Chopo (MEXICO)
Sistema Top- Down
Museo El Chopo (MEXICO)
Muro Milán apuntalado con las trabes de entrepiso (excavación a 14 m)
SISTEMAS
AUTO-SOPORTABLES
Excavación circular con muro milán
25 1
24 2
23 3 26
22 4 28
21 5
20 6 27
19 7
18 8
17 9
16 10
15 11
14 13 12
Despiece de muros Esfuerzos tangenciales
29
3
Lumbreras con muros milán
29
4
295
Lumbreras con muros Milán estructural
Corrección geométrica
Tipo de arreglo 2
Tipo de arreglo 1
Cortesía CIMESA
Downtown Santa Fé -Contención perimetral
Downtonwn Santa Fé -Geometría general
79.9 m
21 m
13 m
Opción A: pilas + muro de concreto lanzado
0.40 0.60
Opción B1: Muro milán (60 cm, mortero) + muro concreto lanzado
0 .6
0
0 .4
0
Opción B2: muro milán estructural (80 cm, concreto armado)
0.
80
Muro Milán MODELO I
t=0.6m
Ec=2.1E+06 t/m2
ν=0.18
γ=2.4t/m3 Relleno
c=10.2t/m2
E=1,554t/m2
ν=0.35
0m - γ=1.9t/m3
24m -
Toba
60m -
c=20t/m2
E=4,000t/m2
ν=0.3
γ=2.0t/m3
Desplazamientos en el suelo
Desplazamiento hor. en X
(m)
0.57m
Desplazamiento vertical
(m)
Desplazamiento hor. En Z
(m)
Desplazamientos en el muro
Condiciones en L-20 TEO
3 m 0.00 m
N = 30
Limos Arcillosos
Pumiticos
De 0 a 3 m
Abanicos
Aluviales
Tobas suaves
de 3 a 81 m
81 m N > 70
Basalto Masivo
fracturado
de 81 a 83 m
Y
de 95 a 101 m
120 m
Arcillas
lacustres
Consolidadas
de 101 a 152 m
148.20 m
151.74 m
Muro milán Harinera La Espiga, México DF
Diámetro 17 m
Profundidad 16 m
Muro milán autosoportable en estructura circular
OTROS MÉTODOS
Muro sin anclas, sin troqueles
Premisas
• Muro permanente
• Corte de 15 m
• Sobrecarga de edificios adyacentes (19 pisos)
• No es posible colocar anclas ni puntales
Condiciones del suelo
Estrat De A Descripción Parámetros

o (m) (m) originales
1 0 4.5 Relleno granular suelto a medio (SM, SC) Φ = 30°
C=0
2 4.5 10.5 Arcilla y limo firme a dura (CH, MH) Φ = 2°
C=0
3 10.5 15.0 Arena arcillosa compacta (SC) Φ = 30°

C=0
Nivel max de
excavacion
4 15.0 19.5 Arcilla dura (CH, MH) Φ = 2°
C=0
5 19.5 20.5 Gneiss y esquisto intemperizado Φ = 36°

C=0
6 20.5 - Gneiss y esquisto intemperizado Φ = 40°

C = 2 ksf
Proyecto original de muro, contrafuertes y pilas
Proyecto definitivo con pilas oblongas postensadas
Proyecto definitivo con pilas oblongas postensadas
COMENTARIOS FINALES
Excavación profunda, en zona centro de la ciudad de México, ca. 1955
Excavaciones profundas, en la ciudad de México, 2011- 2017
Sistemas de contención –comparativa cualitativa
Sistema Rigidez Impermeabilidad Costo Instalación Suelos

relativo
Muro milán colado en Muy Sí Alto Difícil Todos

sitio buena
Muro milán Buena Sí Muy alto Difícil Todos

prefabricado
Tablestaca de Media Sí Alto Media Cohesivos blandos

concreto Granulares sueltos
Tablestaca de acero Buena No Alto Fácil Cohesivos N < 15

Granulares N < 40
Pilas secantes Buena Sí Alto Difícil Todos
Pilas tangentes Media No Medio Fácil Todos
Pilas separadas Baja No Bajo Fácil Cohesivos

Granulares F > 12%
Concreto lanzado Baja No Medio Fácil Cohesivos

Granulares F > 12%
Soil mixing Baja Sí Medio Difícil Cohesivos

Granulares F > 12%
Sistemas de apuntalamiento –comparativa cualitativa
Sistema Condiciones Ventajas Desventajas Costo Instalación Suelos

de proyecto relativo
Anclas Colindancias Excavación de Afectación a Medio Media Granulares

subterráneas núcleo a cielo colindantes Roca
libres abierto F < 40%
Puntales Ancho de Limitación en Pocos usos Alto Media Todos

excavación desplazamientos Pandeo
pequeño horizontales horizontal/vertical
Bermas Dimensiones en Bajo costo Flexible Bajo Fácil Cohesivos

planta amplias Excavación lenta
al final
Top-down Dimensiones Limitación en Excavación Medio Difícil Todos

amplias desplazamientos núcleo lenta y
No es posible horizontales costosa
utilizar anclas Compresión del
programa
Auto- Geometría de la No requiere No permite otra Bajo Difícil Todos

soportados estructura apuntalamiento geometría en el
circular perímetro
Edición 2017
Premio “Javier Barros Sierra” al mejor
libro de Ingeniería Civil 2003, CICM
¡Gracias por su
atención!

Afóasdf A Psdofm

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Afóasdf A Psdofm

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

-

-EmiliosComodromos.- Fundaciones de plateas piloteadas bajo carga combinada:

-Bengt Fellenius.- Respuesta estática de un grupo de 13 pilotes ensayados simultáneamente.

-Anthony O’Brien.- De menor a mayor - La evolución de las cimentaciones profundas para

-Dimitrios Konstantakos.- Immersive Geotechnical Engineering

-Anthony Marinucci.- Design and Construction Considerations for Anchored

-Luis Raygada.- Muros de Sostenimiento en Áreas Urbanas

-Alejo Sfriso.- Excavaciones urbanas en Buenos Aires

-Franz-Werner Gerressen.- Retaining Systems in Urban Excavations

-Carlos Medeiros Silva.- Desempenho Das Estruturas De Contenções Em Solos Colapsíveis.

-Walter Paniagua.- Sistemas de contención para excavaciones profundas Procedimientos

Fundaciones Profundas de Bolivia

Practical approaches for design of pile

Mark Randolph The University of Ocean Graduate School 23 May 2019

Analysis philosophy: pile groups and piled rafts

‘Small’: B << L ‘Large’: B >> L

• ULS >> serviceability • Serviceability >> ULS

Concept: piles as ‘settlement reducers’ for notional raft foundation

Pile groups Basic approach Soil model Interaction Loading

… and then there is 3-dimensional finite element analysis

Soil, pile-soil or foundation models

Principle (virtually universal)

Load (per pile)

Normalised axial load, V/Vlim

Normalised lateral load, H/kh,0 u0,50

Pirrello & Poulos (2014): combined loading of two different foundations

Four different analysis techniques considered

Quantity Units CLAP PIGLET1 REPUTE PLAXIS

Pile embedment from 46.3 to 71.3 m (average 55.3 m)

• Soil shear modulus profiles: Gaxial = 7 + 4.5z MPa

Pile cap: 5.5 m thick;

Pile embedment varies Below pile base

A. Three small groups of piles

B. Field measurements from settlement of 697 pile group

Vertical load per pile, P (kN)

Vertical load per pile, P (kN)

30 Measured - single pile

20 Piglet single pile

Lateral load, H (kN)

Group pile settlement w0 (mm)

group response response

1.5 Single pile responses

Single pile settlement, w0 (mm) 20

settlements ~ 180 mm 100

Differential settlements Bending moments

Investigation of iterative approach

• Iteration process: Piles modelled

(vertical response only)

Example numerical study

Load share Settlement difference:

3D FEA (includes slight plastic response): smax = 49 mm; Qpile/Qtotal = 0.75

Mobilised soil resistance

Corner Iterative approach Corner 0.031

0.014 0.016 0.024

• 3D FEA (includes slight plastic response): smax = 49 mm; Qpile/Qtotal = 0.75

• Groundwater drawdown from adjacent tunnel construction

Effective settlement inducing load, Peff (MN)

Piled raft: 3D FEA

Measured Outer ring

• Twin 96 m high towers, constructed 2004-2006

Foundation Analysis Max. sett. Differential Pile load

Pore pressure (kPa) Measured pile load (MN)

Pile load range