Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 20

Load-Displacement Behavior of Underreamed Footings Bearing in Jointed Clays Kenneth E. Tand, P.E., M.ASCE, C. Vipulanandan, Ph.D., P.E., M.

ASCE, And Michael W. ONeill, Ph.D., P.E. ABSTRACT: Underreamed footings, sometimes referred to as belled shafts or belled piers, are frequently used in areas where geological conditions are favorable for their installation. Underreamed footings are sized to provide resistance to compression, uplift and lateral loads. In this study, the load-displacement behavior of two full size underreamed footings load tested to failure in compression and three in uplift were investigated. The measured compression loads ranged from 750 to 1090 kips (3340 to 4850 kN), and the uplift loads ranged from 109 to 220 kips (485 to 980 kN). Due to the relatively high permeability of the slickensided and fissured clays, four of the load tests were performed under partially drained conditions. FE analysis using effective stress parameters allowing for the dissipation of pore pressures between loading intervals was required to predict the measured load-displacement behavior. The at-rest earth pressure coefficient, slickensides and fissures in the clays, and permeability of the layers were important parameters to model the behavior of the footings. Introduction The bottom of drilled shafts are sometimes enlarged to increase their bearing capacity to optimize foundation costs by reducing the quantity of concrete and construction labor required (ONeill, 1985). These belled shafts are also referred to as underreamed footings or belled piers. This type of foundation system is commonly used along the Texas Gulf Coast where favorable subsoil conditions exist for their installation. In order to better understand the load-displacement behavior of drilled shafts in stiff clay, four load tests had been performed on drilled shafts, one underreamed, at the State Highway 225/Loop 610 interchange in Houston, Texas, (ONeill, et. al., 1972). These drilled shafts were tested to failure and the skin friction and end bearing developed in the different soil layers were analyzed. Further studies of underreamed footings performed by ONeill showed that underreamed footings were advantageous because they could be economically installed below the active depth of the expansive clays typical of the Texas Gulf Coast area, and that underreamed footings provided adequate resistance for compression, uplift, and lateral loads. ______________________________________________________________________ 1 Principal Engineer, Kenneth E. Tand & Associates; 2817 Aldine Bender, Houston, Texas 77032; Ph: (281) 590-1711; Fax (281-590-1430); Email: ktand@ketand.com 2 Chairman and Professor; Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering; University of Houston; Houston, Texas 77204; Ph. (713) 743-4278; Fax (713) 7434260; Email: cvipulanandan@uh.edu 3 Cullen Distinguished Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Houston; Houston, Texas 77204 (deceased)

In another study, an underreamed footing was load tested to failure in compression at the University of Houston test facility (ONeill, et. al., 1985). The base of the footing was instrumented with earth pressure cells to determine the pressure distribution under the footing, and it was observed that a portion of the load was being carried in suction at the roof (top) of the underream. Later, four more underreamed footings were load tested in uplift at the same location (Yazdanbod, et. al., 1987), and piezometers were installed to measure the suction that developed at the base of the footings. A recent study investigated the load-displacement behavior of the underreamed footing load tested to failure in compression at the U of H test facility (Tand and ONeill, 2003). Finite element analysis was performed to investigate the soil-structure interaction. This study included analysis of the two compression load tests, and three uplift load tests referenced above. The overall objectives were to investigate the effects of the following factors on the load-displacement behavior of underreamed footings in compression and uplift: Suction Fissured and slickensided clay layers. Soil strength parameters and permeability. In situ stress conditions (KO).

Site Geology The two test sites were located east of downtown Houston, Texas, and they were about 4.5 miles apart. Both sites were located on a Pleistocene age deposit known locally as the Beaumont formation (Mahar and ONeill, 1983). The Beaumont formation is about 26 feet (8 m) deep at both sites, and it is underlain by an older Pleistocene deposit known as the Montgomery formation. The subsoils were deposited in shallow coastal river channels and flood plains during the Peorian interglacial stage. Both formations can be categorized as primarily clay with occasional interbedded seams and layers of sand and silt. The clays and cohesive silts were overconsolidated to deep depths due to desiccation that occurred when the water table was lowered during the Second Wisconsin Ice Age (Bernard, 1962). After alluvial deposition of the clays, large vertical fissures were formed by shrinkage due to desiccation. Soil from the surface was washed down into the cracks during periods of heavy rainfall. The soft sediments in the cracks were then compressed when the clays swelled leaving locked-in horizontal stress (Al-Layla, 1970). This process was repeated throughout Pleistocene to recent geologic times, and K0 values of 3.0 and greater have been measured at the U of H test site (ONeill, 2000). The process of desiccation and subsequent rewetting caused cyclic shearing displacements in the clay mass that produced polished failure planes referred to as slickensides. The slickensides are widely variable in size and orientation, although there is a slight preference towards inclination at about 45 degrees to the horizontal (Mahar and ONeill, 1983). The slickensides and fissures are flaws within the clay mass, and such deposits are often referred to as jointed clays. The system of slickensides and fissures that occurred during recent drying cycles produced a varying

degree of desiccation and overconsolidation within the clay mass (ONeill, et. al., 1995). The state of stress is a function of the distance from the joints. As shown in Fig. 1, desiccation has produced an assemblage of small to large oddly shaped clusters that lie within the slickensides and fissures (macro structure), and the soil within the assemblage is somewhat, but not perfectly, intact (micro structure). The cyclic movements resulted in residual strength parameters along the slickensides and fissures. The micro and macro structure affects the strength, deformation and permeability properties of the soil mass. The clays are spatially inhomogeneous, and exhibit some anisotropic properties due to their stress history.

Soil Samples Fig. 1 - Conceptual Sketch of Jointed Clay Mass The jointing structure and loading pattern greatly affects whether macro or micro behavior will govern overall behavior of the foundation. The macro strength of jointed clay will have small influence on the bearing strength of clay under a large mat where the soil is somewhat confined, but the macro strength will have great influence on the uplift resistance of an underreamed footing with limited embedment. Compression loading on a footing will tend to squeeze the joints closer and reduce the mass permeability, but uplift loading will tend to open the joints significantly increasing the mass permeability. There can be significant differences in the pore pressure gradient between the clay at the edge of a fissure that has been opened by uplift loading, and in the center of the clay assemblage. Thus, selection of a constitutive model for jointed clays and soil parameters for that model present a significant challenge to the geotechnical engineer. The subsoils properties at the U H test site have been documented in the literature (Mahar and ONeill, 1983, and ONeill, et. al., 1995). A summary of the database can be found on the web at www.uh.edu/nges. Shown in Fig. 2 is a subsoil profile with a brief summary of key soil parameters. It should be noted that the database was constructed from a very large number of laboratory tests on small diameter samples, and in situ tests.

Depth ft. m

Stratum

W -%-

LL

Ip

- pcf-

ft m 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 4 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 10 34 36 38 40 42 44 12 8 6

(kN/m3)

Su c' -ksf- -ksf(kPa) (kPa)

'

qc -ksf(MPa)

(MPa)

E ksf-

KO

OCR

I II
20 55 40 115 (18) 1.5 (72) .2 (9.6) 25 15 240 (0.7) (11.5) 3 10

_
W.T.

III IV

23

35

20

112 2.0 (17.5) (96) 110 2.5 (17.3) (120)

100 280 (4.8) (13.4) 45 (2.2) 350 (16.8)

2.5

28 Stratum

70

45

.6 (28.7)

20

2.0

I Fill: Mixture of shell fragments and sand with clay binder II Stiff to very stiff clay III Very stiff sandy clay, with sand seams and calcareous layers IV Stiff to very stiff clay V - Stiff silty clay with silt lenses VI - Very stiff sandy clay 24 10 118 2.0 (18.5) (100) 50 (2.4) 480 (23) 1.5 5

18

VI

15

30

18

128 (20)

4.2 (200)

.8 (37)

30

70 (3.4)

600 (29)

1.2

Fig. 2 - Generalized Subsoil Profile at U H Test Site Symbol Key w - moisture content LL - liquid limit Ip - plasticity index - unit dry density Su - undrained shear strength c' - effective stress cohesion ' - internal angle of resistance qc - cone tip bearing E - soil modulus KO - at rest earth pressure coefficient

The engineering properties of the subsoils have also been extensively studied at the state highway interchange (ONeill and Reese, 1972 and Woodward-Clyde, 1982). The site geology is very similar to the U H site, but the water table was at a depth of 15 feet (4.6 m) in 1969. When comparing the subsoil stratigraphy in the two different

engineering reports for this site, it should be noted that the site grade was raised about 6 feet (1.8 m) with fill after the load tests were performed in 1969. Cone penetration tests performed at a later date (ONeill, et. al., 1985) clearly showed that the footing was bearing in stratum V, but that the strata was 20 feet (6.1 m) below grade at this site. Finite Element Modeling The complex subsoil profile and geologic stress history, as well as the variable stress paths that occur during loading, make conventional methods of analysis impractical. Hence, the finite element method was selected to investigate the subsoil parameters affecting the load-displacement behavior of the underreamed footings. The commercially available computer finite element based code PLAXIS (2D version 8/2002) was used. The following features within the code were used: Axisymmetric was used due to the symmetry of the geometry and loading. Triangular elements with 15 nodes were used which provided fourth order displacement field. Interface elements were used to model differential movement between the concrete and soil. Varying KO values were input to model the horizontal locked in stresses occurring in the different soil layers. Volumetric contraction was used to model tension stresses induced at the surface due to shrinkage of the expansive clays. The tension cut off feature was used so that no effective stress tension points occurred. A cavitation cut off pressure of 2.1 ksf (100 kPa) was used to limit suction pressures. Consolidation was used to model the dissipation of pore pressures. The constitutive model chosen was the hardening soil model (Schanz et. al., 1999) because it includes the following soil parameters to model real soil behavior: Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria (c and ) Secant modulus for zero volumetric strains Hyperbolic relationship to model reduction in stiffness due to strain Constrained (odometer) modulus for volumetric strains Both secant and constrained modulus are stress dependent Unloading/reloading modulus Coefficient of permeability to model dissipation of pore pressures Effective stress parameters were input to model undrained and partially drained conditions. The computer code automatically computes the pore pressures based on the stiffness of the soil skeleton. To model the load-displacement behavior of the footings, a detailed iterative procedure was used whereby soil parameters were changed until good agreement between measured versus FE predicted load-displacement behavior was obtained for all the footings tested in compression and uplift at the U H test site. FE analysis was performed on a desktop PC computer.

Compression Load Test on F-1 Underreamed footing F-1 was installed at the U H site, and it was bearing at a depth of 8 feet (2.4 m) in stiff clay. The 2.5 foot (0.8 m) diameter shaft was underreamed to a base diameter of 7.9 feet (2.4 m) without the use of drilling slurry. The as-built details of the footing load test are shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 Footing F-1 Load Test Configuration The reaction system consisted of two underreamed footings placed 9.5 feet (2.9 m) on each side of the test footing (center-to-center spacing). Their diameter was the same as that of the test footing, but the bearing depth was increased to 18 feet (5.5 m) below grade. A pertinent observation was that groundwater seepage was large enough that the reaction footings were installed using the slurry displacement method. Thus, the permeability of the clay mass is much higher than that of intact clays. Earth pressure cells were installed at the base of the footing to measure the stress distribution. A 2.5 foot (0.8 m) diameter cardboard casing (sonatube) was set inside the shaft to act as a form to prevent shear from being transferred between the concrete shaft and clay. However, the concrete rose up 0.75 feet (23 cm) into the annulus between the cardboard casing and the soil forming a small collar around the shaft at the top of the underream when concreting the footing. The load was applied to the top of the shaft in 100 kips (445 kN) increments and held for sixty minutes to a load of 500 kips (2224 kN) with a hydraulic jack. Thereafter, the load was applied in 50 kips (222 kN) increments and held for thirty minutes so that the failure load could be defined clearly. The footing had to be unloaded at the end of the 700 kips (3115 kN) load cycle to insert shims due to the large displacement. Plunging failure occurred at a load of 750 kips (3334 kN) during the reload cycle. The footing was excavated after completion of the load test, and there was no indications of structural failure. Settlement was measured using dial gages attached to an independent reference beam, and ground heave was measured using optical surveying methods. The earth pressure cells were read at the start and end of each load interval.

Analysis of F-1 Load Test During the initial FE study (Tand and ONeill, 2003), no attempt was made to model the increasing displacement that occurred during each holding period due to the increased base load resulting from dissipation of suction on the roof of the underream because it was deduced that most of the suction had dissipated by the end of each holding period. FE modeling was achieved by placing a small void directly above the underream during the calculation phase to break any suction. The initial calculations used soil parameters c', ' (CIU Bar tests), E' and KO obtained from the U H site database. FE analysis was performed using 1967 triangular elements, and undrained conditions were assumed. Detailed parameter studies were performed to investigate the effects of various soil properties on the load-displacement behavior. The FE computed load-displacement curves are compared to the field loading test results in Fig. 4a.

(a) Database/Optimized Parameters

(b) Effects of KO and E

Fig. 4 Load Displacement for Compression Footing F-1 FE calculations were made using KO = 1 for each layer to evaluate the influence of the in situ horizontal stresses that occurred due to the geologic weathering process. As shown in Fig. 4b, there was limited influence when the load is less than one-third ultimate, but it was significant thereafter. Displacements are significantly increased, and the ultimate bearing capacity was reduced by about 25 percent. Increasing the soil modulus of each layer by 50 percent indicated that displacements were reduced, but the ultimate bearing capacity was unchanged. Simple 3D FE analysis indicates that the influence of uplift from the reaction footings on the test footing was less than 5 percent when the loads were less than 50 percent of failure, and less than 10 percent at failure. Additional FE analyses were performed to determine whether the loaddisplacement behavior of F-1 during the loading intervals could be modeled if pore pressures were allowed to build up and dissipate on the roof of the underream, and in the clay mass below the footing during the holding intervals. The boundary conditions and finite element mesh are shown in Fig. 5. The FE calculations were performed using

2322 triangular elements. Consolidation calculations were made after each load interval allowing the pore water pressures to partially dissipate.

Fig. 5 - Boundary Conditions and FE Mesh As shown in Fig. 6a, the load-displacement behavior of the F-1 footing load test is compared to the FE predictions. The optimized values of c', ', E' and KO are compared with the soil parameters in the database in Table 1.

(a) Predicted/MeasuredBehavior

(b) Suction above the Underream

Fig. 6 Modeling Field Loading Path for Footing F-1

Table 1 - Summary of Soil Parameters at U H Test Site Depth - ft (m) 0-3 (0-0.9) 3-5 (0.9-1.5) 5-7 (1.5-2.1) 7-9 (2.1-2.7) 9-14 (2.7-4.3) 14-26 (4.3-7.9) 26-50 (7.915.2) U H Data Base* KO ~3.0 ~3.0 ~3.0 ~2.5 ~2.0 ~1.5 ~1.2 Optimized Parameters (FEM) 15 15 20 25 30 20 30 Kperm. -ft/day(m/day) Drained 50.0 (15) 1.0 (0.3) 1 x 10-5 (.3 x 10-5) 1 x 10-4 (.3 x 10-4) 1 x 10-5 (.3 x 10-5) 1 x 10-4 (.3 x 10-4)

Soil Layer Ia Ib IIa IIb III IV V

c' c' E** E ' -ksf- -ksfKO -ksf- -ksf(MPa) (kPa) (MPa) (kPa) 230 0.2 50 0.2 25 1.0 (11) (10) (2) (10) 230 0.2 100 0.2 25 2.0 (11) (10) (5) (10) 230 0.2 400 0.4 (11) (10) 25 2.0 (19) (19) 270 0.2 500 0.7 (13) (10) 25 3.0 (24) (34) 300 600 1.4 *** *** 2.5 (29) (14) (67) 400 500 0.7 0 25 2.0 (19) (24) (34) 710 0.8 600 0.8 (34) (38) 30 1.5 (29) (38)

The following comments pertain to the items marked with asterisks in Table 1. * c' and ' are from CIU Bar tests. See web database for CKOU Bar and residual soil parameters. ref ** E is reported as 2 x the E 50 modulus for comparison purposes only. The ref E50 modulus is the secant modulus in the hardening soil model, and the mobilized E is a function of the minor principal stress (3) and power function (m). *** Layer 3 is very stiff to hard sandy clay with sand seams and numerous calcareous nodules. The clay appears to be lightly cemented with calcium carbonate. This layer was not addressed in the web database. FE analysis captured the general trend of the loading/holding intervals during the field loading test. The initial displacements predicted by FE were slightly greater than measured because the hyperbolic soil model does not consider small strain stiffness or anisotropy. The permeability of the clays above the underreams, which controls buildup and dissipation of suction, are physically changing during the load test due to opening of fissures and slickensides and this cannot be modeled. Analysis indicated that decreasing the permeability of each layer by a factor of 10 had little effect on the load-displacement behavior indicating that the permeability used for analysis is resulting in undrained failure of the bearing clays. However, increasing permeability by a factor of 10 increased the stiffness of the load-

displacement behavior (Fig. 6a), and increased the bearing capacity by about 15 percent due to partially drained conditions. The earth pressure cell measurements indicated that about 50 percent of the load was carried above the base of the footing at about 50 percent of the ultimate bearing capacity. Since a void had been cast around the footing shaft to break side shear, most of this load would have been carried in suction on the roof of the underream. Maximum suction inferred from the measurements was about 4 ksf (192 kPa), which is about 2 times greater than the maximum suction measured during the subsequent uplift load tests (F-2/3/4) at the U H test site. The most plausible explanation for the high suction inferred from the earth pressure cells is that the sand layer used to bed the earth pressure cells was more compressible than the stiff clay surrounding the cells, and that a disproportionate amount of the bearing stress was being carried by the stiff clay around the cells (arching effect) until the sand was densified. The earth pressure cell measurements did indicate that the base load increased during the holding periods thus revealing that suction forces were building up on the roof of the underream when load was applied, and that suction was dissipating with time. For example, the earth pressure cells indicated an increased base load of 14 kips (62 kN) during the 60 minute holding period at 400 kips (1780 kN). Thus, they infer that 0.3 ksf (15 kPa) of suction on the roof of the underream dissipated during the holding period, which transferred load to the base. FE predictions showing buildup and dissipation of suction pressures versus displacement of the underream are shown on Fig. 6b. The predicted gap above the underream started to form during the initial 100 kip (445 kN) loading interval. At the 400 kip (1780 kN) load, FE analysis predicts that 0.35 ksf (17 kPa) of suction developed, and that it completely dissipated during the one hour holding period. The FE predicted dissipation of suction correlates well with the 0.3 ksf (15 kPa) suction inferred from the earth pressure cells. It should be noted that the buildup and dissipation of suction is a dynamic process because suction is a function of displacement, and displacement is a function of base load which is also a function of suction. FE analysis can model this complex process. FE analysis indicated that suction continued to build up on the roof of the underream after the 400 kip (1,780 kN) load was applied, but it did not entirely dissipate thereafter. At the failure load, analysis predicts that about 0.6 ksf (29 kPa) of suction pressure was still present on the roof of the underream. Thus, the base load at failure was about 25 kips (110 kN) less than the load applied to the top of the footing (~3% less). Analysis of the earth pressure cells indicated that the base load was about 715 kips (3,180 kN) at failure which correlates well with the FE prediction of 725 kips (3,230 kN). The roof of the underream was situated in a weather clay crust where the permeability was high enough that most of the suction dissipated during the loading intervals. This is the prime reason that good agreement was obtained when both neglecting suction on the underream (Fig. 4a) and when including suction (Fig. 6a). However, if the footing was situated below the water table and the rate of loading was high, suction effects may be included in the design.

10

Two cone penetration tests (CPT) next to the test footing detected a 5 foot (1.5 m) thick layer of very stiff to hard sandy clay about 1.5 feet (0.5 m) below the footing. FE parameter studies were performed to evaluate the effects of subsoil layering: The thin layer of stiff clay (IIb) directly below the footing was replaced with the underlying layer of hard sandy clay (III). Qu is computed as 833 kips (3710 kN) at a displacement of 0.4 feet (S/B = 5%) indicating a 10 percent increase in Qu. All the clays below the footing were replaced with the layer of stiff clay (IIb). Qu is computed as 638 kips (2840 kN), indicating a 15 percent reduction in Qu. All the clays below the footing were replaced with the layer of very stiff to hard sandy clay (III). Qu is computed as 910 kips (4050 kN), indicating an increase of 20 percent in Qu. Parameter studies thus indicate that subsoil layering had moderate influence on the ultimate bearing capacity at this site. However, layering had only minor influence on the initial slope of the load-displacement curves when loads were less than one-third ultimate. The prime reason is that there were not large differences in the soil modulus between the clay layers. FE analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of slickensides and fissures on underreamed footings loaded in compression. As shown in Fig. 7, a random pattern of slickensides and fissures within the soil mass was modeled using zero thickness interface elements. A stiff clay profile [cohesion (c') = 0.75 ksf (36 kPa) and internal ref friction angle () = 20] with a constant soil modulus [E50= 250 ksf (12 mPa)] and KO (2.0) was chosen. Residual soil parameters [c' = 0.2 ksf (10 kPa) and ' = 12] were input for the interface elements. A 6 feet (1.8 m) diameter underreamed footing bearing at depths of 8 feet (2.4 m) and 13 feet (4.0 m) was used. Undrained conditions were assumed, and suction was allowed to build up on the roof of the underream.

Fig. 7 Use of Interface Element to Model Jointed Clay

11

As shown in Fig. 8, FE analysis predicted that the effects of jointing on the loaddisplacement behavior was minor at loads less than one third of failure. Displacements were increased thereafter, and the ultimate bearing capacity was reduced by about 6 percent for the shallow footing, and 2 percent for the deeper footing. Also shown in the figures, there was about a 25 percent reduction in the ultimate bearing capacity when reducing KO from 2.0 to 1.0 for the jointed clays. Yielding was taking place along numerous slickenside surfaces for the shallow footing. However, it was only taking place along isolated slickensides in the deeper footings due to higher confining pressures. FE analysis predicts that a cavity started to form above the roof of the underream for both footings when the initial load was applied. The maximum suction pressure of 2.1 ksf (100 kPa) developed on the roof of the underream after a top displacement of 0.6 inches (1.6 cm) for the deep footing, but 3 inches (7.6 cm) of displacement was required to develop maximum suction for the shallow footing. Thus, the base load for both footings was reduced about 53 kips (235 kN) by suction (~ 8%).

(a) Footings at 8 feet (2.4 m) (b) Footings at 13 feet (4.0 m) Fig. 8 Effects of Jointed Clays for Footings in Compression The 725 kip (3230 kN) base load at failure computed by FE analysis indicated a net ultimate bearing pressure of 14.7 ksf (705 kPa). The equivalent undrained shear strength of the jointed clay mass was computed to be about 1.9 ksf (91 kPa) assuming a bearing capacity factor Nc = 7.7 (Skempton, 1951) for D/B (depth/diameter) = 1. For comparison, the average undrained shear strength of the bearing clays below the footing (ONeill, 1983) was about 2.4 ksf (115 kPa). However, the equivalent shear strength does not consider the effects of layering of the clays above or below the bearing elevation. FE analysis can best be used to analyze geotechnical problems involving multiple layers, and complex in situ stress conditions.

12

Uplift Load Tests on F-2, F-3, and F-4 The load tests on footings F-2, F-3 and F-4 were performed as a series at the U H test site to study the load-displacement behavior of underreamed footings tested in uplift (ONeill, et. al., 1985). Underreamed footing F-2 had a base diameter of 7.5 ft. (2.3 m), and it was bearing at a depth of 8 ft. (2.4 m) in stiff clay. Footings F-3 and F-4 had base diameters of 6 ft. (1.8 m), and they were bearing at a depth of 10 ft. (3.0 m) in stiff clay. The reaction system consisted of two W 33 x 220 beams bearing on two timber mats at the surface. The distance from the center of footing to edge of mat was 11 ft. (3.4 m). The as built plan of the load test setup for footings F-3/4 is shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9 - F-3/4 Load Test Configuration Two vibrating wire type piezometers were placed near the center of each footing at the base to measure pore pressures. A pertinent observation is that relief wells had to be installed to lower the water table so that the piezometers could be placed in the dry. Thus, the permeability of the clay mass is much higher than that of intact clays. Settlement was measured using dial gages attached to an independent reference beam, and ground heave by optical surveying methods. The piezometers were read at the start and end of each load interval when the equipment was functioning properly. Footing F-2 [7.5 ft. (2.3 m) dia.] was load tested in steps of 20 kips (89 kN). Failure occurred at 109 kips (485 kN) at an upward displacement of about 2.2 inches (5.6 cm). Each load was held for 5 minutes, and measurements were taken at the start and end of each load cycle. Footing F-3 [6.0 ft. (1.8 m) dia.] was load tested in steps of 25 kips (111 kN). Failure occurred at 220 kips (979 kN) at an upward displacement of about 1.8 inches (4.6 cm). Each load was held for 5 minutes, and measurements were taken at the start and end of each load cycle.

13

Footing F-4 [6.0 ft. (1.8 m) dia.] was load tested over a 10 day period at load steps of 40 kips (178 kN). Failure occurred at 190 kips (846 kN) at a deflection of about 0.8 inches (2.0 cm). Each load was held for a 2-day period, and settlement was monitored periodically. After completion of the initial loading cycle for each test, additional loading cycles were then applied. The failure load increased during the additional load cycles due to build up of suction pressures that occurred with increasing displacement. Analysis of F-2, F-3 and F-4 Load Tests Footings F-3 and F-4 were both bearing at a depth of 10 feet (3 m) below grade, and both had underream diameters of 6 feet (1.8 m). However, F-3 was load tested to failure in about 1 hour and F-4 was load tested to failure in about 10 days. The ultimate capacity of F-3 was 220 kips (980 kN) versus 190 kips (845 kN) for F-4. The subsoil conditions indicated by the CPT tests indicate that reasonably uniform conditions existed, and thus most of the differences are due to short term versus sustained loading. This difference suggests that about 1.2 ksf (57 kPa) of suction built up on the base of F3. This is a simplified assumption because some of the additional 30 kips (134 kN) of force could have been due to the difference between the partially undrained and drained strength of the clays. Both F-2 and F-3 were load tested in about 1 hour, but F-2 carried only half the uplift load of F-3 although the diameter was 25 percent greater. The reasons are due to 2 feet less embedment for F-2, and the fact that the roof of the underream was situated in the weathered clay crust. About 0.2 ksf (10 kPa) of suction was measured at an upward displacement of about 0.5 inch (1.3 cm) during the first loading cycle in F-3. The maximum measured suction of 1.9 ksf (90 kPa) occurred during the second loading cycle for F-3 at an upward displacement of about 7 inches (18 cm). As predicted by Boyles law, suction is a function of displacement (volumetric expansion). FE analysis was performed to determine whether the effects of suction on the uplift capacity could be modeled. The boundary conditions and finite element mesh for typical analysis is shown in Fig. 5. The optimized soil parameters in Table 1 were the input. The FE calculations were performed using 2214 triangular elements for F-2, and 2404 elements for F-3 and F-4. Consolidation calculations were made after each load interval allowing the pore pressures to dissipate. The load-displacement behavior for footings F-2, F-3 and F-4 are compared in Fig. 10a. The measured versus predicted load-settlement behavior for footings F-2, F-3, and F-4 are shown in Figs. 10b, 10c, and 10d, respectively. For comparison purposes, undrained and drained loading are shown. As shown on Fig. 10a, the load-displacement behavior of footings F-3 (short term test) and F-4 (sustained test) were very similar up to a load of 190 kips (845 kN). Thereafter, the load-settlement curve of footing F-3 was stiffer, and the ultimate uplift capacity was about 15 percent greater.

14

(a) Footings F-2/3/4

(b) Footing F-2

(c) Footing F-3

(d) Footing F-4

Fig. 10 Load-Displacement Behavior for Uplift Tests As shown in Fig. 10b, the load-displacement behavior of footing F-2 (short term test) is very similar to FE predictions for drained, not undrained, conditions. The prime reason is that the footing is situated in the weathered clay crust where the permeability is so high that dissipation of pore pressures approaches drained conditions. As shown in Fig. 10c and 10d, the load-displacement behavior of footings F-3 and F-4 is closer to FE predictions for undrained loading up to a load of 160 kips (720 kN). Thereafter, the load-displacement behavior was softer due to dissipation of suction. The relationship between undrained and drained conditions is complex for jointed clays. It was concluded (ONeill, 1986) that air passages formed during the uplift tests, probably due to opening of the slickensides and fissures, which allowed suction to dissipate rapidly. However, undrained conditions were probably present in the intact clumps of clay between the slickensides and fissures. For FE modeling, the permeability of layers IIb and III were input as 1.0 ft./day (0.3 m/day), and 0.5 ft./day (0.2 m/day), respectively.

15

Strength parameters very close to residual properties [c' = 0.2 ksf (10 kPa) and ' = 15] were required to model the weathered clay crust. KO =1.0 was used to compute the in situ stresses for this layer because the tests had been run in the summer when shrinkage had reduced the horizontal stress. The permeability and the loading rate are important parameters because they control dissipation of pore pressures. FE analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of slickensides and fissures using a random pattern of slickensides and fissures modeled using interface elements (Fig. 8a). Shown in Fig. 11a is the load-displacement response for a 6 foot (1.8 m) diameter footing bearing at a depth of 8 feet (2.4 m), and on Fig. 11b for a footing bearing at a depth of 13 ft. (4.0 m). FE analysis indicated that there was about a 10 percent reduction in the uplift capacity due to the presence of slickensides and fissures above the underreams for both embedment depths. Also, there was a 10 to 20 percent reduction in the uplift capacity when KO was decreased from 2.0 to 1.0.

(a) Footings at 8 ft. (2.4 m) (b) Footings at 13 ft. (4.0 m) Fig. 11 Effects of Jointed Clays on Footings in Uplift Compression Test on F-5 Underreamed footing F-5 was installed at a test site for the Texas Department of Transportation at the interchange of Highway 225 and Loop 610 . What is referred to as shaft S-2 (ONeill et. al., 1972) had been underreamed to a diameter of 7.5 feet (2.4 m). The load was applied in 50 kip (222 kN) load steps up to 500 kips (2225 kN) in 2.5 minute intervals, and thereafter the steps were increased to 200 kips (890 kN). Failure occurred at a load of 1080 kips (4800 kN) at a displacement of 2.8 inches (7.1 cm). Settlement was measured using dial gages attached to an independent reference beam, and they were read at the start and end of each load interval. The shaft was instrumented with 7 levels of Mustran cells (strain gages) to measure the load distribution with depth, and 4 levels of telltails had been installed to measure compression of the footing shaft. The reaction system consisted of two underreamed footings placed 10 feet (3.0 m) on each side of the test footing (center-to-center spacing). Their diameter was the

16

same as that of the test footing, but the bearing depth was increased to 10 feet (3.0 m) below the test footing. The as built details of the load test set up are typical to those shown in Fig. 3, except for the embedment depths. Analysis of F-5 Load Test The strain gages indicated that 190 kips (845 kN) was carried in side friction along the shaft. Suction occurring above the roof of the underream was not measured, and thus the compression loads reaching the base during the load test can only be estimated using FE analysis. For initial FE calculations soil parameters c', ' (CIU Bar tests), E' and KO obtained from the site data base were used. The measured value of 2.4 ksf (105 kPa) side shear from the strain gages was input for the maximum value in the interface elements along the shaft to reduce the unknowns. Analysis was performed using 2288 triangular elements, and undrained conditions were assumed. In Fig. 12a the loaddisplacement behavior of F-5 is compared to the FE predictions. The optimized values of c', ', E', and KO with values reported in the database are summarized in Table 2.

(a) Load-Displacement Behavior (b) Incremented Displacements Fig. 12 Load-Displacement for Footing F-5 in Compression It is surmised that undrained conditions existed during this test due to the rapid rate of loading (~30 minute duration). The fact that the underream was bearing in clay about 8 feet (2.4 m) below the water table suggests that suction close to the maximum theoretical value of 2.1 ksf (100 kPa) probably developed. FE analysis predicts that the maximum suction pressure of 2.1 ksf (100 kPa) build up on the roof of the underream after a load of 150 kips (670 kN) had been applied, and that it was present thereafter. Thus, the base load at failure was reduced about 80 kips (356 kN) due to suction (~9% less). The CPT test closest to F-5 showed that the strata of stiff silty clay with silt layers was between 20 and 26 feet (6.1 and 7.9 m) below the 1969 grade. As shown in Fig. 12b, FE analysis indicated that this layer is somewhat confined by the stiffer clay layers above and below, and the silty clay is being squeezed out laterally.

17

The 810 kip (3604 kN) base load at failure computed by FE analysis indicates an ultimate bearing pressure of 18.3 ksf (876 kPa). The equivalent undrained shear strength of the clay mass was computed to be about 2.1 ksf (100 kPa) assuming a bearing capacity factor Nc = 8.8 (Skempton, 1951) for D/B (depth/diameter) = 3. For comparison, the average undrained shear strength of the bearing clays below the footing (ONeill, 1972) was about 2.0 ksf (96 kPa). However, the equivalent shear strength does not consider effects of layering of the clays above or below the bearing elevation. Table 2 - Summary of Soil Parameters SH 225 and Loop 610 Interchange Depth - ft (m) 05 (0-1.5) 5 10 (1.5-3) 10 22 (3-6.7) 22 26 (6.7-7.9) 26 30 (7.9-9.1) 30 60 (9.1-18) Site Data Base Optimized Parameters (FEM) 15 20 20 30 25 25

Soil Layer

Ia Ib II III* IVa* IVb*

E c' E ref c' 50 ' KO -ksf- -ksfKO -ksf- -ksf(MPa) (kPa) (MPa) (kPa) 375 0.4 .2 2.5 (18) (19) 23 1.0 50 (10) 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 375 (18) 375 (18) 35 (2) 330 (16) 360 (17) 0.4 (19) 0.4 (19) 0.3 (14) 0.5 (24) 0.8 (37) 23 3.0 23 1.5 30 1.5 30 1.2 30 1.0 400 400 200 600 600 .5 (24) .6 (29) .5 (24) 1.5 (72) 2.0 (95)

The following comments pertain to the items marked with asterisks in Table 2. * The effective stress parameters for layers III and IV were not reported in the site database. These parameters were assumed from data at the U of H site for similar subsoil conditions. ref ** E is reported as 2 x the E 50 modulus for comparison purposes only. The ref E 50 modulus is the secant modulus in the hardening soil model, and the mobilized E is a function of the minor principal stress (3) and power function (m). Conclusions The load-displacement behavior of two footings load tested in compression and three in uplift was investigated. The complex subsoil profile and geologic stress history of the Beaumont clays required numerical analysis to capture all the important features.

18

Very good agreement was obtained between predicted load-displacement behavior and the field load tests using FE analyses. The following conclusions are advanced from this study: The slickensides and fissures within the clays were modeled using randomly distributed interface elements. There was about a 2 to 6 percent reduction in bearing capacity for footings loaded in compression, but it was about 10 percent for footings loaded in uplift. Strength parameters for the weathered clay crust close to residual [c' = 0.2 ksf (10 kPa) and ' = 15] were required to model the load-displacement behavior for footings in uplift. A cavity was formed above the roof (top) of the underreamed footings during the compression load tests which caused a build up of suction. The ultimate bearing capacity was increased by less than 5 percent for the shallow footing F-1, and it was increased by about 10 percent for the deep underreamed footing F-5. Suction built up on the base of the underreamed footings during the uplift load tests. The uplift capacity of footing F-4 tested under sustained loading was about 15 percent less than the capacity of footing F-3 tested under short term loading. The magnitude of suction developed was a function of the displacement, loading rate, and permeability of the clays. KO was an important parameter in the modeling of the footings. The soil modulus had a substantial effect on displacements, but it did not effect the ultimate bearing capacity.

19

Appendix - References Al-Layla, M. T. H. (1970) Study of Certain Geotechnical Properties of Beaumont Clay, Ph. D. Thesis Texas A & M University. Bernard, H. A., LeBlanc, R. J., and Major, C. F., Recent and Pleistocene Geology of Southeast Texas, Geology of the Gulf Coast and Central Texas and Guide Book of Excursions, Houston Geological Society, 1962, pp. 175-224. Kim, M. H., ONeill, M. W., and Kramer, S. L. (1999). Performance of Drilled Shafts with Isolation Tubes in an Expansive Soil Environment, Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM Mahar, L. J., and M. W. ONeill, Geotechnical Characterization of Desiccated Clay, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, January, 1983, pp. 56-71. ONeill, M. W., and S. A. Sheikh, Geotechnical Behavior of Underreams in Pleistocene Clay, Drilled Piers and Caissons, C. N. Baker, Jr., Editor, ASCE, May, 1985, pp. 57-75. ONeill, M. W., and Reese, L. C., Behavior of Bored Piles in Beaumont Clay, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM2, Feb. 1972, pp 195 213. ONeill, M. W., and Sheikh, S. A. (1985). Geotechnical Behavior of Underreams in Pleistocene Clay, Drilled Piers and Caissons II, ed. by C. N. Baker, Jr., ASCE, May, pp 57 75. ONeill, M. W., and Yoon, G. (1995). Some Engineering Properties of Overconsolidated Pleistocene Soil of the Texas Gulf Coast, Transportation Research Record No. 1479, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp 81 88. Schanz, T., Vermeer, P. A., and Bonnier, P. G. (1999). Formulation and Verification of the Hardening Soil Model, Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 281 290. Sheikh, S. A., and ONeill, M. W. (1988). Structural Behavior of 45-Degree Underream Footings, Transportation Research Record 1119. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, May pp 83 90. Skempton, A. W., The Bearing Capacity of Clays, Proceedings, The Building Research Congress (U.K.), Division I, 1951. Tand, K. E., and ONeill, M. W. (2003), Comparison of Computed vs. Measured Load/Settlement Response of a Footing Bearing on Stiff to Very Stiff Clay, Plaxis Bulletin No. 14, pp 10-13. Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1982), Study to Investigate the Performance of Skin Friction on the Performance of Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils, Technical Report GL-82-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Yazdanbod, A., Sheikh, S. A., and ONeill, M. W. (1987). Uplift of Shallow Underreams in Jointed Clay, Foundations for Transmission Line Towers, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 8, ed. by J-L Briaud, April, pp 110 127.

20