DRILLED SHAFT IN STRONG ROCK-DESIGN, VALIDATION, AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE BEAUHARNOIS CANAL BRIDGE, AUTOROUTE 30 MONTRAL

Ivan Hee, Andy Dodds, and Robert Talby, Arup, New York, NY, USA Andrew Cushing and Richard Deakin, Arup, Montral, Qubec, Canada

The 2.5km long bridge over the Beauharnois Canal and St. Lawrence Seaway is a major structure in the new Autoroute 30 project near Montral. Foundations for the bridge consist of footings on bedrock, driven piles, and drilled shafts. This paper describes the design, verification, and construction of 1.85m diameter drilled shafts socketed into very strong and abrasive dolomitic sandstone. Two loading tests on sacrificial, heavily-instrumented, 1.18m diameter test shafts using Osterberg load cells were performed, with telltales installed to monitor a possible rock cone failure mechanism. The loading tests resulted in a revision to the initial design and provided a greater understanding of the cone uplift mechanism in rock. Insights gained are discussed and economies of the load testing program presented. Construction methodologies are also presented. INTRODUCTION Arup was retained by Nouvelle Autoroute 30 CJV to design the 42 km extension of Autoroute 30 (A30), near Montral. Arup completed the tender design (in Fall 2007), the final design (in Fall 2008) and provided construction support (from Fall 2009). A major component of the A30 extension is the Beauharnois Canal Bridge, a 2.5km long bridge crossing over the Beauharnois Canal and St. Lawrence Seaway. The Beauharnois Canal connects Lake SaintFrancis and Lake Saint-Louis, bypassing a series of rapids on the St. Lawrence River. The canal was originally opened in 1843. However, the canal in its present form was built between 1929 and 1932 as part of a hydro-electric development to take advantage of the 24m drop in elevation between the two lakes. To allow ocean going vessels to travel from the Atlantic Ocean to the North American Great Lakes, a pair of locks bypass the hydro electric dam to the west, forming part of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The length of the Beauharnois Canal Bridge is dictated by the need to provide 38.5 m of clearance above the Seaway together with the maximum preferred gradient of 3.5% in the approaches. The bridge is divided into two parts; the eastern approach and navigation bridge is a continuous steel-concrete composite box girder superstructure with a total length of 1,457m. The western approach is constructed from typically 45m spans with Concrete New England Bulb Tee (NEBT) beams. The total length of the western approach is 1,095m (Barbas and Carter, 2010). Figure 1 shows the site location and Figure 2 provides a rendering of the eastern portion of the Beauharnois Canal Bridge.

Figure 1. Site Location. Foundations for the Beauharnois Canal Bridge include footings on bedrock, driven piles, and drilled shafts. A total of 138 individual drilled shafts founded in bedrock have been constructed. These consist of 6-shaft groups supporting three piers for the western approach, 14-shaft groups supporting the main piers of the navigation span over the seaway shipping channel, 6-shaft groups supporting thirteen water piers crossing the canal, and an 8shaft group supporting the east abutment.

Figure 2. Rendering of the eastern (over water) portion of the Beauharnois Canal Bridge.

This paper describes the design approach, verification of design by means of sacrificial load testing, and construction methodology of 1.85m diameter drilled shafts socketed into bedrock. GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS Ground investigation included boreholes at each pier location with SPT or Shelby tube soil sampling and rock core sampling performed. Vane shear measurements were also undertaken in various boreholes along the western approach, and standpipes installed in six boreholes. Cone penetration testing was performed at four locations, including a dissipation test and shear wave velocity measurements. The subsurface conditions encountered generally consist of fill, underlain by Champlain clay deposits, glacial till at some locations and either Cambrian Quartzite or Ordovician Dolomitic sandstone bedrock. The bedrock encountered is typically horizontally bedded, medium to dark grey, fine to medium grained, quartzitic sandstone with siliceous cement, generally unweathered with a moderately close, occasionally wide joint spacing. A fine grained dolomitic sandstone with black shale laminations and dolomitic cement was also encountered alternating with the quartzitic sandstone. Progressing westwards along the bridge alignment,

the occurrence of dolomitic sandstone with shale horizons increases, interbedded with quartzitic sandstone. The joint spacing within the dolomitic sandstone is typically moderately close to wide. Overburden thickness for the land piers ranged from 10 to 21m. Overburden thickness for water piers ranged from 6 to 13m for the three eastern piers, while the other ten piers have less than 0.5m of soil. Water depth is around 13m at the deepest part of the canal. Table 1 presents the unconfined compressive strength data from tests performed on intact bedrock samples indicating very strong to extremely strong rock. Figure 3 shows the variation of average total rock core recovery (TCR) and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values with depth (where average values were determined over 0.5m depth intervals up to 7m depth). The lower TCR and RQD values recorded were associated with the weathered profile of the bedrock surface and fractures that were possibly induced by blasting during the original excavation of the canal. RQD data recorded during the ground investigation indicated over 80% of RQD values in excess of 60%, with a general increase in RQD values apparent with depth. TCR varied between 30% and 100%.

Table 1. Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) of Rock

Median minus Std. Deviation (MPa) Design Value (MPa) Data Set Median (MPa) Range (MPa)

Static Analysis* Static Test Compression 0.4 0.6 Tension 0.3 0.4 *Semi-empirical analysis using laboratory ground investigation test data.

and

All Data (51 tests)

116390

200

130

130

TCR or RQD (%)

40 0 60 80 10

These resistance factors indicate that the incremental benefit of conducting a successful load test program is a 50% increase in design compression load and a 33% increase in design tension load. Load tests were therefore considered an integral part of the design process. Drilled shaft rock sockets derive their resistance from the following, which were considered in the design: 1. Compression Resistance combination of shaft and toe resistance: a. Shaft resistance: friction at the rock-shaft interface. b. End bearing resistance: bearing capacity at the base of the shaft. 2. Tension Resistance lower of shaft or rock cone resistance: a. Shaft resistance: friction at the rock-shaft interface. b. Rock cone resistance: tensile strength of the rock mass (rock-to-rock friction) at the boundary of a cone of rock mobilized by the drilled shaft. There are many uncertainties in calculating the resistance of rock sockets in strong bedrock. As a result, design parameters were assessed using several sources including: 1. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th Edition, 2006. 2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), LRFD Bridge Design Manual, 2006. 3. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 360: RockSocketed Shafts for Highway Structure Foundations, 2006. 4. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA-IF99-025, Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods, 1999. Design guides for New York and Hong Kong were also used as reference. Both rock and concrete failure scenarios were considered in design calculations. However, because of seismic, ice, and wind effects, lateral load proved to be the controlling factor at many of the piers for minimum rock socket length, requiring sufficient length to ensure fixity. A

Depth Below top of Rock (m)

RQD average TCR average

10

12

14

Figure 3. Variation of average TCR and RQD values for borings at drilled shaft locations. DRILLED SHAFT DESIGN The drilled shafts were designed in accordance with the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CSA 2006). This code is based on a limit state design approach in which the factored resistance (both structural and geotechnical) must equal or exceed all factored load combinations. Factored geotechnical resistance at ultimate limit state is obtained by multiplying ultimate resistance calculated using unfactored geotechnical parameters with a resistance factor. The geotechnical resistance factors for deep foundations depend on the analysis or testing completed, and are given as follows:

2.0m diameter drilled shaft section in overburden reducing to 1.85m diameter in bedrock was adopted for design, and a minimum socket length of 4m into competent bedrock was necessary to provide adequate lateral restraint. This corresponds to a minimum length to diameter (L/D) ratio of approximately 2. LOAD TEST PROGRAM AND SETUP Locations and Setup The load test program was designed to prove the ultimate capacity of the sacrificial drilled shafts, using the Osterberg Cell (O-cell) device. Use of the O-cell device avoided the need of a substantial load reaction system required with a head-down static load test, as well as providing a more direct means of measuring rock-socket resistance. Test shaft locations were chosen based on geology, where the east (Test E-Q) and west (Test W-D) shores of the canal were considered to be representative of the different bedrock types encountered, i.e. the quartzitic sandstone and the dolomitic sandstone, respectively. These locations were considered to be the most representative, addressing the possible differences in bedrock type and drilled shaft behavior. Each test shaft had a diameter of 1.18m, with a rock socket length of 2.4m to maintain an L/D ratio of approximately 2. A single 870mm diameter 27MN capacity O-cell was placed approximately 0.15m above the bottom of the rock socket. This resulted in a maximum possible test side resistance of 3.5MPa. Two telltales were installed to measure the movement of the top plate of the load cell. Three linear vibrating wire displacement transducers (LVDT) were installed to measure the expansion between the bottom and top plates of the O-cell assembly. Four levels of vibrating wire strain gauges were embedded in the concrete to measure the load transfer along the shaft. Two telltales were installed in the bedrock approximately 1m from the edge of the test shafts to identify rock cone uplift failure during the tests. Figure 4 shows the elevation view of the instrumented test shaft. Figure 5 shows the O-cell with top and bottom plates welded to the rebar cage along with LVDTs and telltales installed. A reference beam shown in Figure 6 was placed at the top to measure pile top movement and to measure rock telltale movements.

Figure 4. Elevation View of the Instrumented Test Shaft Test Load Sequence The test shafts were loaded in general accordance with ASTM D1143-07 in three cycles corresponding to 25%, 60%, and 100% of the maximum O-cell capacity (approximately working, factored ultimate, and ultimate loads). The load was maintained for 6 hours to measure creep effects at the maximum load of each cycle. Each load increment within each load cycle was maintained at the specified load until a rate of movement not exceeding 0.05mm in 15 minutes was satisfied. Prior to the beginning of the next cycle, the test drilled shaft was allowed to recover until the rebound was less than 0.1mm/hour in a period of not less than 30 minutes.

LOAD TEST RESULTS LoadTest of Gainesville, Florida, USA, performed the O-cell testing in the fall of 2009, a few months before the start of production shaft construction. Even though the two test shafts were constructed in the same way, with the same diameter and rock socket length, the test results were very different. Test E-Q achieved a maximum test load of 25MN. Test E-Q was loaded as originally planned, followed by a fourth quick load cycle. The load transfer mechanism for Test E-Q was determined to be friction at the rock-shaft interface. Test W-D only mobilized about 20MN as significant rock mass uplift movements occurred and the loading pumps were unable to sustain the prescribed load, preventing the completion of loading as scheduled. The rock telltales provided vital information in understanding the rock cone failure mechanism of Test W-D. In addition, the entire reference beam at ground surface also showed significant uplift. Table 2 shows the summary of the original vs. revised design parameters based on the O-cell tests (Cushing, et. al., 2011). Although the revised design value is lower than the original design, only the 14-shaft groups supporting the main piers required rock socket lengthening from 5m to 7.1m, resulting in approximately 60m of additional rock socket construction. Figure 6. Rock Telltales with Reference Beam Construction of Test Shafts Construction of the test shafts followed a similar procedure to the land based drilled shafts. The test shaft construction consisted of installing a starter casing, followed by drilling to the top of bedrock with bentonite slurry. Following that, the bentonite slurry was replaced with water before forming the rock socket. The rock socket was drilled using a rotary method with rock cross cutter and core barrel with tungsten carbide bit rollers. Cleaning of the base of shaft was undertaken using cleaning bucket and airlifting equipment. A noteworthy variation from the production drilled shaft construction procedure was the use of grout to form the lower portion of the test shaft section (shaded zone in Figure 4). It was necessary to use grout because of space limitations and the difficulty in lowering the tremie concrete pipe below the O-cell. This construction method is typical for test shafts utilizing an O-cell. DRILLED SHAFT CONSTRUCTION Bauer Foundations Canada, Inc. (Bauer) was the sub-contractor for the test and production drilled shafts. BG 28 and BG 40 drill rigs manufactured by Bauer, with kelly bars, were used for the construction of the rock socket. The typical construction sequence for land based drilled shafts was as follows: 1. Install starter casing. 2. Excavate with auger and drilling bucket through the overburden to top of bedrock with bentonite slurry support fluid. 3. Install permanent casing, embedding the casing approximately 300mm into competent rock. 4. Remove the bentonite slurry and replace with water. 5. Level the rock surface with a cross cutter and then undertake excavation of the rock mass with a core barrel.

Figure 5. O-Cell with LVDTs and Top Plate Telltales

Table 2. Summary of Design Parameters Original Design, O-Cell Test Results, and Revised Design Values End Bearing Rock Mass Shaft Resistance Resistance Tensile Strength Design or Factored Factored Factored Factored Testing Stage Ultimate Ultimate Ultimate Ultimate Ultimate Ultimate Ultimate (MPa) (MPa) Compression Tension (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) Original Design 2.00 1.20 0.80 12.10 7.26 0.53 0.21 Test E-Q 2.60 1.56 1.04 > 13.4(a) > 8.04(a) > 0.45(a) > 0.18(a) Test W-D 1.53 0.92 0.61 8.15 4.90 0.30 0.12 Revised Design 8.15 4.90 - All Other Piers 1.53 0.92 0.61 0.30 0.12 Revised Design 10.2(b) 6.10(b) - Main Piers
(a) (b)

Values reported are the maximum values achieved (without apparent failure) during Test E-Q 25% increase in end bearing resistance permitted at main span piers due to higher RQD values at the base of these longer shafts, based on 10 additional boreholes that were performed after the load test

6. At the final toe elevation, clean the rock socket using a combination of the following tools; cleaning bucket to scoop material from the base of the shaft, a rotary brush to remove sediment and loose fragments from the side wall of the shaft and finally an air lift to extract any remaining fine material. 7. Visual inspection of rock socket via camera was performed by a third party inspector. 8. Following approval, the rebar cage is lowered and concrete was tremied from bottom up within 24 hours of the visual inspection. The typical construction sequence for water based drilled shafts was as follows: 1. Drill a small diameter pilot hole to help position and install the drilled shaft starter casing. 2. Drill an oversized core barrel just into competent rock. 3. Install and seal the permanent casing. 4. Remove weathered bedrock and overburden when necessary. 5. The rock surface is leveled with a cross cutter, and rock socket excavation undertaken with a core barrel. Inspection and construction proceeded in the same way as described for land based drilled shafts.

The rock sockets were typically excavated using a core barrel with roller bits as shown in Figures 7 and 8. Two sizes of core barrels were used, 900mm and 1850mm, as necessary to facilitate the removal of rock. A cross cutter with tungsten carbide teeth as shown in Figure 9 was used to break down the rock where the surface was uneven. The rock socket production rate was variable across the bridge, influenced by a number of factors including, but not limited to: the particular rock unit being drilled, bedding thickness, and the frequency of jointing. Under normal drilling conditions production rates were approximately 20 to 30cm per hour on average. For the majority of drilled shafts over water, the lack of overburden meant it was difficult to obtain a natural seal at the permanent casing and bedrock interface. In order to overcome this, Bauer formed a mechanical seal by placing a pair of rubber tubes around the outside edge of the casing. The casing was lowered into an oversized groove in the rock and the rubber tubes inflated. Grout was then injected into the void between the two tubes in order to create the required seal. Figure 10 shows a pair of inflatable rubber tube seals, along with steel reinforcement ribs used to protect the tubes.

Figure 7. Core Barrel with Roller Bits

Figure 10. System Used to Seal the Casing QUALITY ASSURANCE Due to the importance of each and every drilled shaft, all of the production drilled shafts were integrity tested with Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) per ASTM D 6760-08. Each drilled shaft had six CSL tubes and testing was performed between all perimeter access tube pairs and across all major diagonals within the drilled shaft (a minimum of nine surveys for each drilled shaft). Figure 11 shows a steel reinforcement cage, with CSL tubes, prior to installation.

Figure 8. Replacement Roller Bits for Core Barrel

Figure 11. Steel Rebar Cage with CSL Tubes

Figure 9. Rock Cross Cutter

In addition to the CSL, base coring was required to check the interface between the bottom of the drilled shaft and bedrock to ensure an intimate contact. Verification cores were required for each shaft in the 14-shaft groups supporting the main piers, and for all other drilled shafts base coring was required for every fifth drilled shaft. Base coring consisted of a 47 millimeter minimum diameter core drilled through the base

of the shaft into the underlying bedrock to check the concrete shaft/bedrock interface. The recovered cores were inspected in order to determine whether a drilled shaft was adequate or remedial measures would be required. None of the verification cores revealed sediments or loose rock at the toe of the pile indicating that the cleaning and inspection process was effective. However, a number of base cores revealed a zone of loose unbound concrete aggregate at the toe. The thickness of this zone, measured through core loss or a drop in the drill string, was found to be typically around 50mm thick and occasionally up to 150mm in thickness. In the event that the concrete/rock interface does not show intimate contact (i.e. showed loose or soft material or unbounded concrete aggregates) it was deemed unable to carry the design base load. Therefore base grouting was required as a remedial measure. The primary goal of the grouting was to fill any voids encountered in the concrete/rock interface or in the surrounding rock to create a final tight contact. Base grouting was carried out by lowering packers with injection tubes to the base of four sonic logging tubes. Prior to grout injection a water test was undertaken to assess the permeability and flow paths between each of the injection tubes. This test establishes the sequence of injection that will achieve the best communication between tubes. The process also serves to pressure wash the base of the drilled shaft and removes any unwanted sediment. Grout is then injected to the base of the shaft via one injection tube until the grout returns via the other tubes. When all tubes have seen a return of grout they are closed and then the system is pressurized. If return was not obtained, then after injection reached the refusal pressure, the tube was closed and a second tube is injected. The refusal pressures ranged from 30 bar to 60 bar depending on the length of rock socket. COST-BENEFIT TESTING ANALYSIS FROM LOAD

originally estimated, it enabled the use of higher resistance factors. This resulted in the following effect on the design parameters relative to a design with no load test: 1. Shaft resistance in compression 15% increase. 2. Shaft resistance in tension negligible increase. 3. End bearing resistance - 26% increase at main piers, with negligible increase at all other piers. 4. Proportion of axial load taken at the base increased to a value of 38% on the basis of displacement compatibility analysis of Ocell test results. Without load testing, this value would have typically been limited to approximately 20%, provided that interface coring was performed for every drilled shaft to verify adequacy of base contact, with remedial base grouting being performed where deemed necessary. Without load testing and without interface coring, the proportion of axial load taken at the base under ULS conditions would have been limited to no more than 10%, and may have been neglected altogether. In comparison with a no load test condition, the load testing program, combined with base interface coring and remedial base grouting (where necessary) during construction, resulted in a reduction in the drilling length required in competent rock of approximately 60m. This saving is significant because the entire cost of the O-cell testing program is approximately equivalent to the cost of 20m of rock socket drilling. The estimated drilled shaft rock socket length is summarized in Table 3. Table 3.Design vs. As-Built Shaft Lengths in Rock Total Shaft Length Design or As-Built Condition in Rock (meters) Design No load test >700 Design before load test, assuming test carried out, using empirical parameters Design after load test using test results 580 640

Even though the load testing program resulted in lower ultimate values of side shear, end bearing, and rock mass tensile strength values than

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This paper has summarized the design and construction of the rock-socketed drilled shaft foundations that support part of the Beauharnois Canal Bridge, part of the ongoing project to complete the A30 ring road to the south and west of Montral. Results of two sacrificial test shafts using Osterberg load cells are presented, along with the redesign based on the test results. The behavior of the two sacrificial test shafts was quite different, with Test E-Q achieving the maximum anticipated test load while Test W-D was limited by an apparent rock cone (rock-torock friction) failure. O-cell load testing is a cost effective alternative to conventional testing, especially for highly loaded large diameter drilled shafts in rock. However, it should be noted that such tests on shafts with rock sockets shorter than the production shafts could mobilize the rock-to-rock cone as a result of a higher degree of fracturing governed by fractures or other anomalies in the rock mass at shallow depth. Construction procedures and the importance of quality assurance processes were also described. Even though the results of the O-cell testing program were less favorable than originally expected, the total length of rock socket required for the Beauharnois Canal Bridge is significantly less than for the no-load test condition. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writers would like to acknowledge the contribution of a number of individuals to the paper, including Jose-Luis Conesa, Project Manager for Nouvelle Autoroute 30 (NA30) CJV, Gabriel Menendez-Pidal, Section Manager for Nouvelle Autoroute 30 (NA30) CJV,Don Phillips, Project Director for Arup, David Garcia Cueto, Geotechnical Engineering Coordinator for NA30 CJV, Guillaume Chamroux, Site Engineer for Bauer Foundations Canada, and Richard Prust, Geotechnical Director for Arup.

REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2006. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Manual. Barbas, J. and Carter, M., 2010. Design of the Major River Crossing Bridges on the A30. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Short and Medium Span Bridges. Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS). 2006. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual 4th Edition, 488p. Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2006. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (and Commentary) CAN/CSA-S6-06. Cushing, A., Hee, I., Dodds, A., Talby, R., and Menendez-Pidal, G. 2011 in Press. Osterberg Load Cell Testing Results and Analysis for Rock Socket Design Validation Bridge Over Beauharnois Canal, Autoroute 30, Montral. Pan Am CGS Geotechnical Conference, Toronto, Canada. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). 2006. NCHRP Synthesis 360: Rock-Socketed Shafts for Highway Structure Foundations. U.S. Department of Transportation. 1999. FHWA-IF-99-025: Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods.