13/02/2019

Design and Construction of Drilled Shafts for

Council Bluffs Interstate System (CBIS) Project

February 8, 2019

www.jacobs.com | worldwide

Agenda
1. Project Background
2. Geology
3. Types of Bridge Foundations used in CBIS
4. Drilled Shafts for Bridge Foundation
5. Drilled Shafts Bearing in Rock and in Soil
6. Comparison of Drilled Shafts in Rock vs in Soil
7. Conclusions and Lesson’s Learned

1
 13/02/2019

Project Background
• Modernization and
Rehabilitation of
approximately 18
miles of mainline
interstate (I-80, I-29,
and I-480)

Source: http://www.councilbluffsinterstate.iowadot.gov/projects/
3

Project Background
• 15 interchanges
• 59 bridges

Source: http://www.councilbluffsinterstate.iowadot.gov/projects/

• 135 lane miles of highway

reconstructed
• Increase from 6 to 12 lanes
on dual, divided freeway
Source: http://www.councilbluffsinterstate.iowadot.gov/projects/
4

2
 13/02/2019

Geology- Generalized Subsurface Profile

• The subsurface profile in Pottawattamie County generally consists of
loess, alluvium, and glacial till underlain by interbedded layers of shale
and limestone.
• At the CBIS project location, the upper soil is primarily composed of
recently deposited alluvium. The shallowest bedrock layer is of the
Pennsylvanian period of the Paleozoic era and is comprised primarily of
limestone and shale (Witzke, et al. 2003).
• Generalized subsurface profile
• Layer 1 – Clay and Silt (Fill)
• Layer 2 – Clay and Silt
• Layer 3 – Silty Sand and Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
• Layer 4 – Slightly Weathered Limestone Interbedded with Shale

Jacobs Geotechnical Work on CBIS

• Bridge Foundation Design
– Driven Piles
– Drilled Shafts
• Retaining Walls Design
– MSE walls – Granular backfill
and Lightweight Foam Concrete
Fill (LFCF)
– Solider Pile and Lagging
• Ground Improvement
Design
– Rigid Inclusion – including load
transfer platform
– Wick Drains
• Geotechnical
Instrumentation
• Field inspection and
6 construction support

3
 13/02/2019

Bridge Foundations in CBIS

Bridge foundations used in
CBIS project are
• Driven Piles
• Drilled Shafts – Rock
• Drilled Shafts – Soil

7
Source: Iowa DOT Bridge Design Drawings – I-80WB over IA 192 (2016)

Drilled Shafts for Bridge Foundations

• Iowa DOT typically supports only piers on drilled
shafts. Abutments (integral) are usually supported
using driven piles.
• Drilled shafts used as they
– have minimal Vibrations and less noise during
installation;
– are more compact compared to driven piles;
– are likely to fit within divided highway medians and
adjacent structures;
– can provide large lateral load resistances.
• Demonstration shaft usually required to check
the equipment and contractor’s installation
methods.
8

4
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts for Bridge Foundations

Drilled Shafts Supported

In Rock In Soil
 List of bridges  List of bridges
 Iowa DOT design guidelines  Design guidelines
 Design overview  Design example
 Load tests and results  Load test and results
 Production shafts installation  Production shafts installation

Drilled Shafts in Rock

Bridge Foundations supported
on Drilled Shafts bearing in
Rock were designed and
constructed for the following
bridges
1. I-29 over Mosquito Creek
2. US 275 over Mosquito
Creek
3. I-29 Widening over Existing
I-80 EB

10
Source: Iowa DOT Bridge Design Drawings – I-80WB over IA 192 (2016)

5
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts in Rock - Design

• Typically, the DOT requires drilled shafts for
bridge support be socketed into rock.
• Shaft design to consider only skin friction
within the rock socket. Bearing in rock may be
considered only if estimated settlements are
small.
• The rock socket length is at least 1.5 times
rock socket diameter.

11

Drilled Shafts in Rock - Design

• Rock socket diameter at
least 6 inches less than
the diameter in rock.
• The Iowa DOT has
accumulated test data for
drilled shafts socketed in
shale and limestone.

12

6
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts in Rock - Design

Generalized Soil Profile
El. 978
Layer 1: Fat Clay and Lean Clay
SPT N-Values 2 to 11 bpf; 3 bpf (Avg) El. 958
El. 950
Layer 2: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
SPT N-Values 7 to 13 bpf; 9 bpf (Avg)

El. 928
Layer 3: Lean Clay
SPT N-Values 2 to 19 bpf; 9 bpf (Avg)

El. 894
Layer 4: Weathered Shale/Boulders
El. 890
Layer 5: Slightly weathered Shale and
Unweathered Limestone

13

Drilled Shafts in Rock - Design

• In accordance with Iowa DOT and FHWA GEC
10 guidelines.
• Bridge loads provided by Bridge Engineers
• Lateral Analyses:
– FB Multipier used for lateral analysis of the shafts.
– p-multiplier considered based on C/C spacing
between the shafts and the direction of loading.
• Axial Analyses:
– No end bearing resistance considered.
– Rock socket minimum length of 1.5 times the
diameter of rock socket considered per Iowa DOT
requirement.
– A 20% reduction applied for non-redundant shafts.
– Axial group efficiency considered based on C/C
14 spacing between the shafts.

7
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts in Rock – Load Test

• Two sacrificial load tests were performed
in accordance with ASTM D1143 Quick
Load Test
– TS-1: I-29 over Mosquito Creek
– TS-2: US 275 over Mosquito Creek
• Confirmation boring performed at each
test shaft location.
• Test shafts instrumentation:
– Four telltales from top of O-cell to ground
level
– Nine levels of sister bar strain gages

15

Drilled Shafts in Rock – Load Test

A quick comparison of the two test shafts

TS-1 TS-2
I-29 over Mosquito Creek US 275 over Mosquito Creek

6.0 feet dia. in soil; 6.5 feet dia. in soil;

5.5 feet dia. in rock 6.0 feet dia. in rock
96.2 feet long shaft 96.7 feet long shaft
34-inch diameter O- 34-inch diameter O-
Cell located 2.8 feet Cell located 1.7 feet
above the shaft base above the shaft base
Rock Socket: Rock Socket:
Weathered Shale Limestone

16

8
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts in Rock – Load Test

TS-1, I-29 over Mosquito Creek TS-2, US 275 over Mosquito Creek
Iowa, 7/31/2014 Iowa, 8/18/2014

17 Excerpts from Report(s) on Drilled Shaft Load Testing by LoadTest, Aug and Sep 2014

Drilled Shafts in Rock – Load Test

TS-1, I-29 over Mosquito Creek TS-2, US 275 over Mosquito Creek

18

Excerpts from Report(s) on Drilled Shaft Load Testing by LoadTest, Aug and Sep 2014

9
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts in Rock – Load Test Results

Equivalent Top Load-Displacement Curve
TS-1, I-29 over Mosquito Creek TS-2, US 275 over Mosquito Creek

19 Excerpts from Report(s) on Drilled Shaft Load Testing by LoadTest, Aug and Sep 2014

Drilled Shafts in Rock – Load Test Results

Mobilized Upward Net Unit Side Shear
TS-1, I-29 over Mosquito Creek TS-2, US 275 over Mosquito Creek

Rock socket in Limestone

Rock socket in weathered Shale

20 Excerpts from Report(s) on Drilled Shaft Load Testing by LoadTest, Aug and Sep 2014

10
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts in Rock – Load Test Results

Mobilized Unit End Bearing
TS-1, I-29 over Mosquito Creek TS-2, US 275 over Mosquito Creek

End bearing resistance not fully mobilized

21 Excerpts from Report(s) on Drilled Shaft Load Testing by LoadTest, Aug and Sep 2014

Drilled Shafts in Rock – Load Test Results

Based on the load tests multiple cases
analyzed prior to developing final tip
elevations
• Case 1: Assuming drilled shaft socketed
into Limestone and no base resistance
assumed
• Case 2: Assuming drilled shaft socketed
into weathered Shale and no base
resistance considered
• Case 3: Assuming drilled shaft socketed
into weathered Shale and base resistance
considered
Conservatively, based on Case 2, 7 feet of
rock socket was recommended and no base
resistance was considered.
22

11
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts in Rock – Production Shafts

• A total of 98 drilled shafts installed between
September 2014 and March 2015.
• The length of the shafts varied between 90-105
feet.
• The shaft diameter and rock socket diameter
varied between 4 to 6.5 feet and 3.5 to 6.0 feet,
respectively.
• The installation time per shaft varied between 2
and 7 days.

23

Drilled Shafts in Rock – Production Shafts

The production rate for shafts
extending into rock was slow due
to
• Mechanical issues in the rig.
• Issues with temporary casing
extraction.
• Additional deeper temporary
casing required to maintain
hole stability in some shafts.
• Abandoned foundation H-piles
encountered during drilling.
• Weather delays.

24

12
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts for Bridge Foundations

Drilled Shafts Supported

In Rock In Soil
 List of bridges  List of bridges
 Iowa DOT design guidelines  Design guidelines
 Design overview  Design example
 Load tests and results  Load test and results
 Production shafts installation  Production shafts installation

25

Drilled Shafts in Soil

Bridge Foundations with Drilled
Shafts in Soil were designed and
constructed for the following
bridges
• I-29 NB and SB over IA 192
• I-80 EB and WB over IA 192
• Ramp D over IA 192

Source: Iowa DOT Bridge Design Drawings – I-80WB over IA 192 (2016)
26

13
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts in Soil

• A drilled shaft foundation tipped in
soil has to be approved by the Soils
Design Section and the Bridge
Office.
• Due to depth of the Top of Rock
(>140 feet) drilled shafts tipping in
soil was recommended for this area.

27

Drilled Shafts in Soil - Design

Sample Design Case: I-80 WB Bridge Pier 1

• Pier
• Approx. 75 feet wide
• Approx. 20 feet high
• Foundation
• Four drilled shafts
• 60 inches diameter
• 90 feet long shafts
• C/C spacing 19 feet
• 5 feet thick pile cap
Source: Iowa DOT Bridge Design Drawings – I-80WB over IA 192 (2016)

28

14
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts in Soil – Design

• In accordance with AASHTO LRFD and Iowa DOT guidelines
• For lateral analysis a p-multiplier of 0.9 to 0.5 was used based on the C/C
spacing between the shafts and the direction of loading.
• Axial group efficiency of 1.0 was used
• Resistance Factors used in the Analyses
Axial side resistance in cohesive and cohesionless soils for drilled 0.7
shaft (static load test)
Drilled Shaft Flexural Resistance Factor‐ Strength 0.9
Drilled Shaft Flexural Resistance Factor‐ Extreme II 1.0

29

Drilled Shafts in Soil - Design

Generalized Soil Profile
El. 974
Layer 1: Clay and Silt (Fill)
SPT N-Values 4 to 6 bpf; 5 bpf (Avg)
El. 970
Layer 2: Fat Clay and Lean Clay
El. 965
SPT N-Values 2 to 6 bpf; 3 bpf (Avg)

El. 954
Layer 3: Silty Sand and Poorly Graded Sand
Top of Bedrock
with Silt
SPT N-Values 8 to 41 bpf; 23 bpf (Avg) >140 feet bgs

El. 830
Layer 4: Slightly Weathered Limestone
Interbedded with Shale
30

15
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts in Soil - Loads

Axial Moment X‐X Moment Y‐Y Shear Y Shear X
Location Loading Combination
(kip) (kip‐ft) (kip‐ft) (kip) (kip)
Strength I ‐ γp Max 5,562 6,950 16,194 230 0
Strength I ‐ γp Min 4,144 6,640 16,193 230 0 • Loads provided by the
Strength III ‐γp Max 4,709 6,913 2,415 264 82 Bridge Designer for the
Strength III ‐γp Min 3,292 6,601 2,415 264 82
load cases listed in the
table.
Strength V ‐γp Max 5,367 7,176 13,610 249 35
• Loads acting at the center
I-80 WB Strength V ‐γp Min 3,950 6,865 13,609 249 35 and bottom of the cap.
Pier 1
Extreme Event II,
4,953 1,602 12,267 23 600
CT‐ Case 1 ‐ γp Max
Extreme Event II,
3,536 1,312 12,267 23 600
CT‐ Case 1 ‐ γp Min
Extreme Event II,
4,953 3,624 12,013 178 580
CT‐ Case 2 ‐ γp Max
Extreme Event II,
3,536 3,320 12,012 178 580
CT‐ Case 2 ‐ γp Min
Service I 4,203 6,392 10,198 225 29
Notes:
X: direction perpendicular to the direction of travel.
31 Y: direction parallel to the direction of travel

Drilled Shafts in Soil – Lateral Analyses

Structure Pier 1
Type 60‐inch‐diameter
drilled shafts
Drilled Shaft Top Elevation 970.2
Drilled shaft length (feet) 90
FB‐Multipier Results
Maximum lateral deflection at the bearing location—Service 1.45
(inches)
Maximum lateral deflection at the top of the Drilled shaft Cap— 0.65
Service I (inches)
Maximum axial force on a single shaft Perpendicular to traffic— 1,730
Strength III, Case 2 (kips)
Maximum Shear Force Perpendicular to traffic—Strength III, 115
Case 2 (kips)
Maximum Shear Force Parallel to traffic—Strength III, 70
Case 2 (kips)
Maximum moment on a single shaft Parallel to traffic— 1,705
Strength I (kip-feet)
Maximum moment on a single shaft Perpendicular to traffic— 2,200
Strength III, Case 2 (kip-feet)
Maximum Shear Force Perpendicular to traffic— Extreme II 205
(kips) Screenshots from lateral analyses FB-Multipier V4.18 by BSI
Maximum moment on a single shaft— 2100
Extreme II (kip-feet)
CDR for flexural Resistance—Strength I 1.1
32
CDR for flexural Resistance—Extreme II 2.2

16
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts in Soil – Axial Analyses

Substructure I-80 WB, • Axial resistance estimated per AASHTO
Pier 1 LRFD Bridge Specifications, 7th edition
Total Service Compression Load, 1,300 (2014).
Fservice (kips)
Total Factored Compression Load, 1,730 • Resistance factor of 0.7 was used as site-
Fstrength (kips)
specific load test was planned.
Nominal Side Resistance (kips) 2,992
• Axial group efficiency of 1.0 was used as C/C
Nominal End Bearing Resistance (kips) 811 distance more than 4 times shaft diameter.
Factored Axial Resistance, RF (kips) 2,663 • Analysis ignored the side resistance within
one diameter from the top of the shaft due to
Estimated Shaft Length (feet) 90
presence of clay in the upper layer.
Estimated Shaft Tip Elevation (feet) 880.2 • The Nominal Unit Skin Resistance varied
between 0.4 – 3.2 ksf.
• The Nominal End Bearing Resistance 41 ksf.

33

Drilled Shafts in Soil – Load Test

• Confirmation boring performed at
the test shaft location.
• Test Shaft:
• 5.0 feet diameter
• 90 feet long shaft
• Installed using polymer slurry
• 24-inch diameter O-Cell installed 26.8
feet above the shaft base
• Paired telltales
• Eleven levels of sister bar strain gages

34

17
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts in Soil – Load Test

Excerpt from Report on Drilled Shaft Load Testing by LoadTest, Aug 2016
35

Drilled Shafts in Soil – Load Test

36

18
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts in Soil – Load Test

37

Drilled Shafts in Soil – CSL Test Results

Corresponding to the
depth at which the O-Cell
was installed

38
Excerpt from Report 1 of CSL Test Results – Test Shaft, by FTC, Aug 2016

19
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts in Soil – Load Test Results

Equivalent Top Load-Displacement Curve O-Cell Load-Displacement (Net Load)
Load (kips)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 4
0.00

3
0.50

Displacement (inches)
Displacement (inches)

2
1.00 Upward Top of O-Cell

Downward Base of O-Cell

1
1.50

0
2.00

Displacements based on Load Based on Load -1

2.50 Test: Test
1,325 kips - 0.46 inches Based on Design

3.00
2,650 kips - 1.36 inches -2
0 500 1000 1500
Net Load (kips)
39

Drilled Shafts in Soil – Load Test Results

Mobilized Upward Net Unit Side Shear Mobilized Downward Unit Side Shear

40 Excerpt from Report on Drilled Shaft Load Testing by LoadTest, Aug 2016

20
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts in Soil – Load Test Results

Mobilized Unit End Bearing
• End bearing resistance not fully
mobilized based on the %Strain
(<2% of Shaft Dia.).
• In separating the end bearing
from the lower side shear, we
assume that the unit shear
below Strain Gage Level 1 is the
same as that calculated for the
zone between Strain Gage
Levels 1 and 2 as the same
displacement.

Excerpt from Report on Drilled Shaft Load Testing by LoadTest, Aug 2016
41

Drilled Shafts in Soil – Load Test Results

Nominal Side Resistances – Design vs Load Test Distribution of Axial Load – Design vs Load Test
Distribution of Axial Load (kips)
980
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
970 980

960 970

950 960
Elevation (feet)

940 950
Elevation (feet)

930 940
920 930
910 920
900 910
Based on Design
890 900 Based on Design
Based on Load Test
880 Based on Load Test
890
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Cummulative Nominal Side Resistance (kips) 880

42

21
 13/02/2019

Drilled Shafts in Soil – Production Shafts

Based on the Load Test
Results, no change in the
design tip elevation for the
production shafts.

43

Conclusions: Drilled Shafts in Rock vs in Soil

• The shaft installation duration was substantially longer for drilled shafts that
extended to rock when compared to the drilled shafts in soil.
• The drilled shafts supported in soil had v significant cost savings with each
shaft saving over $25,000.
• The soil bearing layers are suitable for base grouted shafts, which can further
optimize the shaft lengths. Base Grouting has been used in Iowa before with
mixed results. Time to give it another chance!
• Specifying newer equipment Installation equipment such as Rotator and
Oscillator casing will greatly reduce the shafts installation time and provide
better quality shafts.

44

22
 13/02/2019

Construction Equipment- Rotator/Oscillator

45

General Lesson’s Learned

• Adequate Subsurface Investigation is Paramount. For every $1 you can Spend you maybe to Save
$30-$50 in Construction Cost.
• For Design, use DOT specific design methodology if required, but always use FHWA GEC-10
design method as a secondary check.
• Contractor qualification requirements is a minimum for all projects and prequalification of contractor
should be considered for large projects
• Concrete placed using pump line is incompatible with the use of temporary casing method.
• Quality Control by requiring Qualified Inspectors, in addition to quality assurance method CSL, PIT,
TIP, and/or Load Testing.
• Split Responsibility between Drilling the Shafts and Pouring the Concrete Must be Avoided. The
Shaft Construction Must be Completed by Qualified Contractor including the Concerting.
• It is Important to Complete Trial(also called test, or technique) Shaft Successfully! If Schedule
Pressure Eliminates This Step, the Project Scheduled will Suffer Because Remediation Is Costly
and Time Consuming.
• Qualified Integrity Testing Company is crucial. Many Integrity test methods require interpretation and
qualified testing company can be the difference of meaningful results or inconclusive results.

46

23
 13/02/2019

Questions?

47

24