1+ National Research

Council Canada
Conseil national
de recherches Canada
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

CANADIAN MANUAL ON
FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

(Draft for Public Comment)

, ARCHIVES

Issued by the
Associate Committee on the National Building Code
National Research Council of Canada
Ottawa

Price $3.00 197&

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

FOUNDATION
CANADIAN

ON

1975
MANUAL

ENGINEERING
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

PREFACE

The Canadian Manual on Foundation Engineering was prepared

under the auspices of the Associate Committee on the National Building
Code by the Subcommittee on Foundations of the Standing Committee on
Structural Design.

It provides a "state of the art" report on foundation engineer-

ing containing recommended procedures for the design, installation and
construction of foundations. It is intended to assist the enforcing
official and the designer in satisfying the intent of Section 4.2
(Foundations) of the National Building Code of Canada 1975.

There are eight chapters in all. Chapter 1 is of an intro-

ductory nature, Chapters 2 and 3 deal with the definitions of terms and
the classification systems for soils and rocks, Chapters 4 to 7 contain
the various technical aspects of foundation engineering, and Chapter 8
comprises commentaries on some special aspects of foundation engineering.

Although the Manual was originally intended as a supplementary

document to the Foundations Section of the 1975 edition of the National
Building Code, no decision has yet been made on its final format and
source of publication. The Associate Committee has, therefore, agreed
to release the material in its preliminary form in advance of this decision
in order to obtain wide public review.

The ACNBC is grateful for permission to use a number of illustra-

tions from outside sources the origin of which are noted in the text or
figure captions.

Comments and suggestions on the technical content of the Manual

and on its value as a background document to the National Building Code of
Canada are welcomed. Such comments should be addressed to: The Secretary,
Associate Committee on the National Building Code, National Research
Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario KIA OR6.
 CANADIAN MANUAL ON FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Page
CHAPTER SCO PE

CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS I SYMBOLS AND UNITS 5

CHAPTER 3 IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION

17
OF SOILS AND ROCKS

CHAPTER 4 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS 31

APPENDIX 4A PROBLEM SOILS, ROCKS AND CONDITIONS 45

CHAPTER 5 EXCAVATIONS AND RETAINING STRUCTURES 55

APPENDIX 5A THEORETICAL WALL PRESSURES 1 03

CHAPTER 6 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 1 17

CHAPTER 7 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 157

CHAPTER 8 COMMENTARIES 219

8 •1 THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 221

8 .2 THE R E LA T I V E DEN SIT Y 0 F CO H E S ION L E S S

227
SO ILS

8 .3 THE DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS ON

235
ON SWELLING AND SHRINKING CLAYS

8.4 FROST ACTION AND FOUNDATIONS 265

8.5 THE USE OF PILE DRIVING FORMULAS 277

8.6 THE DESIGN OF PILES SUBJECTED TO

HORIZONTAL LOADS 283

8 .7 EARTH QUA KE RES ISTA NT DES IG N 0 F

291
FOUNDATIONS

8 .8 THE PRESSUREMETER TEST 301

 CHAPTER

SCOPE
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

TAB LEO F CON TEN T S

Page

1.1. GENERAL 3

1.2. FORMAT 3

1.3. LIMITATIONS OF CANADIAN MANUAL ON FOUNDATION ENGINEERING 4

1.4. EXPERIENCE AND JUDGEMENT 4

 CHAPTER

SCQ PE

1.1 GENERAL

The Canadian Manual of Foundation Engineering was prepared as a supplementary document to

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Section 4.2 Foundations of the National Building Code 1975. It provides recommended procedures
to be followed in the design, installation and construction of foundations with a view to
ensuring safety, quality, economy and fitness for purpose.

The Canadian Manual of Foundation Engineering provides

the designer with methods for complying with the performance requirements of
Section 4.2 Foundations, and
the authority having jurisdiction with means of assessing the safety of the
designs submitted for its approval, including guidance on inspection of
construction practices.

In the preparation of this Manual it was recognized that it was neither appropriate nor
possible to present the subject matter in strict specification form in the manner used for
Codes invoked by Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 of the National Building Code. This stems
from the fundamental difference in the controlability of in-place geological materials and
conditions compared with that of manufactured or preselected materials brought to the
construction site to fulfill specific design purposes. In addition, primarily because of
the infinite variety of materials and conditions that may be encountered, foundation
engineering is a less precise science than structural design, and although great strides have
been made in testing and analysis, supported by field observations, foundation engineering
remains, to an important extent, an art based upon experience and judgement. The material in
this Manual is presented therefore in a descriptive form as a series of suggested rather than
mandatory procedures which reflect sound and safe techniques.

1.2 FORMAT

The Manual has been arranged in eight chapters, which apart from Chapter 1 present
various aspects of foundation engineering.

Chapters 2 & 3 cover the basic matters of defining some of the terms used both in the
Manual and Section 4.2 National Building Code, the presentation of symbols used, and
classification systems for soils and rocks.

Chapter 4 covers procedures used in subsurface explorations by which samples required

for testing and other basic field information needed for design are obtained.

Chapters 5, 6 and 7 cover the subjects of excavations and retaining structures, shallow
foundations and deep foundations respectively. Each of these chapters present, in general,

a basic design method of acceptable quality,

alternative design methods of increasing sophistication and technical quality,
discussions on the limits of validity of each method and references in which
the methods are discussed in greater detail, and
comments on specific construction problems where such problems govern the design
or the quality of the foundation.

Chapter 8 contains a number of commentaries which cover certain aspects of foundation

engineering that warrant separate detailed discussions not appropriate to the treatment of
material in the previous chapters. Some of these present assessments of the limitations and
errors inherent in techniques that are widely used and accepted such as the standard penetra-
tion test and the determination of relative density of cohesionless soil. Some present
information on problems not directly related to the static loading of soil by a structure,
but which may lead to intolerable differential movements if not accommodated in design, such
as the effect of water content change on swelling and shrinking clays, and that of induced
freezing conditions on frost-susceptible soils. One deals with the use of pile driving
formulas for the determination of pile bearing capacity, a practice not advocated in thi~
Manual; another with lateral loading of piles, a complicated subject increasingly encountered

- 3 -
 - 4 -

and considered in building construction. The subject of earthquake resistant design of

foundations is also treated, and a final commentary presents an assessment of the use of the
pressuremeter, a very useful exploratory technique which has found wide acceptance in
Europe but which is still relatively little used in North America.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

A decimal numbering system similar to that in the National Building Code has been used
throughout. It follows the logical subdivision of topics treated in each chapter, and
its main purpose is to facilitate referencing. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 bear the same titles
as Subsections 4.2.5., 4.2.6., and 4.2.7. in Section 4.2 but correlation of individual
articles is not intended.

1.3 LIMITATION

The methods presented in the Canadian Manual of Foundation Engineering are applicable
to most design problems. It should be understood, however, that strict use of these
methods will not always yield the best technical or most economical solutions. Moreover,
the design of unusual structures or the occurrence of unusual subsurface conditions may
require the use of novel design approaches or methods of analysis beyond the scope of this
Manual.

1.4 EXPERIENCE AND JUDGEMENT

Much of the material in this Manual is simple and obvious, and so it should be, since
neglect of the obvious causes more problems than an inability to fathom the obscure.
Nevertheless, in the engineering application of the methods shown, neither this Manual nor
the textbooks and papers to which it refers should be considered a substitute for the
experience and judgement of a person familiar with the complexities of foundation practice.
 CHAPTER 2

DE FIN I T ION S,S Y M BO L SAN DUN IT S

TAB LEO F CON TEN T S

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

2.1. DEFINITIONS

2.2. SYMBOLS 8

2.3. UNITS 14

- 5 -
 CHAPTER 2

DEFINITIONS, SYMBOLS AND UNITS

2.1. DEFINITIONS
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

The following is a list of definitions of some of the terms commonly used in foundation
design and construction which are referred to in this Manual and Section 4.2. Foundations of
NBC 1975. Other terms are defined or explained where they are introduced in the text. With
the exception of the headings of various paragraphs such terms are the only ones that appear
in italics.

Adfreezing means the adhesion of soil to a foundation unit resulting from the freezing
of soil water. (Also referred to as "frost grip.")

Bearing pressure, allowable means the maximum pressure that may be safely applied to a
soil or rock by the foundation unit considered in design under expected loading and
subsurface conditions.

Bearing pressure, design means the pressure applied by a foundation unit to a soil or rock
and which is not greater than the allowable bearing pressure.

Bearing surface means the contact surface between a foundation unit and the soil or rock
upon which it bears.

Caisson (See pile).

Deep foundation means a foundation unit that provides support for a building by transferring
loads either by end-bearing to soil or rock at considerable depth below the building~
or by adhesion or friction, or both, in the soil or rock in which it is placed. Piles
are the most common type of deep foundation.

Excavation means the space created by the removal of soil~ rock or fill for the purposes of
construction.

Fill means soil, rock, rubble, industrial waste such as slag, organic material or a com-
bination of these that is transported and placed on the natural surface of soil or
rock or organic terrain. It mayor may not be compacted.

Foundation means a system or arrangement of foundation units through which the loads from
a building are transferred to supporting soil or rock.

Foundation unit means one of the structural members of the foundation of a building such as
a footing, raft or pile.

Frost action means the phenomenon that occurs when water in soil is subjected to freezing
which, because of the water ice phase change or ice lens growth, results in a total
volume increase or the build-up of expansive forces under confined conditions or both,
and the subsequent thawing that leads to loss of soil strength and increased comr
pressibility.

Grade means the average level of finished ground adjoining a building at all exterior walls.

Groundwater means a free standing body of water in the ground.

Groundwater, artesian means a confined body of water under pressure in the ground.

Groundwater level (groundwater table) means the top surface of a free standing body of water
in the ground.

Groundwater, perched means a free standing body of water in the ground extending to a limited
depth.

Load, allowable means the maximum load that may be safely applied to a foundation unit
considered in design under expected loading and subsurface conditions.

- 7 -
 - 8 -

Load, design means the load applied to a foundation unit and which is not greater than the
allowable load.

Peat means a highly organic soil consisting chiefly of more or less fragmented remains of
vegetable matter sequentially deposited.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Pile means a slender deep foundation unit, made of materials such as wood, steel or concrete,
or combination thereof, which is either premanufactured and placed by driving, jacking,
jetting or screwing, or cast-in-place in a hole formed by driving, excavating or boring.
(Cast-in-place bored piles are often referred to as caissons in Canada.)

Rock means that portion of the earth's crust which is consolidated, coherent and relatively
hard and is a naturally formed, solidly bonded, mass of mineral matter which cannot
readily be broken by hand.

Shallow foundation means a foundation unit which derives its support from soil or rock
located close to the lowest part of the building which it supports.

Soil means that portion of the earth's crust which is fragmentary, or such that some
individual particles of a dried sample may be readily separated by agitation in water;
it includes boulders, cobbles, gravel, sand, silt, clay and organic matter.

Subsurface investigation means the appraisal of the general subsurface conditions at a

building site by analysis of information gained by such methods as geological surveys,
in situ testing, sampling, visual inspection, laboratory testing of samples of the
subsurface materials and groundwater observations and measurements.

2.2. SYMBOLS

The following is a list of symbols and abbreviations encountered in this Manual. As far as
possible they agree with those widely recognized in foundation engineering and the geotechnical
sciences. In some cases, however, where usage is not uniform in the literature and where identical
symbols used for different parameters might otherwise lead to confusion new symbols or symbols
with different subscripts have been introduced.

A average cross-sectional area of pile

cross-sectional area of cone (Dutch cone penetration test)
anchor load

Ac cross-sectional area of concrete pile

Ap cross-sectional area of pile tip

As effective surface area of anchorage

B width of foundation
width of excavation

C constant representing energy losses in pile driving system

critical point

C compression index
c
C recompression index
cr
C.P.V. pressure and volume control unit (Pressuremeter test)

c cohesive strength of clay

c undrained shear strength of clay, apparent cohesion

u
c unit adhesion related to c u
ua
 - 9 -

c coefficient of consolidation
v
c coefficient of secondary consolidation
a
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

D diameter of anchorage, pile, rock socket, etc.

D' depth of penetration of pile

D inside diameter of cutting edge of sampling tube

e
depth of foundation, embedment of footing

equivalent depth of foundation

inside diameter of sampling tube

D outside diameter of sampling tube

o
D relative density
r
d depth factor

E modulus of elasticity of pile material

average pressuremeter modulus for heterogeneous soil deposit (See E )

P
E rated energy of pile driver hammer
n
stress-strain modulus from pressuremeter test

E modulus of elasticity of steel

s
stress-strain modulus of soil from compression test

E stress-strain modulus of soil from vane test

v
e void ratio
efficiency of pile hammer
penetration per blow (Dutch cone penetration test)
eccentricity of load

eccentricity of load related to width of foundation

eccentricity of load related to length of foundation

F friction force at base of retaining wall

F average skin friction from cone tests

c
F moment coefficient for horizontally loaded pile
m
F total negative skin friction
n
F.I. Freezing Index

FS factor of safety

factor of safety against base heave

factor of safety against sliding

FS factor of safety required

req
F depth reduction factor related to swelling and shrinking soil
z
 - 10 -

deflection coefficient for horizontally loaded pile

settlement coefficient related to soil type and geometry of foundation

(Pressuremeter test)
f settlement coefficient (Critical point method)
c
f' specified strength of concrete
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

c
ultimate skin friction on pile

effective stress in concrete due to prestress after losses

f stress after losses in prestressing steel

so

H vertical height of retaining wall

thickness of soil deposit
depth of excavation
fall of hammer

Hc critical depth related to pile capacity in granular soils

H depth of rock socket

s
Hw head of water

h height of masonry wall

I moment of inertia of pile cross section

I plasticity Index
w
i area ratio of sampling tube, percent
influence value of stress

I
angle of slope of backfill with horizontal

i
c
i bearing capacity factors related to inclination of load
q
i
Y

K coefficient of earth pressure

coefficient of active earth pressure

bearing capacity factor related to depth and diameter of rock socket

bearing pressure coefficient related to depth of foundation in rock

anchorage coefficient related to soil type and density

bearing capacity factor (Pressuremeter test)

factor for horizontal component of earth pressure

K coefficient of earth pressure at rest

o
K coefficient of passive earth pressure
P
K' reduced coefficient of passive earth pressure
P
K coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction
s
K bearing pressure coefficient related to spacing of discontinuities in rock
sp
 - 11 -

K factor for vertical component of earth pressure

v
k permeability

L length of foundation
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

L length of pile
P
L liquid limit
w

M mass of hammer (Dutch cone penetration test)

M moment in pile at depth z

P
m coefficient of lateral stress

N Standard Penetration Index

N average Standard Penetration Index

Nb stability factor related to geometry of excavation

I
N dynamic cone penetration resistance factor
cone

~
N
c
N bearing capacity factors related to angle of shearing resistance
q
N
Y
N*c
} bearing capacity factors for piles
N*q

n empirical factor (Hiley Pile Formula)

depth ratio

constant of horizontal subgrade reaction related to soil density

P mass of pipe (Dutch cone penetration test)

lateral load on pile head
governing combination of loads multiplied by appropriate load factors
(See Section 4.1 NBC)

active earth pressure

horizontal component of load on retaining structure

passive earth pressure

P vertical component of load on retaining structure

v
horizontal load capacity of vertical pile

preconsolidation pressure

yield pressure from pressuremeter test

in place horizontal pressure from pressuremeter test

limit pressure from pressuremeter test

equivalent limit pressure from pressuremeter test

total overburden pressure

pI effective overburden pressure
o
 - 12 -

Q applied pile load, test load

allowable load

failure load, ultimate load

ultimate shaft resistance related to adhesion in clay

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

line load (vertical)

point load (vertical) on foundation

design pressure, applied pressure

surcharge per unit area

q' distributed stress below pile group

allowable bearing pressure

cone resistance (Static cone penetration test)

design pressure

ultimate point resistance

net design bearing pressure

at rest horizontal stress in rock

unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soil

qu-core average unconfined compressive strength of rock cores

R resultant load, force

unit resistance (Dutch cone penetration test)

height of resultant force above base of retaining wall

R average point resistance of static cone

P
R.Q.D. Rock Quality Designation

r radius
distance from point load, Q
p

S settlement
pile set per blow

allowable bond strength between grout and rock for rock anchorages

settlement of pile group

S pile spacing
P
S
c
Sq ) bearing capacity factors related to geometry of foundation

S
Y
Sl settlement of 1 ft sq loading plate

S.P.T. Standard Penetration Test

 - 13 -

T relative stiffness of pile-soil system

T allowable load on anchorage

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

a
T computed allowable load on anchorage
c
T consolidation time factor
n
test load capacity of anchorage

time related to degree of consolidation

U% degree of consolidation

v volume

Vm volume of water (Pressuremeter test)

vo initial volume of measuring cell (Pressuremeter test)

w weight of pile hammer

weight of soil mass

wp weight of pile

x horizontal distance from line load, QL

y horizontal displacement of retaining wall

z depth below ground surface

reduction factor for earth anchorages related to undrained shear strength

of soil

coefficient of compressibility (Static cone penetration test)

a coefficient of settlement for pile group

g
a coefficient of settlement related to structure of rock mass
m
a structure factor related to settlement (Pressuremeter test)
p

a~ skin friction coefficient related to ~

density coefficient (Static cone penetration test)

angle of back of retaining wall with horizontal

~ pressure change
P
6 differential settlement between columns
elastic deformation of pile shaft

6 effective angle of friction between soil and retaining structure,

a
active pressure case
 - 14 -

effective angle of friction between clay and pile shaft

effective angle of friction between soil and retaining structure, passive

pressure case

6 horizontal deflection of pile at depth z

z
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

E strain in concrete at failure

C

y unit weight of material

y' effective unit weight of material

dry unit weight of material

submerged unit weight of material

unit weight of water

} form factors related to settlement (Pressuremeter test)

Poisson's ratio

angle of shearing resistance

performance factor (Section 4.1 NBC)

~l' ~2 exit gradient factors, groundwater seepage

~' effective angle of shearing resistance

~u angle of shearing resistance for the undrained condition

cr stress

cr' effective horizontal stress

h
crt effective vertical stress
v
cr vertical stress at depth z
Z

T
a allowable bond strength between concrete and rock

T
f ultimate skin friction from the pressuremeter test

T unit negative skin friction

n
T
s effective shaft friction

T average effective shaft friction

s avg

2.3. UNITS

Although it is recognized that the use of metric units is not only highly desirable but
will become official in Canada within a short space of time, only Imperial units appear in
this Manual. The reasons are that the various chapters of this Manual were prepared using
the Imperial system of units simply because this is the system presently in use in this field
 - 15 -

of engineering, and that the constrictions of time have not made it possible to convert all
of the pertinent material to the metric system. Where it is necessary to convert to or from
S.L or other metric units the user is directed to CSA Standard 2234.1 "Metric Practice Guide"
and CSA Standard 2234.2 "The International System of Units (S.L)".
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

There is one exception: Commentary 8.8 on The Pressuremeter Test was prepared using
metric units because the available literature on the subject is written using that system.

The following is a list of units and abbreviations generally encountered in geotechnical

and foundation engineering that are used in this Manual.

b1ows/ft blows per foot

ft foot (feet)

ft 1b foot pound(s)

ft sq foot (feet) square

in. inch(es)

1b pound(s)

1b/sq ft pound(s) per square foot

1b/cu ft pound(s) per cubic foot

1b/sq in. pound(s) per square inch

No number(s)

sq ft square foot (feet)

ton ton(s)

ton/sq ft ton(s) per square foot

ton/cu ft ton(s) per cubic foot

Metric units

* bar bar(s)

mm millimeter

cm centimetre

cm 3 cubic centimetre

* 1 bar =1 ton/sq ft.

 CHAPTER 3

IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS AND ROCKS

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

TAB LEO F CON TEN T S

3.1. CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS

3.1.1. GENERAL 19
3.1.2. CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 19
3.1.3. FIELD IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES 19
3.1.3.1. Coarse-grained Soils Or Fractions
3.1.3.2. Fine-grained Soils Or Fractions
3.1.3.3. Organic Soils
3.1.4. LABORATORY IDENTIFICATION TESTS 24
3.1.4.1. Grain-size Tests
3.1.4.2. Atterberg Limits

3.2. CLASSIFICATION OF ROCKS

3. 2.1. GENERAL 26
3.2.1.1. Rock Considered As Soil
3.2.2. GEOWGICAL CLASSIFICATION 26
3. 2 • 3. STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF ROCK MASSES 27
3.2.4. ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF ROCK MASSES 27
3.2.4.1. Classification Of Rock with Respect To Strength
3.2.4.2. Classification Of Rock Mass With Respect To The Spacing Of
Discontinui ties
3.2.4.3. Nature And Orientation Of Rock Discontinuities
3.2.5. ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION 28

- 17 -
 pz ---
- - -... ......-.~.-- .. --
.... -~ .....- - - - . - - - ----

CHAPTER 3

IDENTIFICATION AND
CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS AND ROCKS
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

3.1 CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS

3.1.1. GENERAL

Soil is that portion of the earth's crust which is fragmentary, or such that some
individual particles of a dried sample may be readily separated by agitation in water;
it includes boulders, cobbles, gravel, sand, silt, clay and organic matter.

There are three major groups of soils:

coarse-grained Soils - particles of which are large enough to be visible to the

naked eye. They include gravels and sands and are generally referred to as
cohesionless or non-cohesive soils.

Fine-grained Soils - particles of which are not visible to the naked eye. They
are identified primarily on the basis of their behaviour in a number of
simple indicator tests. They include silts and clays. Clays are generally
referred to as cohesive soils.

Organic Soils - which are those having a high natural organic content.

3.1.2. CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

For purposes of this Manual the soils are identified and classified according to
their particle size and distribution (coarse-grained soils) and their plasticity (fine-
grained soils) based on the "Unified Soil Classification System." The main aspects and
features of this system are presented in Table 3.1.

Note: Particles or rock fragments larger than those included in the Unified Soil
Classification System are recognized. They are cobbles and boulders. (See
3.1.3.1. (1»

3.1.3. FIELD IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES

The following are procedures and tests which may be carried out in the field and by
which soils may be identified and described.

3.1.3.1. Coarse-grained Soils or Fractions

Coarse-grained soils are most easily identified in the field because the
individual particles are large enough to be visible to the naked eye. (In
general, the smallest particles that may be distinguished individually are
approximately 0.003 in (0.075 rom) in diameter, which corresponds closely with the
size of the openings of the NO 200 sieve used in the laboratory identification
test. )

(1) Grain size

Coarse-grained soils are identified on the basis of grain size as
follows:

Sand means particles smaller than t in. and larger than o.ooa in. in
diameter
Gravel means particles smaller than 3 in. and larger than *in. in
diameter
Cobbles means particles smaller than 8 in. and larger than 3 in. in
diameter

- 19 -
 - 20 -

Boulders means particles larger than 8 in. in diameter.

(2) other physical properties of coarse-grained or cohesionless soils which may

influence their engineering characteristics should also be identified.
They are:
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

a) Grading, which is a term describing particle size distribution. A soil that

has a predominance of particles of one size is referred to as poorly-
graded, whereas as soil that has particles of sizes assorted over a
wide range with no one size predominating is referred to as well-graded.

b) Shape & surface conditions of grains Particles may be platy, elongated

or equidimensiona1, and they may be angular, sub angular or rounded.
Angular particles have sharp edges and relatively plane sides with
unpolished surfaces; subangular particles are similar to angular
particles but have rounded edges; rounded particles have smoothly
curved surfaces and no edges.

c) Density, which is a term describing the compactness of the soil and is

interpreted from the results of a penetration test carried out in
accordance with CSA Al19.1-60 "Code for Split-barrel Sampling of Soils".
Density and penetration values are related in Table 3.2.

TAl3LE 3.2

Density of sands from Standard Penetration Tests

Density Standard Penetration Test

N-values. (Blows per foot)
Very loose 0-4
Loose 4-10
Compact 10-30
Dense 30-50
Very dense Over 50

d) Structural characteristics of the undisturbed soil such as the presence or

absence of a systematic arrangement of the grains or grain size
components in layers, and evidence of weathering or cementation.
Thickness, orientation and distortion of layers in included.

e) Colour of soil or particles.

f) Odour if any, which gives evidence of the presence of organic material.

3.1.3.2. Fine-grained Soils or Fractions

These procedures are to be performed on the minus NO 40 sieve size

particles, approximately 1/64 in. in diameter. For field classification purposes
screening is not intended; simply remove by hand the coarse particles that
interfere with the tests.

(1) Dilatancy (Reaction to shaking)

After removing particles larger than NO 40 sieve size, prepare a
pat of moist soil with a volume of about one-half cubic inch. Add
enough water if necessary to make the soil soft but not sticky.

Place the pat in the open palm of one hand and shake horizontally,
striking vigorously against the other hand several times. A positive
reaction consists of the appearance of water on the surface of the pat
which changes to a livery consistency and becomes glossy. When the
sample is squeezed between the fingers, the water and gloss disappear
 Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

TABLE 3.1

UNIFIEO SOIL CLASSIFICATION

INCL.UDING IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION

FIELD IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES GROUP TYPICAL NAMES INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR

(E xeluding particles larger than 3 inches and basing tractions on estimated weights) IsYMBOLS DESCRIBING SOIL.S
...
c: .... .-;: 0 Wide range in groin size and substantial amOunts GW Well graded grovels, grovel-sand mixtures. Give typical nome. indicotl apprOlimotl
'2,;; ~ c: at all intermediate particle sizes little or no fines ' percentages ot sand and ",raYlllmal
,~ ~: ~ : ~~ __ size. on",ularlty, surfaci condition,
... .... > '- - c: , . . and hardness of thl coorSI ",rains,
~ In ~ ~g. : ,::'';:: Predominantly one size or a range of sizes Gp Poorly graded grovels, grovel-sand mixtures, local or 1010 ic noml and other'
,!! oJ 2.,'" 1aI:::! wdh some Intermediate sizes missing little or no fines , 9 9 't' . t '
'" ..,::s 0:; d pertlnlnt de,scrlp Ive In ormation.
o ~ ~:::!:. "10 _ and symbol In porenthises
\I) ~ : 1:; 2 ~ ~ ~ Non·plastic tines (for identification procedures G~ Silty grovels, poorly graded gravel- sond-
..J 0 .c:. - ... :I 2!:.;;:: see IIIL below) Silt mixtures
- Z c:'-.Q ::l.Q'IS
~ g ~ ~ ~ ~!·3 t2 , --- . . .. .
o ; ... := E ~ ... ~.5 PlastiC tines (for identification procedures Clayey grovels, poorly graded grovel' sand- For undlst~~bed, Salls odd Informotlon
w ~ o,~... C Q. E see Cl below) GC cloy mixtures. on strobflcotlon,dlgree of compact·
~ • :. ::E '0;; : ~ " ness,cementotion, moisture conditions
: .2 "10 ._ and drainage characteristics
I.!I "'.: ,S ~: ~ Wide range in groin sizes and wbstantial sw Well graded sands, gravelly sands; little or
\oJ 0:2' g'iii =_ z:? amounts of all intermediate particle sizes no fmes
: .....5 ~ !:~
..!!
.. ~
~C._ :~'"
.. I» .
~ ~ 2 ~: ,2: :::: ~ PredOmi~ontly one siz~ or a :oo.ge of sizes with sp Poorly, graded sands, gravelly sands, little or EX~"'L£.'
o '0 .!! VI 3 0 3.: ~...J some intermediate SillS missing no fines Silty ,and. gravelly; about 20'1. hard,
_ :~ ~ '0 Z :~ ';;; U - ---------f--. angular grovil particles 'In mOlimum
t
~ '; :: ::::.2 ,g <t '" Non-plastic fines (tor identification procedures . Size. rounded ondsubongulo r sand
a ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~ .!! ] see lolL below) S... Silty sands, poorly graded sand-Silt mixtures grOinS coarse 10 fine, about 15'1. non-
=... :;:! ~... j: -g '0 ploshc fInes With low dry stref\Qth ;
~ :i ;f: ~ ,;;: ~! 'g -::: " ,',' -._-+ --- well compacted and mOist In place;
o ~ '" .... 2 z ...... 5 PlastiC fines (for Identification procedures • allUVial sand; ISM)
::I: 0 .~ 0 C ~ E ee CL b I SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand-cloy mixtures
_ ::i !::-. VI <los e Ow )
~______ E -
'" IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES ON FRACTION SMALLER THAN No, 40 SIEVE SIZE
• ~~------------------~~O~~~Y~S=T=~=E~N=G=T~H~--~D~I~L~A=T7A~N=C~Y---'--~T~O~U~G~H~N~£~S~S---;
';Ii "; CH1~~~~~~~~TlCSI i~Et;n?~GI Nii~~!~fl~'t~~IT)
~ .&
,~~ ~ None to sli ht Quick to slow None ML Inorganic silt~ and very '!ne s~nds, rOCk, ',lour, silty Give typical nome. i~d!cale degree and
g. ~ .<:: 0 g or clayey fine sands 111,,11'1 slight plastiCity Character of plastiCity, amount and
N u E Ii> maximum size of coarse groins, color
o Q ',= a . " , in wet condition, odor if any lOcal or
CI'I Z ~ :: :~ = , ' C InorganiC cloys of 10'111:0 medium plastiCity, gravelly eolo ic nome and other pe'rtinent
~ c: .~ :> '" Medium to high None to "ery slow Me diu m L cloys sandy cloys silty cloys leon cia ys g ?, "
o ~ 1ft ~ ,~.; , " ~escrlptlVI Information. and symbol
CI'I I g :! ...J In parentheses
o = N VI . , ,
'" E 0 Sligh! to medium I Slow Slight OL Organl~ silts and organiC Silt-cloys of low
! z I plasticity For undisturbld soils odd information
on structurl stratification consistlncy
I.!I t::
: ,~= ~ in undisturb~d and remolded states
~ ~ Slight to medium Slow to none Slight to medium MH Inorganic silts, mic.aceous o,r di?tomaceou5 fine moisture and drainage conditions '
i;:e VI 0 sandy or stity soils, elastiC SiltS
'0 ~ _ \0
.j ._ c
o u ,§ ~ £XAM'L£:-
~ ~ :;:: High to very high None High CH Inorganic cloys of high plasticity, tot cloys Clayly 'ilt, b:"own, slightly plastic;
~ C g. ~ Small percen toge of fine sand,
... ~ :.:::i ~ numerous vertiCal root holes; firm
o oJ "" and dry in ploce; loess. 'IoIU
::i VI f.4edium to high None to very slow Slight to medium OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticily

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Readily identified by color, odor, spongy feel and Pt Peat ond other highly organic soils
frequently by fibrous texture
 - 23 -

from the surface, the pat stiffens, and finally it cracks or crumbles.
The rapidity of appearance of water during shaking and of its
disappearance during squeezing assist in identifying the character of
the fines in a soil. Very fine clean sands give the quickest and most
distinct reaction whereas a plastic clay has no reaction. Inorganic
silts, such as a typical rock flour, show a moderately quick reaction.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

(2) Dry strength (Crushing characteristics)

After removing particles larger than NO 40 sieve size, mold a
pat of soil to the consistency of putty, adding water if necessary.
Allow the pat to dry completely by oven, sun, or air drying, and then
test its strength by breaking and crumbling between the fingers. This
strength is a measure of the character and quantity of the clay fraction
contained in the soil. The dry strength increases with increasing
plasticity.

High dry strength is characteristic for in.organic clays of high

plasticity. A typical inorganic silt possesses only very slight dry
strength. Silty fine sands and silts have about the same slight dry
strength, but can be distinguished by the feel when powdering the dried
specimen. Fine sand feels gritty whereas a typical silt has the smooth
feel of flour.

(3) Toughness (Consistency near plastic limit)

After removing particles larger than the NO 40 sieve size, a
specimen of soil about one-half inch cube in size is molded to the
consistency of putty. If too dry, water must be added and if sticky,
the specimen should be spread out in a thin layer and allowed to lose
some moisture by evaporation. Then the specimen is rolled out by hand
on a smooth surface or between the palms into a thread about one-eighth
inch in diameter. The thread is then folded and rerolled repeatedly.
During this manipulation the moisture content is gradually reduced
and the specimen stiffens, finally loses its plasticity, and crumbles
when the plastic limit is reached. After the thread crumbles, the
pieces should be lumped together and a slight kneading action continued
until the lump crumbles. The tougher the thread near the plastic
limit the stiffer the lump when it finally crumbles, the more potent
is the colloidal clay fraction in the soil. Weakness of the thread
at the plastic limit and quick loss of coherence of the lump below the
plastic limit indicate either inorganic clay of low plasticity, or
materials such as kaolin-type clays and organic clays which occur below
the A-line. Fig. 3.1.

Highly organic clays have a very weak and spongy feel at the
plastic limit.

(4) Other physical properties of fine-grained soils which may influence their
engineering characteristics should also be identified. They are

a) Consistencies of cohesive soils at natural water content which may be

related to the approximate undrained shear strength as indicated in
Table 3.3.
 - 24 -

TABLE 3.3
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Consistencies of Cohesive Soils

Approximate undrained
Consistency Field Identification shear strength*
1b/sq ft
Very soft Easily penetrated several inches by the less than 250
fist

Soft Easily penetrated several inches by the 250-500

thumb

Firm Can be penetrated several inches by the 500-1000

thumb with moderate effort
Stiff Readily indented by the thumb but 1000-2000
penetrated only with great effort
Very Stiff Readily indented by the thumbnail 2000-4000
Hard Indented with difficulty by the thumbnail Over 4000
*The undrained shear strength is taken as 1 of the compressive strength

b) Structural characteristics of the undisturbed soil such as the presence or

absence of a systematic arrangement of grain size components in layers,
or cracks, fissures or slickensides and evidence of weathering or
cementation. Thickness, orientation and distortion of layers is
included.

c) Colour

d) Odour - if any, - which gives evidence of the presence of organic material.

3.1.3.3. Organic Soils

These are readily identified by colour, odour, spongy feel and frequently
by fibrous texture.

3.1.4. LABORATORY IDENTIFICATION TESTS

3.1.4.1. Grain-size Tests

In the laboratory, grain-size tests are carried out according to the Standard
Method for "Particle-size Analysis of Soils" A.S.T.M. D422-63(1972). This test
method includes procedures for analysis of coarse-grained soils or fractions
larger than 0.075 mm by sieving, and the analysis of fine-grained soils or
fractions by the hydrometer test. (0.075 rom is approximately 0.003 in.)

3.1.4.2. Atterberg Limits

The range of water content over which a fine-grained soil is plastic is an

important indicator of its probable engineering behaviour. The Atterberg limits
defining these water contents are determined in accordance with the Standard
Methods of Test for "Liquid Limit of Soils" ASTM D423-66(1972) and for "Plastic
Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils" ASTM D424-59(1971).
 - 25 -

Note:- Preparation of soil for these tests in accordance with the Standard
Method for "Dry Preparation of Soil Samples for Particle-size Analysis and
Determination of Soil Constants" ASTM D42l-58 (1972) is not appropriate for
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

testing clays of medium to high plasticity. The liquid limit should be

determined on such samples prepared according to Procedure B of the Standard
Method for '~et Preparation of Soil Samples for Grain-Size Analysis and
Determination of Soil Constants" ASTM n-22l7-66 (1972).

Results of Atterberg Limits tests are referred to the Plasticity Chart shown
in Fig 3.1 to aid in classification.

LI QUI D LI MIT, Lw
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
70

60 L 50
w

INORGANIC CLAYS
OF H I G H P LA STIC IT Y

30
><
w
Q 40
Z INORGANIC
CLAYS 0 F
)0-
l-
MEDIUM
V 30 P LAST I CITY
l-
V)

« INORGANIC
~ 20 CLAYS OF INORGANIC SILTS OF
LO W P LA S TIC IT Y HIGH COMPRESSIBILITY
AND 0 RG A N ICC LA Y S
10
CO H ES 10 N LE SS\
SO I LS
o L-____ ~ __ ~~~~ __ ~~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ __ ~

INORGANIC SILTS INORGANIC SILTS OF

OF LOW MEDIUM COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY AND ORGANIC SILTS

FIG 3 .1 (After Casagrande)

P LA S TIC IT Y C H ART

REFERENCES

Unified soil classification system, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Waterways

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., Tech. Memo. 3-357, 1953.

CASAGRANDE, A., 1947. Classification and identification of soils, Proc. Am. Soc.
Civil Engrs., 73, 783-810.

CSA Standard Al19.5 (1966). Recording of borehole and test pit information.

Guide to the field description of soils for engineering purposes, Associate

Committee on Soil and Snow Mechanics, National Research Council, NRC 3813,
1955, Tech. Memo 37.
 - 26 -

Standards

ASTM D42l-58 (1972) Dry preparation of soil samples for particle-size Analysis
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

and determination of soil constants.

ASTM D422-63 (1972) Particle size analysis of soils

ASTM D423-66 (1972) Liquid limit of soils

ASTM D424-59 (1971) Plastic limit and plasticity index of soils

ASTM D22l7-66 (1972)Wet preparation of soil samples for grain-size analysis and
determination of soil constants.

CSA Al19.l 1960 Code for split-barrel sampling of soils.

3.2 CLASSIFICATION OF ROCKS

3. 2.1. GENERAL

Rock is that portion of the earth's crust which is consolidated, coherent and
relatively hard, and is a naturally formed, solidly bonded mass of mineral matter which
can not be readily broken by the hands nor will disintegrate on its first drying and
wetting cycle.

3.2.1.1. Rock Considered As Soil

Some natural materials which geologically may be referred to correctly as

rocks should be treated as soils. These materials are:

soft or weakly cemented rocks with unconfined compressive strength lower

than 125 lb/sq in.
any material that can be dug by hand with a shovel or pneumatic spade;
cemented sands and gravels in which the cementing is discontinuous.

Some examples are:- very weak rocks such as chalk, marl and volcanic tuff;
highly altered or crushed rocks; rocks with very closely spaced continous
joints; and residual soils containing rock fragments.

3.2.2. GEOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION

Rock is classified with respect to its geological origin as follows:

Igneous rocks

Igneous rocks, such as granite, diorite and basalt" are those formed by the
solidification of molten material, either by intrusion at depth in the earth's
crust or by extrusion at the earth's surface.

Sedimentary rocks

Sedimentary rocks, such as sandstone, limestone and shale, are those rocks
formed by deposition,usually under wate~ of products derived by the disaggregation
of pre-existing rocks.
Metamorphic rocks

Metamorphic rocks, such as quartzite, schist and gneiss, may be either

 pa

- 27 -

igneous or sedimentary rocks which have been altered physically and sometimes
chemically by the application of intense heat and pressure at some time in their
geological history.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

3.2.3. STRUCTURAl. FEATURES OF ROCK MASSES

Geological structures generally have a significant influence on the rock mass

properties. Some of the important features are described as follows:

Rock ma.ss

Rock mass means an aggregate of blocks of solid rock material containing

structural features which constitute mechanical discontinuities. Rock mass refers
to any in situ rock with all inherent geomechanica1 discontinuities.

Rock material or intact rock

Rock material or intact rock means the consolidated aggregate of mineral

particles forming solid material between structural discontinuities. Properties
attributed to it refer to rock material free of geomechanica1 discontinuities.

Geomechanical or structural discontinuities

Geomechanica1 or structural discontinuities means all geological features

which separate solid blocks of the rock mass, such as joints, faults, bedding
planes, cleavage planes, shear zones, and solution cavities. These features
constitute planes of weakness which reduce the strength of the rock mass
appreciably.

Major discontinuities or major structures

Major discontinuities or major structures means those geological features

constituting structural discontinuities which are sufficiently well developed
and continuous that shear failure along them would involve little or no shearing
of intact rock material.

3.2 .4. ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF ROCK MASSES

The quality of a rock mass for foundation purposes depends mainly upon the strength
of rock material and on the spacing, the nature (width, roughness, waviness, weathering,
etc.) and the orientation of discontinuities. Classification of rock according to some
of these properties is given in the following paragraphs.

3.2.4.1. Classification of Rock with Respect to Strength

The strength of rock material varies from very high to vexy low and may be
related to the unconfined compressive strength as indicated':

very high strength means rock much stronger than concrete, with a
compressive strength greater than 32,000 1b/sq in.;

high strength means rock stronger than concrete, with a compressive

strength from 8,000 1b/sq in. to 32,000 1b/sq in.;

medium strength means rock comparable to concrete with a compressive

strength from 2,000 1b/sq in. to 8,000 Ib/sq in.;

low strength means rock comparable to brick masonry with a compressive

strength from 500 1b/sq in. to 2,000 1b/sq in.;
 - 28 -

very low strength means rock weaker than brick masonry with a compressive
strength from 125 lb/sq in. to 500 lb/sq in.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Note:- Rocks with compressive strengths lower than 125 lb/sq in. should be
treated as soils. (See 3.2.1.1.)

3.2.4.2. Classification of Rock Mass with Respect to the Spacing of Discontinuities

The spacing in a given system varies from very wide to very close as
indicated:

very wide spacing denotes a system of discontinuities with an average

spacing greater than 10 ft;

wide spacing denotes a system of discontinuities with an average spacing

from 3 ft to 10 ft;

moderately close spacing denotes a system of discontinuities with an

average spacing from 1 ft to 3 ft;

close spacing denotes a system of discontinuities with an average spacing

from 2 in to 1 ft;

very close spacing denotes a system vf discontinuities with an average

spacing smaller than 2 in.

3.2.4.3. Nature and Orientation of Rock Discontinuities

For foundation purposes, the nature of rock discontinuities may be expressed

in terms of their width, the degree of weathering of rock contact faces, and
the character of infilling materials.

In addition to the strength of rock material, and the spacing and nature of
discontinuities, the quality of a rock mass for foundation purposes is affected
by the orientation of discontinuities with respect to the applied load. A rock
mass is said to contain adversely oriented discontinuities if under the action of
the resultant foundation load the minimum resistance to sliding occurs when the
sliding surface is considered to be along these discontinuities.

3.2.5. ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION

This is a general method by which the quality of the rock at a site based on the
relative amount of fracturing and alteration is obtained.

The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) is based on a modified core recovery procedure
which, in turn, is based indirectly on the number of fractures and the amount of
softening or alteration in the rock mass as observed in the rock cores from a drillhole.
Instead of counting the fractures, an indirect measure is obtained by summing the total
length of core recovered by counting only those pieces of hard and sound core which are
4 in. or greater in length.
 - 29 -

(0) (b)
RQD
CORE MODIFIED CORE (ROCK QUALITY DESCRIPTION OF
RECOVERY, IN. RECOV ERY, IN. DESIGNATION) ROCK QUALITY
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

10

2
B.'

Cl
10
o-
25 -
25
50
VERY POOR
POOR
FA I R
2 Q 50 - 75
3
...':.-~ 75 - 90 GOOD
4 0 4 90 - 100 EXCELLENT
5
3
0Q
"
5

4 0.. 4
6 [] 6

4
...:;,
2 c:I
Ii:ll

5 D 5
50 CORE 34
RUN
60 IN.

CORE RECOVERY RQD

50/60 83% = 34/60 57%

FI G 3.2
MODIFIED CORE RECOVERY AS AN INDEX OF ROCK QUALITY

From "Rock mechanics in enginnering practice" by STAGG & ZIENKIEWICZ, 1968.

Used with permission of J. Wiley & Sons, Inc.

An example is given in Fig 3.2 from a core run of 60 in. For this particular
case the total core recovery is 50 in, yielding a core recovery of 83%. On the modified
basis, only 34 in. are counted and the RQD is 57%.

If the core is broken by handling or during drilling (i.e. the fracture surfaces
are fresh irregular breaks rather than natural joint surfaces), the fresh broken pieces
are fitted together and counted as one piece. Some judgement is necessary in the case
of thinly bedded sedimentary rocks and foliated metamorphic rocks, and the method is not
so exact in these cases as it is for igneous rocks, thick-bedded limestones, sandstones,
etc. However, the system has been applied successfully even for shales, although it is
necessary to log the cores immediately upon removing them from the core barrel before
air-slaking and cracking can begin.

The procedure obviously penalizes the rock where recovery is poor. This is
appropriate because poor core recovery usually reflects poor quality rock. However, poor
drilling equipment and techniques can also cause poor recovery. For this reason,
double-tube core barrels of at least NX size (2 1/8 in. diameter) must be used, and
proper supervision of drilling is imperative.

As simple as the procedure appears, it has been found that, as an indicator of

general quality of rock for engineering purposes, the numerical value of RQD is more
sensitive and consistent than gross percentage core recovery. The relationship between
RQD and rock quality is given in Fig. 3.2.(b).
 - 30 -

REFERENCES

DEERE, D.V., 1968. Geological considerations. In STAGG, K.G. and ZIENKIEWICZ, O.C.,
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

(Editors). Rock mechanics in engineering practice. J. Wiley & Sons. N.Y.

ASTM D2938-7la. Unconfined compressive strength of rock core specimens.

 CHAPTER 4

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

TAB LEO F CON TEN T S

Page

4.1. GENERAL 33
4.2. OBJECTIVE OF INVESTIGATION 33
4.3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 33
4.4. EXTENT OF INVESTIGATION 34
4.4 .1. GENERAL
4.4.2. DEPTH OF INVESTIGATION
4.4.3. ACCURACY OF INVESTIGATION

4.5. INVESTIGATION OF SOILS 35

4.5.1. IN SITU TESTING
4.5.2. BORING AND SAMPLING
4.5.2.1. Classes Of Samples
4.5.3. LABORATORY TESTING OF SOIL SAMPLES
4.5.3.1. Quality Of Test Results
4.5.3.2. Identification And Classification

4.6. INVESTIGATION OF ROCK 41

4.6.1. GENERAL
4.6.2. CORE DRILLING OF ROCK
4.6. 3. USE OF CORE SAMPLES
4.6.3.1. Identification And Classification
4.6.3.2. Laboratory Tests Of Core Samples

4.7. INVESTIGATION OF GROUNDWATER 42

4. 7 .1. GENERAL
4.7.2. INVESTIGATION IN BOREHOLES
4.7.3. INVESTIGATION BY PIEZOMETERS

4.8. PROBLEM SOILS, ROCKS AND CONDITIONS 43

4.9. REPORT 43
4.9.1. TEXT
4.9.2. GRAPHIC PRESENTATIONS

APPENDIX 4A PROBLEM SOILS, ROCKS AND CONDITIONS 45

- 31 -
 CHAPTER 4

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

4.1 GENERAL

Subsurface investigation means the appraisal of the general subsurface conditions at a

building site by analysis of information gained by such methods as geological surveys, in situ
testing, boring and sampling, visual inspection, laboratory testing of samples of the subsurface
materials and groundwater observations and measurements.

The subsurface investigation is the first and most important step in any foundation design.
Such an investigation should be carried out for all structures, even modest ones, before
design is undertaken or a building permit is issued.

It is important that subsurface investigations be carried out under the direction of

engineers and personnel with knowledge and experience in planning and executing such investiga-
tions. It is desirable that drilling crews be experienced specifically in borings for
geotechnical explorations.

4.2 OBJECTIVE OF INVESTIGATION

The primary objective of a subsurface investigation is to determine as accurately as may

be required;

the nature and sequence of strata,

the groundwater conditions at the site,
the physical properties of the soils and rock underlying the site,
the mechanical properties, such as strength and compressibility of the different
soil or rock strata, and
other specific information, when needed, such as chemical composition of the
groundwater, and characteristics of foundations of adjacent structures.

Subsurface investigations should be organized in such a way that all possible information
be obtained that will provide a thorough understanding of the subsurface conditions and probable
foundation behaviour.

4.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Before the actual field investigation is started, information should, whenever possible, be
collected on;

the type of building to be built; its' intended use, characteristics of the

structure, starting date, intended construction method, and estimated period
of construction.
the probable soil conditions by analysis of geological and geotechnical maps
~erial stereophotographs are often of use in the evaluation of general soil
conditions and of specific problems such as the stability of natural slopes
in the vicinity of the site) ,and

the soil conditions beneath, the foundation systems and behaviour of existing
structures adjacent to,the site, as well as other related local experience.

- 33 -

z
 - 34 -

4.4. EXTENT OF INVESTIGATION

4.4.1. GENERAL
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Subsurface conditions at a building site may be relatively uniform or extremely

variable. These conditions will largely determine the complexity of the problems to
be faced both in the design and construction of the foundations. The subsurface
investigation must therefore be of sufficient extent to provide enough information for
a thorough understanding of the interaction of proposed foundations and supporting soil
or rock on which to base a safe and economical design. To assist in planning a sub-
surface investigation a list of items to be considered may be found in Appendix B
Check List for Foundation Investigations, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Proc. Am. Soc.
Civil Engrs 98: SM8, 779-785, 1972.

4.4.2. DEPTH OF INVESTIGATION

The subsurface investigation should be carried to such a depth that the entire zone
of soil or rock affected by changes caused by the building or the construction will be
adequately explored. This depth occurs approximately at a level where the vertical
stress induced by the new construction is less than 10% of the existing overburden
stress at that level. (HVORSLEV 1949).

Where the depth of investigation cannot be related to background information as

described in 4.3. the following guidelines are suggested.

It is good practice to have one boring carried to bedrock or at least to well

below the anticipated level of influence of the building.
For light structures, insensitive to settlement the borings should be extended
to a depth equal to 4 times the probable footing width but to not less than
20 ft below the lowest part of the foundation.
For more heavily-loaded structures such as multi-storey structures and for framed
structures at least 50 percent of the borings should be extended to a
depth equal to 1.5 times the width of the building below the lowest part
of the foundation.
Where bedrock is encountered it should be proved by coring to a minimum depth of
10 ft.

4.4.3. ACCURACY OF INVESTIGATION

It is advisable to check the agreement of geotechnical tests. Subsurface investi-

gations should call for various methods for measuring the soil properties critical in
design; in particular, it is good practice to combine in situ tests and laboratory tests
for strength and compressibility whenever possible.

The accuracy of stratigraphy determined by geophysical methods such as seismic

reflection or refraction, or resistivity measurements should always be checked by borings
or other direct observations.
 - 35 -

4.5 INVESTIGATION OF SOILS

The physical and mechanical properties of soils are determined either by in situ testing,
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

by laboratory testing or a combination of both. Both approaches have advantages, disadvantages

and limitations in their applicability.

4. 5.1. IN SITU TESTING

The common in situ testing methods are listed in Table 4.1. The various in situ
tests must be carried out with utmost care and according to either standardized or
generally accepted procedures. Because of their variability, in situ tests should be
repeated. This is particularly important for the Standard Penetration Test.

TABLE 4.1 IN SITU TESTS

TYPE TYPE OF SOIL

OF Best Not Properties that can
TEST Suited to Applicable to be determined REMARKS REFERENCES

1 - STANDARD Sand Clay Qualitative evalua- (See Commentary 8.1) (1) CSA A119.1-1960
PENETRATION tion of compactness (2) ASTM D1586-67
TEST (SFT) Qualitative compari- (3) FLETCHER (1965)
son of subsoil (4) PECK ET AL (1963)
stratification (5) TAVENAS (1971)

2 DYNAMIC Sand Clay Qualitative evalua-

CONE & tion of compactness
TEST Gravel Qualitative compari-
son of subsoil
stratification

3 - STATIC Sand Con tinuous evalua- Test is best suited for (1) SANGLERAT (1972)
CONE tion of density the design of piles in (2) SCHMERTMANN (1970)
TEST and strength of sand. (3) LADANYI & EDEN (1969)
sands and gravel
Continuous evalua- Tests in clay are
tion of undrained reliable only when used
shear strength in in conjunction with
clays vane tests

4 PLATE Sand Modulus of subgrade Strictly applicable only (1) ASTM D 1194-72
BEARING reaction if the deposit is
TEST Ultimate bearing uniform.
capacity Size effects mus t be
considered in other
cases

5 - VANE Clay Silt Undrained shear Test should be used (1) ASTM D 2573-72
TEST Sand strength C u with care particularly (2) BJERRUM (1972)
Gravel in fissured, varved (3) MS (1965)
and highly plastic (4) LO (1972)
clays
6 PRESSUREMETER Soft - Ultimate bearing (See Commentary 8.8) (1) MENARD (1965)
(2) EISENSTEIN et al (1973)
TEST rock capacity and
Sand compressibility (3) TAVENAS (1971)

7 - PERMEAB ILl TY Sand Clay Evaluation of Variable head tests in (l) HVORSLEV (194!t)
TEST & coefficient of boreholes have limited (2) NAVFAC DM7 (1971)
Gravel permeability accuracy. Results (3) SIlEURD ET AL
reliable to one order
of magnitude are
obtained only from long
term, large scale
pumping tests
 - 36 -

REFERENCES

Standard Penetration Test

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

CSA A 119.1-1960. Code for split-barrel sampling of soils.

ASTM D 1586-67. Penetration test and split-barrel sampling of soils.

FLETCHER, G.F.A., 1965. Standard penetration test: its uses and abuses.
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs. 91: SM4, 67-75

PECK, R.B., HANSON, W.E. and THORNBURN, T.H., 1974. Foundation engineering.
J. Wiley & Sons, N.Y.

TAVENAS, F.A., 1971. Discussion of "The standard penetration test." Proc.

Pan. Am. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. 4th Puerto Rico, 1971, 3: 64-70.

Static Penetration Test

SANGLERAT, G., 1972. The penetrometer and soil exploration. Elsevier Pub1.
Co. Amsterdam.

SCHMERTMANN, J.H., 1970. Static cone to compute static settlement over sand.
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., 96: SM3, 1011-1043.

LADANYI, B. and EDEN, W.J., 1969. Use of the deep penetration test in sensitive
clays. Proc. Inter. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 7th, Mexico. 1969
1: 225-230.

Plate Bearing Test

ASTM D 1194-72. Test for bearing capacity of soil for static load on
spread footings.

Vane Test

ASTM D 2573-72. Field vane shear test in cohesive soil.

AAS, G., 1965. A study of the effect of vane shape and rate of strain on the
measured values of in situ shear strength of clays. Proc. Internat. Conf.
Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 6th, Montreal, 1965, 1: 141-145.

BJERRUM, L., 1972. Embankments on soft ground. In: Proc. Am. Soc. Civil
Engrs. Conf. Earth and Earth Supported Structures. Purdue U. 1972
2: 1-54.

LO, K.Y., 1972. The operational strength of fissured clays. Geotechnique,

20: 57-74

Pressuremeter Test

MENARD, L., 1965. Regles pour le calcul de la force portante et du tassement

des fondations en fonction des resultats pressiometriques. Proc. Intern.
Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 6th,Mbntreal,1965. 2: 295-299.

EISENTEIN, Z. and MORRISON, N.A., 1973. Prediction of foundation deformations

in Edmonton using an in situ pressure probe. Can. Geotech. J. 10: 193-210.

TAVENAS, F.A., 1971. Controle du roc de fondation de pieux fores a haute

capacite. Can. Geotech. J. 8: 400-416.
 - 37 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Permeability Test

HVORSLEV, M.J., 1949. Subsurface exploration and sampling of soil

for civil engineering purposes. SOil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civil
Engrs. Cttee.Sampling and Testing. Vicksburg

NAVFAC, D.M. 7, 1971. Soil mechanics, foundations and earth structures.

Desi gn Manual 7. Dept. Navy, Naval Facilities Eng. Command. Wash. D.C.

SHERARD, J.L., WOODWARD, R.J., GIZIENSKI, S.F. and CLEVENGER, W.A. 1963. Earth
and earth-rock dams. J. wiley & Sons. N.Y.

4.5. 2. BORING AND SAMPLING

The properties of soils can be determined from laboratory tests on samples recovered
from boreholes. The quality of the samples depends mainly on the boring method, the
sampling equipment and the procedure used in retrieving them.

4.5.2.1. Classes of Samples

For the purpose of this Manual, four classes of samples have been defined,
which are listed in Table 4.2.

Mechanical properties which serve as basis for the design of foundations

can be measured only on samples of class I. Such samples should always be
retrieved for the design of foundations on clays.

Problem soils, as referred to in paragraph 4.8, may require special sampling

procedures as indicated therein.

REFERENCES

CSA A 119.1-1960. Code for split-barrel sampling of soils.

ASTM D 1587-67. Thin-walled tube sampling of soils.

ASTM D 1586-67. Penetration test and split-barrel sampling of soils.

HVORSLEV, M.J., 1949. Subsurface exploration and sampling of soil for civil
engineering purposes. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civil Engrs.,Cttee.
Sampling & Testing. vicksburg.

Sampling of Soil and Rock. 1971. Am. SOc. Testing Mater., Spec. Tech. Publ. 483

TERZAGHI, K. and PECK, R.B., 1967. Soil mechanics in engineering practice.

J. Wiley and Sons, N.Y. 289-360.
 - 38 -

TABLE 4.2 Sample Classification

PROPERTIES THAT CAN BE MEASURED

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

VJ :><
E-< E-< E-< :><
Z z H H
~
E-<
0 r:Ll l:: ::> E-< H
:>< H H
~
Z Z 0
~
E-< H
::::: E-< Z 0 H r:Ll E-< H Z
u<
r:LlH 0 H
~
i=L< 0 E-< I'Q
CLASS QUALITY IDENTIFICATION ~
U NE-< 0
~
Z G H H
NOTE
0 ....HH H;::l
[:tl H
U 0 H H Ul E-<
~
U UlI'Q U ;.:J tI) Ul
H .... :J:
~ H ~ ~
H H
Z~ ~

~ ~
~r:Ll
E-<
~ ~ ;:1
HE-< r:Ll U r:Ll E-<
~~
0 E-< r:Ll E-< H
~ ::c
~
E-< E-< E-< i=L< 0
i
Ul tI) 0 00 < Ul S i=L< U Ul

1 UNDISTURBED a - Block samples + + + + + + + + + + + 1-4-6

b - Stationary piston
sampler 3" minimum + + + + + + + + + + + 2-3-4-5-6
diameter

2 SLIGHTLY Open thin-walled tube

DISTURBED sampler 2" minimum + + + + + + + + + 3
diameter

3 SUBSTANTIALLY Open thick-walled

DISTURBED tube sampler such as + + + + + + +
split-barrel sampler

4 DISTURBED Random samples

collected by auger or + + + + + + 7
in pits

NOTES TO TABLE 4.2

1 Block samples are best when dealing with sensitive, varved or fissured clays. Wherever possible
block samples should be taken in such soils.

2 3" diameter stationary piston samples may be impossible to obtain in some materials such as very
stiff clays. If shear strength and compressibility of such materials are required they may be
determined using class 2 samples but due consideration must be given to the lower quality of
such samples.
3 Samples of classes lb and 2 must be taken with tubes conforming to the following geometric
requirements:

The area ratio i - ..::D..!=0~2_-=-D.;;::i,--2 < 12% where Do outside diameter of the
2
Di tube
The inside clearance 0.5% 1%
Di inside diameter of the
tube
The angle of the cutting edge must be not greater than 30 0
De - inside diameter of the
cutting edge

4 Samples of class 1 are best stored in a vertical position in a room with constant humidity of 80%
minimum and constant temperature of 500 F maximum

5 Samples of class lb are best extruded with the tube in a vertical position. Extrusion and testing
should occur as quickly as possible after sampling. Whenever possible testing should be perfbrmed
immediately after extrusion.

6 Because of inevitable stress relief samples of all classes may be disturbed. The disturbance is
dependent upon the consistency of the sampled soil. Disturbance also increases with depth of sampling.

Water content samples should be taken from freshly-cut faces of the pit as it is advanced. Small
diameter spiral augers are suitable for obtaining water content samples of cohesive soil if care is
taken to remove from the sample free water and soil scraped from upper layers in the wall of the bore
hole.
Water content samples should be placed immediately in air tight containers to prevent evaporation.
 p

- 39 -

4.5.3. LABORATORY TESTING OF SOIL SAMPLES

It is beyond the scope of this Manual to cover in detail all laboratory testing
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

techniques now in use in soil mechanics. However, it is necessary to insist on some

basic requirements.

4.5.3.1. Quality of Test Results

The quality of test results is determined:

by the quality of samples as defined in 4.5.2.1.

by conformance of test equipment and methods to those stipulated in the
pertinent standards or implicit in the current state of the art, and
by the quality of testing, which can only be ensured by adequate initial
education, continuous control and improvement in the skill of
laboratory personnel.

4.5.3.2. Identification and Classification

Identification and classification of soils is presented in Chapter 3 of this

Manual.

REFERENCES

LAMBE, T.W. Soil Testing for Engineers. Series in Soil Mechanics, J. wiley and
Sons, N.Y. 1951.

ASTM D 421-58. (1972) Dry preparation of soil samples for particle-size analysis
and determination of soil constants.

ASTM D 2217-66 (1972). Wet preparation of soil samples for particle-size analysis
and determination of soil constants.

ASTM D 422-63. (1972). Particle-size analysis of soils.

ASTM D 423-66. (1972). Test for liquid limit of soils.

ASTM D 424-59. (1971). Plastic limit and plasticity index of soils.

ASTM D 2166-66. (1972). Test for unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soils.

ASTM D 2216-71. Laboratory determination of moisture content of soil.

ASTM D 2434-68. Test for permeability of granular soils. (Constant Head).

ASTM D 2435-70. Test for one-dimensional consolidation properties of soils.

ASTM D 2850-70. Test for unconsolidated, undrained strength of cohesive soils in

triaxial compression.
....
-------------------------------~--~--------------~--------

- 40 -

4.6 INVESTIGATION OF ROCK

4. 6.1. GENERAL
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Frequently, determination of the character and condition of rock by means of core

boring methods and borehole inspection will be necessary. This will occur where
foundations may be extended to the rock surface or into bedrock.

Where investigation of bedrock is necessary, pertinent information to be determined

includes;

geological characteristics of the site,

elevation of the rock surface and variation over the site,
rock type and core strength,
extent and character of weathering and weatherability,
extent and distribution of solution channels in soluble rocks such as limestone,
discontinuities such as bedding planes, faults, and joints,
folds and structural orientation,
foliation or cleavage planes,
permeability, and
strength and compressibility of the rock mass.

4.6.2. CORE DRILLING OF ROCK

Boreholes for the investigation of rock should be advanced by the diamond core
drilling method.

The nu.nlmum quality of equipment should conform to ASTM D 2113-70 "Diamond core
drilling for site investigations." Better equipment may be needed for drilling and
sampling of soft rocks.

Care must be exercised to ensure maximum possible core recovery. Changes in drilling
noise, vibrations, pressure on the drilling bit, colour, pressure and flow of drilling
water and all other observations relative to the drilling operations should be carefully
recorded.

4.6.3. USE OF CORE SAlofPLES

4.6.3.1. Identification and Classification

Identification and classification of rocks is presented in Chapter 3 of this

Manual.

Particular attention should be paid to the identification or rock disconti-

nuities: nature and origin, spacing, geometry, weathering, etc.

4.6.3.2. Laboratory Tests of Core Samples

Laboratory tests for measuring the mechanical properties of rock give results
of limited value since they are performed on sound samples free of discontinuities.
Such results may not be representative of the actual rock mass.
 p
- 41-

Tests most frequently conducted are unconfined compression tests, triaxial

compression tests and sonic velocity tests. These should be performed in
accordance with the standards listed below.

REFERENCES
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

ASTM D 2938-7la. Test for unconfined compressive strength of rock core

specimens.

ASTM D 2664-67. Test for triaxial compressive strength of undrained rock

core specimens without pore pressure measurements.

ASTM D 2936-71. Test for direct tensile strength of rock core specimens.

ASTM D 2845-69. Laboratory determination of pulse velocities and ultrasonic

elastic constants of rock.

CSA M253.l-l972. Diamond core drilling equipment.

STAGG, K.G. and ZIENKIEWICZ, O.C., 1968. Rock mechanics in engineering practice.
J. Wiley and Sons, N.Y.

4.7 INVESTIGATION OF GROUNDWATER

4.7.1. GENERAL

Groundwater is a critical factor in foundation design and construction. It should

therefore be given careful attention during all stages of soil investigation.

Parameters of importance are;

the existence of groundwater; normal, perched, or artesian,

the exact level of the groundwater table and of the lower limit of perched
groundwater,
thicknesses of strata and the piezometric level of artesian groundwater,
the variation of these characteristics over the site and with time, and
the chemical composition of groundwater

4.7.2. INVESTIGATION IN BOREHOLES

In most cases where normal groundwater conditions are encountered they can be
investigated during boring. The water level should be measured at regular intervals
during the advancement and after completion of each borehole.

During each boring, field records should be made of all observations related to
groundwater; such as change in color and rate of flow, partial of total loss of water,
first appearance of artesian conditions.

All information related to groundwater should be recorded on the boring log, along
with the depth of the borehole and depth of casing at the time of observation.

Groundwater observations made at the time of boring are not representative in clay
and other fine-grained soils because of the low permeability of these materials and the
longer periods of time required before the water level in such a borehole reaches
equilibrium.
 - 42-

4.7.3. INVESTIGATION BY PIEZOMETERS

In all cases where groundwater conditions are important in design, or are difficult,
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

or where direct borehole observation is not applicable, the groundwater conditions

should be investigated by the installation and observation of piezometers. In designing
such installations, attention should be paid to the stratigraphy (for location of the
piezometer tips) and the soil type (for selection of the type of piezometer). Time lag
is a particularly important parameter in the selection of piezometer type~ Equipment
and methods of installation are described in detail in the following references.

REFERENCES

HVO RS LEV , M.J., 1949. Subsurface exploration and sampling of soil for civil
engineering purposes. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civil Engrs.,
Cttee. Sampling and Testing, Vicksburg.

TERZAGHI, K. and PECK, R.B., 1968. Soil mechanics in engineering practice.

J. Wiley & Sons. N.Y. 670-673.

4.8 PROBLEM SOILS, ROCKS AND CONDITIONS

There are certain types of soils and rocks which pose particular difficulties or special
problems, such as highly sensitive clays and expansive soils and rocks. Those problem soils,
rocks and conditions most commonly encountered are described in Appendix 4A.

4.9 REPORT

Data from subsurface investigations usually are referred to continuously and for many
different purposes during the construction period and frequently after completion. Appropriate
reports should therefore be prepared for each subsurface investigation. They should be clear,
complete and accurate. The following outline may be used as a guide in arranging data in such
reports:

4.9.1. TEXT

Scope of the investigation,

Proposed structure or structures,
Geological setting,
Existing adjacent structures,
Field explorations,
Laboratory investigation (testing),
Analysis of data,
Foundation studies including alternatives,
Recommended construction procedures, if appropriate,
Conclusions and recommendations, and
Limitations of the investigation.
 p

- 43 -

4.9.2. GRAPHIC PRESENTATIONS

Map showing the site location,

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Detailed plan of the site showing contours, elevations, proposed structures,

borehole locations, and adjacent structures.
Boring logs including all the necessary pertinent information,
Stratigraphical, geotechnical profiles,
Laboratory data, and
Special graphic presentations.

REFERENCE

CSA Al19.5-1966. Recording of borehole and test pit information.

 p

APPENDIX 4A

PROBLEM SOILS, ROCKS AND CONDITIONS

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

TAB LEO F CON TEN T S

Page

GENERAL

PROBLEM SOILS 47

ORGANIC SOILS
NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED CLAYS
SENSITIVE CLAYS
SWELLING AND SHRINKING CLAYS
LOOSE GRANULAR SOILS
METASTABLE SOILS
ARTIFICIAL FILL

PROBLEM ROCKS 49

CHEMICAL WEATHERING
SEDIMENTARY AND METAMORPHIC ROCKS
SHALES

PROBLEM CONDITIONS 50

MEANDER LOOPS AND CUTOFFS

LANDSLIDES
KETTLE HOLES
MINED AREAS
PERMAFROST
NOXIOUS OR EXPLOSIVE GASES
EFFECTS OF HEAT OR COLD
SOIL DISTORTIONS

- 45 -
 f
APPENDIX 4A

PROBLEM SOILS, ROCKS AND CONDITIONS

GENERAL
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Brief descriptions of certain types of soil, rock or conditions which require special care
or precautions, if satisfactory designs and performance are to be achieved, are given in the
following paragraphs. Early recognition of such soils, rocks or conditions is important in
order that more adequate investigations may be undertaken in good time and designs developed
to meet the conditions found. Successful investigation and analysis of these conditions require
special knowledge and should usually be placed in the hands of competent foundation consultants.

PROBLEM SOILS

ORGANIC SOILS

Soils containing significant amounts of organic materials, either as colloids or in

fibrous form, will usually be found weak and subject to excessive deformation under load.
Such soils include peat associated with muskeg terrain, organic silts and clays typical
of many estuarine, lacustrine or fluvial environments. Such soils are usually not satis-
factory as foundations for even very light structures because of excessive settlements
resulting from compression and consolidation.

NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED CLAYS

Clays of soft to medium consistency which have been consolidated only under the
weight of existing conditions are found in many areas. Typical are the clays of the Windsor -
Lake St. Clair region and the varved clays in the northern parts of Manitoba, Ontario and
Quebec. Imposition of additional load, such as a building, will result in significant
long-term settlement. The magnitude and approximate rate of such settlements can be
predicted from analyses based on carefully conducted consolidation tests on undisturbed
samples. Such studies should be made before any significant structure is founded above
these clays to determine whether settlements will be acceptable, considering the charac-
teristics and purpose of the structure.

Driving piles through normally consolidated plastic clays may cause heave or displace-
ments of piles previously driven or adjacent structures. The bottom of excavations made
in such soils may heave and adjoining areas of structures may move or settle, unless the
hazards are recognized and proper precautions taken to prevent such movements.

In the case of varved clays special precautions may be necessary in sampling and
testing. Any analysis should take into account the important differences in properties
between the various layers in the clays.

SENSITIVE CLAYS

Sensitive clays are defined as having a remolded strength of 25% or less of the undis-
turbed strength. Some clays are much more sensitive than this, and clays having a remolded
to undisturbed strength ratio of 1 to 20, or even 1 to 50, are known. Typically, such
clays have field moisture contents equal to or greater than their liquid limits, and such
relations may indicate their presence. Extensive deposits of sensitive clays occur in some
areas as, for example, the Leda clays of the St. Lawrence River Valley. Where such clays
have been preconso1idated by partial desiccation or by the weight of materials subsequently
eroded, foundations may be placed above such clays, provided that the gross additional
load imposed by the structure is appreciably less than the preconso1idation load of the
clay, and shearing stresses under the foundations are well within the shear strengths of
the clay. Exceeding either of these limits will result in excessive settlements and
possibly in catastrophic failure. Disastrous flow slides have developed in these clays in
a number of instances and the hazard must always be considered. Deep excavations in
sensitive clays are extremely hazardous because of possible severe loss in shear strength
resulting from strains within the soil mass beneath and adjacent to the excavation.

- 47 -
 - 48 -

Determination of the physical properties necessary for evaluating the significance

of such clays to a proposed structure requires taking and testing of both undisturbed and
remolded samples of the clays and thorough analysis of the possible hazards involved.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Because of the extreme sensitivity of such clays to even minor disturbances, taking and
testing undisturbed samples requires extremely sophisticated equipment and techniques. It
should be attempted only by competent personnel experienced in this type of work.

SWELLING AND SHRINKING CLAYS

Swelling and shrinking clays are clays which expand or contract markedly upon changes
in moisture content. Such clays occur widely in the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and
Saskatchewan and are usually associated with lacustrine deposits. Shallow foundations
founded on such clays may be subject to movements brought about by volume changes due to
changes of moisture content in the clays. Deep foundations supporting structural floors can
be damaged if such a system confines the clay. Special design provisions should be made
taking into account the possibility of movements or swelling pressures in the clays.

LOOSE, GRANULAR SOILS

All granular soils are subject to some compaction or densification when subjected
to vibration. Normally, this is of significance only below the permanent water table. Sands
above the water table usually will be only slightly compacted by most building vibration
because of friction developed between the grains from capillary forces. Usually for sands
of medium dense to dense state, settlements induced by vibration will be well within normal
structural tolerance, except for very heavy vibration as from forging hammers or similar
equipment. However, if the sands are in a loose to very loose state, significant settlement
may result from even minor vibrations or from nearby pile driving. In some cases, spon-
taneous liquefaction of very loose sands has resulted from earthquakes, as occurred in
Niigata in Japan. In this event structures supported above such soils may be completely
destroyed. Loose sands will settle significantly under static loading only. Such settle-
ments may exceed allowable tolerances. Consequently, loose sands should be investigated
carefully, and their limits established; densification or compaction of such deposits may
be essential before structures can safely be founded above them.

METASTABLE SOILS

Metastable soils include several types of soil which are abnormally loose as deposited
and which may collapse on saturation. Such collapses will cause severe or even catastrophic
settlement of structures founded in or above these soils. Loess, which is found in some
areas such as the Okanogan region is the most common. Because such soils are strong and
stable when dry, they can be misleading in investigations, and extreme care should be taken
to ensure identification and proper foundation design wherever such soils occur. The open,
porous structure which is the usual means of identification may be completely collapsed
by set boring techniques. Where such conditions may be anticipated, borings should be done
by auger methods and test pits should be dug from which undisturbed samples may be taken
for determining accurately in-place densities.

ARTIFICIAL FILL

Artificial fill may be extremely dense granular material placed under careful control
which is more uniform, more rigid and stronger than almost all natural deposits; it may
be a heterogeneous mass of rubbish, debris and loose soil of many types totally useless as
a foundation material or some combination intermediate between these extremes. Unless the
conditions and control under which it was placed are fully known, it must be presumed
unsatisfactory. The investigations must be adequate to establish its limits, depth, and
characteristics throughout.
 p

- 49 -

PROBLEM ROCKS

CHEMICAL WEATHERING
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Mechanical properties of both the rock mass and rock cores provide a generally
reliable guide to the quality of rock for foundation purposes. However, all rock masses
involved in foundation engineering occur within the near surface zone of the earth and
are subject to alteration by inorganic and organic chemical processes particularly in the
presence of groundwater.

Chemical alteration or weathering of rock may take the form of removal of material
in solution or volumetric expansion upon wetting, resulting in both cases, in reduction
of the strength properties of the rock mass.

Under Canadian climatic conditions the rate of chemical weathering for igneous and
most metamorphic and sedimentary rocks is generally sufficiently slow to be of little
importance in foundation engineering. There are, however, some exceptions.

SEDIMENTARY AND METAMORPHIC ROCKS

Sedimentary and metamorphic rocks such as limestone, gypsum, rock salt and metamorphic
marble are subject to accelerated rates of chemical attack resulting in solution channels
Is and caverns below bedrock surface or sinkholes at the earth's surface. These conditions
may present special foundation problems.

SHALES

Shales are the most abundant of sedimentary rocks and commonly the weakest from the
foundation standpoint. Two special problems with certain shale formations have been
identified in Canada.

In Western Canada, the Bearpaw and other Cretacious shales have been found to swell
considerably when stress release or unloading leads to the absorption of water by the clay
minerals. When such shales are encountered along deep river valleys special advice should
be sought.

In some shale formations in Eastern Canada volumetric expansion due to a weathering

process of sulphide minerals (pyrite) accelerated by oxidizing bacteria, has occurred in
isolated instances. Conditions leading to mineralogical alteration seem to be related
to lowering the groundwater table and to raising of the temperature in the shale,
particularly when the shale is highly fractured. These conditions enhance bacterial growth
and oxidation of the sulfide minerals. In these cases, special provisions should be consi-
dered to reduce heat loss from the building spaces to the supporting shale.

Note - Since the effect of chemical degradation of foundation rock on the

performance of the structure may become obvious only after several
years following completion, the problem can only be avoided by recognition
of potential difficulties at the time of subsurface exploration and the
taking of remedial measures during design and construction phases of the
project.
ps p~

- 50 -

PROBLEM CONDITIONS

MEANDER LOOPS AND CUTOFFS

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Slow, meandering streams, from time to time, develop cutoffs across a neck between two
loops leaving an abandoned channel which later fills with very soft organic silts and
clays. These conditions are very common along the Red and similar rivers. Such meander
loops can be identified by their crescent shape. Frequently, these can be detected in
aerial photographs or from accurate topographic maps. The soils filling these abandoned
waterways are extremely weak and highly compressible. It is necessary that the limits
of such areas be accurately located and the depths of the soft, compressible soils filling
them established.

LANDSLIDES

In areas of appreciable relief, the possibility of landslides should always be

considered. Landslides in an active state are readily identifiable. Old landslides
or unstable soils in a potential landslide state may be indicated by hummocky conditions,
by bowed trees, by tilted or warped strata, or by other evidences of displacement.
Such areas are almost always in a state of marginal stability and even minor distur-
bances, as by small excavations near the toe, or minor changes in groundwater
conditions or drainage, may cause such landslide areas to become active. Stopping
a landslide once it is in active motion is always more difficult than taking proper
precautionary measures to avoid triggering such a landslide or avoiding the land-
slide area in the first place. If sensitive clays are present, hazards are increased
significantly.
Consequently, care should be taken to locate potential landslide areas, to
investigate them thoroughly, and to adopt construction procedures and designs which
will be safe. The banks of actively eroding rivers are always in a state of
marginal stability. This is particularly true of the outside bends of such rivers,
because active cutting is usually in progress, especially during periods of high water.

KETTLE HOLES

In areas of glacial outwash, trapping or stranding of blocks of ice torn loose from
the glaciers was a common occurrence. Later, when these blocks melted, they left
depressions in the outwash mantle, many of which subsequently filled with peat or with soft,
organic soils. These depressions which are referred to as kettle holes, vary in size from
a few feet across and a few feet deep to moderate size ponds several hundred feet across.
They can usually be detected as shallow surface depressions by careful examination,
although occasionally all surface expression has been destroyed by farming or leveling
operations. Ordinarily they can be located from aerial photographs because of the difference
in vegetation. In areas where they are suspected, it is necessary that their locations
and extent be established. Because their depths are limited by the angle of repose of
the material surrounding the hole left by the ice, depths of such deposits cannot exceed
about 40% of the minimum lateral dimension.

MINED AREAS

Sites located over or adjacent to mined areas may be subject to severe ground
movements and differential settlements caused by the collapse of amine roof. Generally,
for coal mines and similar mines in horizontal strata, the zone of disturbance does not
extend laterally from the edge of the mined areas a distance much more than half the
depth of the mine below the surface. There is little control of the solution process
for mining potash or salt, and, in such areas, subsidence may extend from 2,000 ft to
4,000 ft beyond the edges of the mine or well field. Some evidence indicates that the
solution may extend farthest up the dip of the strata.

Investigations must be extremely thorough and all possible data on old mines should
be obtained wherever such conditions are suspected. While maps may be available for
active mines or recently closed mines the accuracy of such maps frequently is poor.
Further, there are many mined-out areas, especially in the older mining regions, for which
 - 51 -

no records are available. Careful surface examination of suspected areas, especially in

the slanting light of sunset, may show depressions resulting from ground subsidence and
so permit identification of mined areas where records are incomplete.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

PERMAFROST

Permafrost is the thermal condition of the earth's crust when its temperature has been
below 32 0 F continuously for a number of years. Half of Canada's land surface lies in the
permafrost region - either in the continuous zone where the ground is frozen to a depth
of hundreds of feet, or in the discontinuous zone where permafrost is thinner, and there
are areas of unfrozen ground.

The existence of permafrost causes problems for the development of the northern regions
extending into the Arctic. Engineering structures are, of course, greatly affected by
the low temperatures. Ice layers give soil a rock-like structure with high strength.
However, heat transmitted by buildings often causes the ice to melt, and the resulting
slurry is unable to support the structure. Many settlements in northern Canada have
examples of structural damage caused by permafrost. In construction and maintenance of
buildings normal techniques must, therefore, be modified at considerable additional cost.

Accumulated experience with careful scientifically planned and conducted investigations

make it technically possible to build practically any structure in the permafrost area.
Design and construction in permafrost should only be carried out by those who
possess this type of very special expertise.

NOXIOUS OR EXPWSIVE GASES

Noxious or explosive gases, methane being the most common, are occasionally encountered
in clay or silt deposits. They constitute a hazard to workmen constructing caissons or in
deep excavations. Gases may also be found in shale or other sedimentary rock deposits
in various areas of the country. These may be a special hazard in deep excavations or
where borings have encountered such gases and are permitted to discharge into the construc-
tion area. The history of the area or discharge of gas from borings, even if only for
short periods of time, should be especially noted and suitable precautions taken.

A special problem may exist in tunnels or drainage systems where certain iron consuming
bacteria are present. These can so severely deplete the oxygen supply in poorly ventilated
areas that persons entering may be asphyxiated. Such areas should be thoroughly purged with
clean air before entering and adequate ventilation assured while persons are in such areas.

EFFECTS OF HEAT OR COLD

Soils should be protected against contact with surfaces which will be extremely hot
or extremely cold. Desiccation of clay soils beneath furnaces or along-side ducts carrying
hot gases will cause excessive and severe differential settlements. Spaces or tanks which
are permanently below freezing temperature cause frost heave and distress in anything but
clean, coarse sands and gravels, unless isolated from the soil. Insulation is not sufficient
under these conditions, as it merely slows down the rate of heat transmission to or from
the soil mass. A heat source is essential under low temperature structures and ventilation
is necessary around high temperature structures.

Collapse of retaining walls may occur in cold climates from ice lens formation unless
the walls are back-filled with nonfrost-heave material for a distance equal to maximum
frost penetration, and proper drainage provided.

SOIL DIS~RTIONS

Soils distort laterally as well as vertically under surface loadings. Usually this is
not significant; however, severe lateral distortions may develop in highly plastic soils
toward the edge of surface loadings, even though the loads are not sufficient to cause
rupture or mud waves. These laterial distortions may affect foundations or piles for
structures located in or adjacent to areas subject to high surface loading, such as structures
ps

- 52 -

along the edge of fills or a coal pile. Lateral distortions are a special hazard if
sensitive clays are present. In such soils, shearing strains accompanying the distortions
may lead to significant loss of shear strength or possibly even to flow failures or slides.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Both lateral and vertical displacements may develop in soil when displacement type
piles are driven, especially in cohesive soils. Pressures or displacements which develop
may cause displacements of previously driven piles or existing foundations, or result in
excessive pressures on retaining walls, sheeting for excavations, or buried pipes. Heaved
piles may be redriven and used. If there is significant lateral displacement, the piles
may be kinked or bowed beyond the safe limit of use. These hazards must be evaluated in
the investigational program, and provision made in design and construction procedures to be
sure other structures or piles are not damaged or displaceJ by the driving of adjacent
piles. Preboring through the cohesive strata should be required if there is any hazard
of disturbing exiting structures or previously driv~n piles.

REFERENCES

ORGANIC SOILS

MacFARLANE, I.C. (Editor), 1969. Muskeg Engineering Handbook. univ. Toronto Press, Toronto.

NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED CLAYS

MILLIGfu~, V., SODERMAN, L.G. and RUTKA, A., 1962.Experience with Canadian varved clays.
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs. 88: S.M.4, 31-67

STERMAC, A.G., LO K.Y. and BARSVARY A.K., 1967. Performance of an embankment on a deep
deposit of varved clay. Can. Geotech. J. 4:1, 45-67.

SENSITIVE CLAYS

BOZOZUK, M., 1970. Effect of sampling, size, and storage on test results for marine clay.
In: Sampling of Soil and Rock - Am. Soc. Testing Mater., Spec. Tech. Pub1. 483: 121-131.

CRAWFORD, C.B., 1961. Engineering studies of Leda clay. In: R.F. LEGGET (Editor) Soils in
Canada. Roy. Soc. Can., Spec. Pub1. 3: 200-217.

CRAWFORD, C.B., 1968. Quick clays of eastern Canada. Engg. Geo1. 2(4): 239-265.

EDEN, W.J., 1970. Samples trials in overconsolidated sensitive clay In: Sampling of
Soil and Rock - Am. Soc. Testing Mater., Spec. Tech. Pub1. 483: 132-142.

KARROW, P.F. 1961. The Champlain Sea and its sediments. In: R.F. LEGGET (Editor), Soils
in Canada. Roy, Soc. Can., Spec. Pub1. 3: 97-108.

LaROCHELLE, P. and LEFEBVRE, G., 1970. Sampling disturbance in Champlain clays. In:
Sampling of Soil and Rock - Am. Soc. Testing Mater., Spec. Tech. Pub1. 483: 143-163.

MILOVIC, D.M., 1970. Effect of sampling on some soil characteristics. In: Sampling of
soil and Rock - Am. Soc. Testing Mater., Spec. Tech. Pub1. 483: 164-179.

EXPANSIVE CLAYS

HAMILTON, J.J., 1965 Shallow foundations on swelling clays in western Canada. Proc. Intern.
Res. Engg. Conf. Expansive Clay soils. Texas A & M. univ. 2: 183-207.

HAMILTON, J.J., 1969 Effects of environment on the performance of shallow foundations.

Can. Geotech. J. 6:1, 65-80.
 p
- 53 -

LOOSE GRANULAR SOILS

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

SEED, H.B. and IDRISS, I.M., 1967 Analysis of soil liquifaction, Niigata earthquake.
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs. 93: S.M.3, 83-108.

METASTABLE SOILS

HARDY, R.M., 1950. Construction problems in silty soils. Eng. J. 33(9): 775-782.

ARTIFICIAL FILL

MacFARLANE, I.C., 1970. Gas explosion hazards in sanitary land fills. Pub. Wks. ~fag.
May, 76-78.

SEDIMENTARY AND METAWJRPHIC ROCKS

CONLON, R.J, TANNER, R.G. and COLDWELL, K.L., 1971. The geotechnical design of the
Townline road-rail tunnel. Can. Geotech. J. 8:2, 299-314.

RETTIE, J.R. and PATTERSON, F.W., 1963 Some foundation consideration at the Grand Rapids
hydro-electric project. Eng. J. 46:12, 32-38.

SCOTT, J.S., 1971. Discussion of "The geotechnical design of the Townline road-rail
tunnel". Can. Geotech. J. 8:4, 607-608.

SHALES

HARDY, R.H., 1957. Engineering problems involving preconsolidated clay shales. Trans.
Engg. Inst. Can. 1: 5-14.

PENNER, E., EDEN, W.J. and GILLOT, J.E. 1973. Floor heave due to biochemical weathering
of shaLe. Proc. Intern. Conf.Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 8th,Moscow,1973, 2.2: 151-158.

PETERSON, R., JASPAR, J.L., RIVARD, P.J. and IVERSON, N.L., 1960. Limitations of laboratory
shear testing in evaluating stability of highly plastic clays. Proc. Res. Conf. on
Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils - Am. Soc. Civil Engrs. 765-791 Boulder 1960

QUIGLEY, R.M. and VOGAN, R.W., 1970 Black shale heaving at Ottawa, Canada. Can. Geotech.
J. 7:2, 106-112.

SCOTT, J.S. and BROOKER, E.W., 1966 Geological and engineering aspects of Upper Cretacian
shales in western Canada. Geo1. Surv. Can. Paper 66-37.

LANDSLIDES

CRAWFORD, C.B., 1968. Quick clays of eastern Canada. Eng. Geo1. 2:4, 239-269.

EDEN, W.J., and MITCHELL, R.J., 1970. The mechanics of landslides in Leda clay. Can.
Geotech. J. 7:2, 285-296.

EDEN, W.J. and MITCHELL, R.J., 1973. Landslides in sensitive marine clay in eastern Canada.
Shear Strength of Fine-grained Soils. HWy. Res. Ree. 463, 18-27.

LaROCHELLE, P., CHAGNON, J.Y. and LEFEBVRE, G. 1970. Regional geology and landslides in
marine clay deposits of eastern Canada. Can. Geotech. J. 7:2, 145-156.
 - 54 -

PERMAFROST

BROWN, R.J.E., 1970. Permafrost in Canada. Univ. Toronto Press., Toronto.

CRAWFORD, C.B. and JOHNSTON, G.H., 1971. Construction on permafrost. Can. Geotech. J.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

8:2, 236-251.

SANGER, F.J., 1969. Foundation of structures in cold regions. Cold Reg. Res. Engg. Lab. -
Cold Reg. Sci. Engg. Monogr., lll-C4.

JOHNSTON, G.H., (Editor), Permafrost Engineering Manual. (In preparation).

 P
iii"

CHAPTER 5

EXCAVATIONS AND RETAINING STRUCTURES

TAB LEO F CON TEN T S

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

5.1. UNSUPPORTED EXCAVATIONS 57

5.2. SUPPORTED EXCAVATIONS 57

5. 2.1. WALL PRESSURES 57

5.2.2. EARTH PRESSURES AS RELATED TO DEFORMATION 57
5.2.3. CANTILEVERED (UNBRACED) WALLS 59
5.2.4. ANCHORED WALLS 61
5.2.4.1. Earth Pressures 61
(1) Analytical method
(2) Empirical method
5 .2.4.2. Computa tions Of Loads On Anchors 63
(1) Analytical method
5.2.4.3. Effects Of Anchor Inclina tion 63
5.2.4.4. Design Of Soil And Rock Anchors 65
(1) General
(2) Allowable anchor load in soils
(3) Anchor load capacity established from pull-out tests
(4) Computations of anchor load capacity in soils
(5) Allowable anchor load in rock
(6) Location of anchorages
(7) Installation of anchorages
(8) Stressing and proof loading of anchors
5.2.4.5. Overall Stability Of Anchorage System 72
(1) Single-level anchor system
(2) Multiple-level anchor systems
5 • 2.5. STRUTTED WALLS 72
5.2.5.1. Design Loads - Earth Pressures 72
(1) Cohesionless soils
(2) Soft to firm clays
(3) Stiff to very hard clays
5. 2 • 5 • 2. Surcharge Loading 76
5.2.5.3. Effect Of Seepage And Drainage 76
5.2.5.4. Design And Installation Of Members 76
(1) Structural design
(2) Struts
(3) Rakers and raker footings
(4) Soldier piles
(5) Lagging
(6) Diaphragm walls, sheetpiling
(7) Penetration of vertical members
5.2.5.5. Interim Construction Conditions 81
5.2.6. BASAL INSTABILITY 81
5.2.6.1. Soft To Firm Clays 81
5.2.6.2. Cohesionless Soils 83
- 55 -
 - 56 -

5.2.7. MOVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCAVATION 83

5.2.7.1. General 83
5.2.7.2. Strutted Excavations 83
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

(1) Magni tude of movements

(2) Means of reducing movements
5.2.7.3. Anchored Walls 84

(1) Magnitude of movements

5.2.7.4. Loss Of Ground Behind Excavations 84

(1) Cbhesionless soils

(2) Soft to firm clays
5.2.8. UNDERPINNING 85
5.2.8.1. General Support Requirements 85
5.2.8.2. Requirements For Underpinning Supports 85

5.3. CONTROL OF GROUNDWATER IN EXCAVATIONS 88

5.3.1. METHODS FOR THE CONTROL AND REMOVAL OF GROUNDWATER 88

5. 3 .2. GRA VITY DRAINAGE 88

5.3.3. PUMPING FROM INSIDE THE EXCAVATION 89
5.3.3.1. Pumping From Unsupported Excavations 89
(1) Heave due to artesian pressure at depth
(2) Use of relief wells
5.3.3.2. Pumping From Sheeted Excavations 89
(1) Basal instability of sheeted excavations due to seepage
(~) Heave due to artesian pressure at depth
(3) Use of relief wells
5. 3.4. PUMP ING FROM OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION 91

5.4. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS 95

5.4.1. DESIGN WADS 95

5.4.1.1. Effect Of Wall Movement And Wall Restraint 95
(1) yielding rigid walls
(2) Restrained rigid walls
5.4.1.2. Effect Of Compaction 95
(1) Cohesionless soils
(2) Cohesive soils
5.4.1.3. Effect Of Backfill Type 96
(1) Cohesionless soils
(2) Sandy clays and clayey sands
(3) Silts and clayey silts
5.4.1.4. Low Walls 96
(1) Equivalent fluid pressures
(2) Drainage
5.4.2. RETAINING WALL DESIGN 96
5.4.2.1. Stability Against Sliding 96
5.4.2.2. Stability Against Bearing Failure And Overturning 101
5.4.2.3. Settlement 101
5.4.3. OVERALL STABILITY 101

APPENDIX 5A. THEORETICAL WALL PRESSURES 103

 CHAPTER 5

EXCAVATIONS AND RETAINING STRUCTURES

5.1 UNSUPPORTED EXCAVATIONS

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

The safety and stability of unsupported excavations depend on the soil and groundwater
conditions and on the depth and slope of the cut. In granular materials, slope failures
will generally be fairly shallow; in clays, however, deep rotational failures involving
not only the sides, but also the base of the excavation, are possible.

Many cuts in clay will stand unsupported to quite large depths for a period of time
and then fail. The operational shear strength of clay masses changes with time subsequent
to stress release caused by excavation. This can lead to a progressive deterioration in
the stability conditions; which can be rapid in stiff highly fissured soils,
but is less rapid in softer clays. The important factor affecting stability is the
piezometric level or groundwater level in the slope. High piezometric levels reduce the
effective stresses along the surface of sliding and create extra driving forces where open
tension cracks exist at the back of the overstressed zone.

In sensitive clays such as the Champlain Sea clays (which includes the Leda clays),
massive retrogressive flow slides can result once failure is provoked. In these soils
considerable caution should be used during excavation operations and deformations should
be rigidly controlled and monitored.

Clay soils may fail either under undrained conditions (short term) or under drained
conditions (long term). In general, excavations will be more stable in the short term
and less stable in the long term. The length of time required before the long term
(or drained) condition becomes relevant to stability depends on many factors and it is
therefore advisable to check both drained and undrained stability before adopting any
given excavation design.

The principles of analysis of the stability of slopes are dealt with in TERZAGHI &
PECK, (1967)which details further references covering the techniques of analysis for specific
problems.

5.2 SUPPORTED EXCAVATIONS

5.2.1 WALL PRESSURES

For rigid, inflexible walls such as free standing retaining walls, earth, water and
surcharge pressures can be computed adequately from theory for most real situations. The
relevant information is contained in Appendix 5A.

For flexible and semi-flexible walls such as those commonly used for the support of
vertical faces of excavations, and which may have a variety of support conditions, no
satisfactory general theoretical solutions for earth pressures are available. A guide to
the probable earth pressures for various situations is given in 5.2.2.

5 .2.2 EARTH PRESSURES AS RELATED TO DEFORMATION

The earth pressure which acts on an earth supporting structure is strongly dependent
on the lateral deformations which have occurred in the soil (Fig 5.l(a). Consequently, unless
the deformation conditions can be estimated with reasonable accuracy, no rational attempt at
predicting either the total force or the distribution of earth pressure is possible.

For rigid walls, a fairly simple relationship exists between the wall movement and
the earth pressure provided that the displacement of the top of the wall is not less than
the displacement of the bottom of the wall. As shown in Fig. 5.l(b) the pressure distri-
bution remains close to a triangular form and ranges between the failure limits of the

- 57 -
 - 58 -

NOD IS P LA C EM E N T
r-1 COMPRESSION
(0) SIMPLIFIED
,
I
,
THEORETICAL
EARTH PRESSURE H y I
CONDITIONS
I
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

AT REST ACTIVE STATE PASSIVE STATE

M EXPANSION H COMPRESSION

(b) RIGID WALL I

DISPLACEMENT OF TOP OF WALL I
NOT LESS THAN DISPLACEMENT
OF BOTTOM OF WALL H
I
I
I

NO DISPLACEMENT EXPANSION

(c) RIG I
BOTTOM OF WALL
DISPLACED H y
OUTWARD MORE
THAN TOP OF WALL

EXPANSION

(e) TIE D
(d) STRUTTED FLEXIBLE
FLEXIBLE WALL WALL
H

NOTE: VALUES OF KA' Ko I Kp ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX 5A

FIG 5.1
EFFECT OF DEFORMATION ON EARTH PRESSURES
 59 -

active case (failure due to lack of support) and the passive case (failure due to
excessive lateral thrust).
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Where the base of a rigid wall is displaced outward further than the top of the wall,
a parabolic pressure distribution as shown in Fig. 5.1(c) results. The corresponding
force on the wall for this condition is generally about 10 per cent to 15 per cent greater
than the force under active failure conditions.

For flexible walls, the deformations and hence the earth-pressures are much more
complex. The yield of one part of a flexible wall throws pressure onto the more rigid
parts. Hence the pressures in the vicinity of supports are higher than in unsupported
areas, and the loads on individual supports vary, depending largely on the stiffness
characteristics of the supports themselves.

For strutted walls, it has been shown that the final deformation conditions are
approximately as shown in Fig. 5.1(d). This profile results mainly from deformation
which occurs below the base of the cut, and before the installation of struts. The final
average deflection condition is not greatly different from that shown for rigid walls
in Fig. 5.1(c) and the total horizontal force is generally with ± 30 per cent of the
theoretical total pressure for this condition. However, the detailed deflection conditions
and hence the detailed pressure distribution is almost entirely a function of minute
details in the construction technique and procedure. Individual loads in 'identical'
struts in any particular set of observations have been found to vary from the average
value for those particular struts by up to ± 60 per cent. (LAMBE et aI, (1970».

For anchored walls, the deflection characteristics and hence the pressure distribu-
tion differ from strutted walls. Once installed and stressed, struts can be considered
basically to be fixed deflection supports; anchors, on the other hand, generally
approximate fixed load supports. Anchored walls will therefore come much nearer than
strutted walls to having triangular pressure distributions. In addition, stressing of
anchors on the basis of higher lateral pressures tends to reduce wall movements subsequent
to anchor placement (Article 5.7.1).

The pressure distribution on flexible walls with large unsupported spans such as in
flexible bulkheads differs from the above cases and is discussed in BJERRUM et a1, (1972),
and TERZAGHI, (1953).

5.2.3 CANTILEVERED (UNBRACED) WALLS

Cantilevered walls (Fig. 5.2) are frequently used to support soil faces up to about
15 ft in height. They are generally considered to act as rigid structures and to
rotate about some point beneath the base of the excavation. The earth pressures acting
on the walls are therefore considered to approximate to the active and passive failure
conditions (Appendix SA).

Cantilevered walls are not suitable for permanent support in clay soils except those
having low compressibility. Where used for permanent support in these soils, they should
be analysed on the basis of effective stresses, using ~' the effective angle of shearing
resistance, and neglecting cohesion. For temporary support in clay soils, design is on
the basis of the undrained shear strength c u ' and computed earth pressures may be
negative; a minimum earth pressure of 0.25 yz, at any depth z, should be used on the
active side of the wall.

The method of analysis is shown in Fig. 5.2. Note that where water occurs behind
the wall, the relevant water pressures must be added to earth pressures in all effective
stress analyses; in total stress analyses, water pressure must be added where computed
active pressures are negative.
 - 60 -

,
"" ",,
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

",/
"""'-"" ACTIVE PRESSURE DIAGRAM
MUST INCLUDE WATER
PRESSURE AND SURCHARGE
TYPICAL BENDING MOMENT
PRESSURES, IF PRESENT
DISTRIBUTION IN CANTILEVERED
WA LLS

PASSIVE PRESSURE
DIAGRAM MUST
INC LUDE WATER
PRESSURE IF D'
PRESENT

L MR = 0 GIVES D' AND HENCE Pp , P

A

L H 0 GIVES R AND HENCE MOMENT DIAGRAM

(ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PRESSURE DIAGRAMS SHOULD BE OBTAINED

FROM APPENDIX SA )

FIG 5.2
FORCES ON CANTILEVERED UNBRACED WALL
 - 61 -

5.2.4 ANCHORED WALLS

5.2.4.1 Earth Pressures

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

The actual earth pressures which finally act on an anchored wall will depend
on;

the wall stiffness relative to the soil,

the anchor spacing,
the anchor yield, and
the prestress locked into the anchors at installation.

Two possible design methods are outlined below.

(1) Analytical method

The pressure diagrams are assumed to be triangular in form ( See

5.2.2). For all soils, it is preferable that pressures be computed on
the basis of effective stresses using ~', the effective angle of shearing
resistance, neglecting cohesion.* (See Appendix 5A for details of earth
pressure diagrams).

(a) 'Active' pressures

i) If moderate wall movements can be permitted ( See 5.2.7.), active

pressure may be computed using the coefficient of active earth
pressure K .
A
ii) If foundations of buildings or services exist at shallow depth at a
distance less than H (height of the wall) behind the top of the wall
and not closer than 0.5H, the pressure should be computed using a
coefficient K - 0.5 (K + K )'
A o
iii) If foundations of buildings or services exist at shallow depth at a
distance less than 0.5H behind the top of the wall, pressure should
be computed using the coefficient of earth pressure at rest Ko'

iv) Where foundations of adjacent buildings extend to below the base of

the wall, active pressure may be computed as in i) above.

(b) 'Passive' pressures

Passive pressures, relating to that portion of the wall below the

base of the excavation, should be computed using a reduced coefficient of
passive pressure K ' - K (JL), where the factor of safety FS is not less
than 1.5. p P FS
(2) Empirical method

If installation and deformation conditions are considered to approximate

those obtained in strutted excavations, the pressure diagrams recommended in
paragraphs 5.2.5.1 to 5.2.5.3 may be used to estimate the pressures on the wall.

* Where the excavation is in stiff cohesive soil and is open for only a limited period, pressures may
be computed on the basis of the 'short term' or 'undrained' condition using the undrained shear
strength Cu, with ~u = O. Where computed active pressures are zero, a minimum earth pressure of
0.25 yz at any depth z, should be used in computations. Below the water table, water pressures are
included where computed active pressures are negative.
 - 62 -

P AND Pp SHOULD BE
A
DETERMINED AS IN
5.2.4.1(1) AND SHOULD
INCLUDE WATER PRESSURE
AND SURCHARGE EFFECTS
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

A IS THE HORIZONTAL
COMPONENT OF THE
ANCHOR FORCE

TO DETERMINE Al' SOLVE FOR

LH 0
I PEN E T RA T ION RE QUI RED LM=O
I FORFS=l
I
I
I
I
: ACTUAL BASE OF WALL

V
(0) ANALYSIS FOR FIRST ANCHOR

FOR Al - A _
n 1 I USE THE
PRE V IOU SLY CALC U LA TED
VALUES

PA' Pp DETERMINED AS
IN FIG. 5.30)

TO DETERMINE A , SOLVE
FO R n

LH = 0
LM = 0

(b) ANALYSIS FOR INTERMEDIATE ANCHORS

FIG 5.3
CALCULATION OF ANCHOR FORCES
 p
- 63 -

5.2.4.2 Computations of Loads on Anchors

(1) Analytical method

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Where lateral pressures are computed on the basis of paragraph

5.2.4.1.(1), the following steps in computing anchor loads are
recommended:

Add relevant water pressures and the effect of any surcharge

loads (Appendix A).

Assume that the highest load on the nth level anchor occurs just
before placing the (n+l) anchor and draw the excavation cross-
section for that condition (Fig. 5.3).

For all anchors other than the lowest, determine the depth of
penetration of the wall required to establish a factor of
safety of 1.0 against rotation using the pressure diagrams
previously established, and taking into account the design forces
in previously installed anchors.

Determine the required force in the nth anchor for stability of

the wall, based on equilibrium of all horizontal forces.

For the next to lowest anchor, check that the required depth of
penetration as indicated by the analysis is in fact available.

For the lowest anchor, take the depth of penetration at the

proposed design value and calculate the anchor force from
horizontal force equilibrium.

Check the bending moments that will develop in the wall at each
stage of construction. Critical conditions will occur imme-
diately before each anchor is installed.

In general, where the lowest anchor is more than a few feet from
the bottom of the wall, the wall should penetrate below the
base of the cut at least to the depth at which the computed
resultant earth pressure is zero. (Where this is not so, substan-
tial bending moments may exist in the bottom section of the wall
and the load on the lowest anchor may increase as a result of
stress redistribution.)

5.2.4.3. Effects of Anchor Inclination

Anchors are usually inclined downwards, transmitting the vertical component

of the anchor force into the anchored vertical member. This force should be
considered in design, together with the weight of the vertical member itself.

Forces which resist downward movement due to the inclined anchor load are
skin friction and the reaction at the base of the vertical member. The range of
possible skin friction mobilized to resist downward movement for diaphragm walls
is shown in Fig. 5.4. The reaction of the base of the vertical member should
be computed in accordance with Chapters 6 and 7 of this Manual.

When soldier piles are used, vertical forces are concentrated in the piles.
Only minimal friction, if any, can be mobilized. Such vertical forces must
therefore be supported in end-bearing at the base of the pile. The base capacity
of the pile must be checked, otherwise unacceptable vertical and horizontal
deformations may take place. It is sound practice for the base of a steel WF
or H section soldier pile to be placed in a clean pre-bored hole filled with
concrete. This markedly increases available base capacity.
 - 64 -

t
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

t
f
t ANCHOR PULL

t
BA S E 0 F
~
•
SKIN FRICTION DEPENDS
ON ANCHOR LOAD
EXCAVATION I (SEE TABLE)

t
f
t

r- COHESIONLESS SOILS

(0 HESIVE SOILS

BASIS OF ANCHOR 8f c
a
DESIGN

KA 0 0

~ (K A + K )
0
1/3 cp c
u

Ko 2/3 cp c
u

FIG 5.4
POSSIBLE SKIN FRICTION ON DIAPHRAGM WALL
 - 65 -

Settlement of vertical members produces some reduction in anchor loads

with a consequent tendency for outward displacement of the supported face. It
is therefore essential to monitor vertical and horizontal movements at the top
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

and bottom of the excavation at regular intervals throughout the course of the
work.

5.2.4.4. Design of Soil and Rock Anchors

(1) General

The anchors discussed in this article are considered to be temporary.

Each consists of a stressing tendon (rod or cable) connecting a fixed
anchorage (within the soil or rock mass) to a surface anchorage or head.
In cohesionless soils and rock the fixed anchorages are almost invariably
formed by pressure grouting techniques while in stiff cohesive soils tremie
methods may also be used except where the inclination of the hole to the
horizontal is not very great. Typical anchor details are shown in Fig. 5.5.

The performance of soil and rock anchors is dependent, not only on

minor variations in soil and groundwater conditions, but also on construction
techniques and details. Consequently, the prediction of anchor capacity
is difficult. Anchorage capacities calculated using the procedures out-
lined here are considered to represent reasonable design limits, but
must be proved by test or proof loading during construction.

(2) Allowable anchor load in soils

The load capacity of an anchor in soils should, wherever possible, be

established by a pull-out test (5.2.4.4.(3». The allowable anchor
load Ta , is determined by dividing the test load capacity Tt , of the anchor
by a factor of safety FS.

_ 1
Ta -

Required m1n1mum values of FS vary between 1.5 and 2.0 depending upon
inclination and are shown in Fig 5.6. Values between those given may be
obtained by linear interpolation.

Where no pull-out tests are carried out, the allowable anchor load Ta ,
is obtained by dividing the computed load capacity Tc , of the anchor
5.2.4.4.(4» by a minimum factor of safety FS 3. In this case:

T
T =-.£.
a 3

(3) Anchor load capacity established from pull-out tests

Where the load capacity of anchors are to be determined by pull-out

tests, it is recommended that at least one anchor in ten of those actually
used in the project, with a minimum of three in each soil or rock type, be
tested.

The pull-out capacity of the anchor Tt , is defined as that load at

which withdrawal of the anchor begins. If the load is not clearly apparent
from the test data, the pull-out capacity is taken as the maximum load at
which withdrawal is still tolerable for the structure. If an ultimate
capacity is not reached, or no withdrawal is observed in the test loading,
the greatest applied test load should be assumed as the pull-out capacity
for calculation of the allowable anchor load Ta'
 Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

FI G
5.5
(AS REQUIRED)
PROTECTIVE JACKET

TYPICAL ANCHOR DETAILS

- 66 -
"
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays
...

- 67 -

'~'~~~~M,l
STRUCTURE TO
BE ANCHORED

USUAL DEADMAN
AREA WITH
FS REQ'D == 1.50

INCLINATION 1:2
....J~ _ _~
<{----~
WITH FS REQ' D 1.50
uJ-----~

I - I - - -_ _ _ _ ~

0:: ~----_\.

LU (:::::========~
>. US UA<L
INCLINATION 1:1
(:TENSION
WITH FS REQ'D= 1.75
i= PILE AREA
J: WIT H =======~
F S RE Q I D == 2.00
r--_ _ _ _ _ _ _. . INCLINATION 2:1
WITH FS REQ'D = 2.00

FIG 5.6
REQUIRED SAFETY FACTORS FOR LOAD TESTED ANCHOR
 - 68 -

(4) computations of anchor load capacity in soils

(a) cohesionless soils

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Computation of the anchor load capacity Tc, for grouted anchors in

cohesion1ess soils can be estimated from the equation.

where a' effective vertical stress at the midpoint of the load

z carrying length (Fig. 5.5)
effective surface area of the anchorage
and anchorage coefficient dependent on the soil type and
density as given in Table 5.1

TABLE 5.1

Variations in K
f
Density
Soil Type Loose Compact Dense

Silt 1 4 10

Fine Sand 1.5 6 15

Medium Sand 5 12 20

Coarse Sand, Gravel 10 20 30

(b) cohesive soils

Computation of the anchor load capacity Tc, in stiff to very hard

cohesive soils can be estimated from the equation.

T A c ().
c s u

where A effective surface area of the anchorage

s
c average undrained shear strength of the soil over the
u
anchorage length
and reduction factor related to the undrained shear strength
(Fig. 5.7).

Anchors should not be formed in soft or firm clays (c = 250 to 1,000 1b/sq ft)
or in sensitive clays because of the large deformatiogs which can occur,
both at and subsequent to loading.
 rtl
'-'

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

1 .00 i

NOT
APPLICABLE
0.75

u °1 u ::> 0.50
II
't:t
0.25 (J'\
1.0

o' ,
o 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

C UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT

u -

FIG 5.7
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN a AND UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH FOR ANCHORAGE DESIGN
 - 70 -

(5) Allowable anchor load in rock

Anchorage design in rock is based on an allowable grout to rock bond

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

stress Sb, acting over the fixed anchorage length. Sb should not exceed
the minimum value given by the following criteria;

Sb ~ 1/30 (unconfined compressive strength of the rock)

* 1/30 (unconfined compressive strength of the grout)
t 200 lb/sq in.

Using these criteria, the allowable anchor load Ta , is given by the equation:

where effective area of the anchorage, with a minimum anchorage

length of 10 ft.

(6) Location of anchorages

The depth of overburden above any anchorage should not be less than
15 ft in soil (Fig. 5.8) and not less than 5 ft in sound rock where sound
rock is defined in Chapter 4 of this Manual. Unsound or weathered rock
should be treated as soil.

Where mUltiple anchors are used, the mlnlmum spacing between anchorages
in a line should be equal to 4D, where D = anchorage diameter (Fig 5.8).

(7) Installation of anchorages

The advancement of the hole for a soil or rock anchor must be carried
out in a manner that precludes the possibility of loss of ground or flow
of wet soil into the hole. Where penetrating water-bearing zones or
wet soil are encountered, holes must be temporarily cased. Such casing
should only be withdrawn after that section of the hole in water-bearing
zones is backfilled with concrete or grout to the level of hydrostatic
pressure within the water-bearing zone.

In common practice, anchorages in soil are effected by advancing a

hole using a hollow stem auger to the full anchorage depth. Where the hole
is 8 in. diameter or less, grout is injected through the hollow stem at
pressures often considerably in excess of 100 lb/sq in. to achieve a grouted
anchorage length. Care must be taken to ensure that high grout pressures
will not cause damage to adjacent structures or services. Where the hole is
up to 12 in. diameter, concrete rather than grout is pumped through the
hollow stem as the auger is withdrawn. Since the hole is of large diameter,
it is not necessary to use high pressures for the concrete.

(8) Stressing and proof loading of anchors

Each installed anchor should be stressed and proof loaded to 1.33 times
the allowable or design working load for the anchor. The following
procedure is recommended:

i) Test load the anchor to 80 per cent of the ultimate tensile strength
of the tendon, hold for five minutes and then reduce the load to zero.

ii) Restress the anchor to the required working load plus 10 per cent and
record tendon movement at the ram as the load is incrementally applied.
During this second loading cycle, the load-extension graph obtained
should compare closely with the estimated extension of the free length
 - 71 -

15' MIN.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

H
f
4D MIN.

MI N. *

* STABILITY TO BE CHECKED
BASE ~ AS IN 5.2.4.4
OF WA LL

4D MIN.

P LA N V lEW

FIG 5.8
MINIMUM SPACING AND DEPTH FOR SOIL ANCHORS
$

- 72 -

of tendon. Lock off the anchor at working load, plus an allowance

(usually 10 per cent) for relaxation and pull-in of wedges. Working
load should not exceed 60 per cent of the ultimate tensile strength of
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

the tendon.

iii) Check the anchor after 15 minutes. If a loss of prestress in excess of

5 per cent is recorded, restore to working load plus 10 per cent by
shimming.

iv) Repeat step (iii).

v) If a further loss of prestress is recorded, reduce the anchor load until

creep ceases. A safe working load for the anchor is then equal to 60
per cent of the load showing no creep after 15 minutes.

5.2.4.5. Overall Stability of Anchorage System

The overall stability of the anchorage system is checked by analysing the

stability of the block of soil lying between the wall and the anchorages.

Note: It is assumed that overall stability of the excavation has

initially been checked by the methods given under
5.2.6 Basal Instability and 5.4.3 Overall Stability.

(1) Single-level anchor systems

The anchoring body (Figs. 5.9 and 5.10) is analysed for stability with
respect to movement along a lower failure plane DF. This plane extends
from the base of the retaining wall to the mid-point of the anchorage.
For the case where the anchorage lies below the base of the retaining wall,
stability of the anchoring body is assumed.

(2) Multiple-level anchor systems

The stability of each level of the anchoring system should be checked,

commencing at the top anchor. At each level, the required anchor force
is the sum of all anchor forces above the relevant lower failure plane.

Three possible cases according to the location of the anchorages with

respect to the base of the retaining wall are shown in Fig. 5.11. The
failure planes requiring stability analyses are indicated in each case.
The method of analysis for each anchoring body is the same as that indicated
for the single anchorage system.

5.2.5 STRUTTED WALLS

5.2.5.1 Design Loads - Earth Pressures

The distribution of stress against the walls of strutted excavations cannot

be adequately predicted from theory. Field measurements show that the actual
stress distribution varies from section to section depending on many construction
variables. Since for a safe excavation no single strut may be overloaded, design
is based on an envelope of probable distributions, determined from field experience.
 - 73 -

LIVE LOAD - TO BE INCLUDED

IN ANALYSIS ONLY IF LOWER
ACTIVE FAILURE WEDGES FAILURE PLANE IS INCLINED
/ T O HO",ZO NT. l • TANG LE > 4>
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

ANCHORING
BODY

cp = ANGLE OF SHEARING
RESISTANCE
AREQ'D = CALCULATED ANCHOR
PULL FOR WALL STABILITY
P = ACTIVE FORCE (FROM H TOF)*
A
P
1
= ACTIVE FORCE (FROM C TOD)*
C1 = c u x L
* WATER PRESSURES NOT INCLUDED
BASE 0 F IN THESE CALCULATIONS
RETAINING
WALL

(0) FORCES ACTING ON ANCHORING BODY

R1 DIRECTION

~ANCHOR DIRECTION

ApOSS = POSSIBLE MAGNITUDE

. OF A
NOTE: MAGNITUDE OF R1 MUST
BE CHECKED TO ENSURE
COMPATABILITY WITH
ANCHOR DIRECTION

(b) VECTOR DIAGRAM

FIG 5 .9
GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF ANCHORED WALLS
a
- 74 -

EQUIVALENT
IMAGINARY
ANCHOR
SEPARATION
WALL
JOINT
H

SO IL MA S S
2
ACTIVE FAILURE
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

WEDGE

! SOIL WITH

t'UI (</>ul
0)

ISOIL WITH
+CP2 (C 2 0)

cp = ANGLE OF SHEARING RESISTANCE

ARE Q I D = CAL C U LA TE DAN C H 0 R PULL

FOR WALL STABILITY
PA ACT IVE FORCE (FROM H TO F)"
P ACTIVE FORCE (FROM C TO D)"
(0) FORCES ACTING ON ANCHORING 1
BODY (SOIL MASSES 1 AND 2) C1 cu1xL
., WATER PRESSURE NOT INCLUDED
IN THESE CALCULATIONS

Rl D IRE C T ION

DIRECTION

ApOSS. '" POSSIBLE MAGNITUDE OF A

NOTE: MAGNITUDES OF Rl AND R2
MUST BE CHECKED TO ENSURE
COMPATABILITY WITH ANCHOR
DIRECTION

(b) VECTOR DIAGRAM

FIG 5.10
GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF ANCHORED WALLS (TWO LAYERS)
 - 75 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

/
/
/
/ ;I"
/ ;I"
/ ;I" _--

/
/,;~--
--"""
BASE BASE
OF WALL OF WALL

CASE A CASE B
ALL ANCHORS ABOVE LEVEL ANCHORS ABOVE AND
OF BA SE 0 F RET A I N I N G WA L L BELO W LEV EL 0 F BA SE
OF RETAINING WALL

BASE
OF WA L L

CASE C
ALL ANCHORS BELOW LEVEL OF BASE
OF RETAINING WALL. NO STABILITY
ANALYSIS REQUIRED

FIG 5.11
TYPICAL MULTIPLE LEVEL ANCHOR SYSTEMS SHOWING POTENTIAL
FA I L U REP LA N E S RE QUI R IN G STAB I LIT Y A N A LY SIS
 - 76 -

(1) Oohesionless soils

For cohesionless soils, the pressure distribution to be used in design

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

is shown in Fig 5.l2(a). The area of this rectangular pressure diagram

produces a lateral thrust about 30 per cent greater than the Rankine active
value.

(2) Soft to firm clays (c u - 250 to 1,000 lb/sq ft)

For soft to firm clays, the pressure distributions to be used are given
in Fig 5.12 (b), where the parameters referred to in the text and figures
are:

y unit weight of material, lb/cu ft

H depth of excavation, ft
Cu undrained shear strength of clay beside and immediately beneath
the cut, lb/sq ft
FSb factor of safety against base heave. (See 5.2.6.1.)

Where a great depth of soft clay exists below the excavation, use the
pressure diagram in Fig 5.l2(b) and a value for m = 0.4 FS •
b
Where a much more resistant layer is encountered at or near the base of
the excavation, use Fig 5.l2(b) and a value for m = 1.0.

In no case should the maximum pressure ordinate be less than 0.3 yH.

(3) Stiff to very hard clays (Cu > 1,000 lb/sq ft)

For stiff clays, the pressure diagram shown in Fig 5.l2(c) is recommended.
The variation in the value of maximum stress level, ranging from 0.2 YH to
0.4 YH, is dependent on the character of the clay, the degree of jointing or
fissuring, and the reduction in strength of the clay with time. The choice
within this range can only be made on the basis of experience and detailed
knowledge of the clay deposit.

5.2.5.2. Surcharge Loading

The design of all members must include the effects of loads of street traffic,
construction equipment, supported utilities, adjacent structures which are not
underpinned, and any other loads that must be carried by the walls of the excava-
tion during the construction period. (TERZAGHI & PECK, 1967)

5.2.5.3. Effect of Seepage and Drainage

Groundwater pressures estimated in design should be consistent with the

required or permissible drawdown levels. Where soldier beams with wood lagging
are to be utilized, groundwater is generally assumed to be at,.or below, the
base of the interior of the excavation. When the wall is intended to prevent all
leakage of groundwater, maximum exterior groundwater pressures should be used.

5.2.5.4. Design and Installation of Members

(1) Structural design

Members such as walls, struts, soldier piles, and sheeting should be

sized for the loads defined in 5.2.5.1 to 5.2.5.3 in accordance with the
structural requirements of Part 4 of the National Building Code 1975. The
effects of combined axial and flexural loading, unsupported span lengths
and lateral stability of the members must be considered in the design.
 - 77 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

(a) SANDS (b) SOFT TO FIRM CLAYS ( c) ST IFF F ISS U RED C LA Y S

.25H

.5H H
H ./5H H

.25H

7177/17 7777lTTT

O.65KA YH
I..
YH-
..I
4m . c u .2
1-Y H TO
..I Y
.4 H

NOTES:
1. CHECK SYSTEM FOR PARTIAL EXCAVATION CONDITION
2. IF THE FREE WATER LEVEL IS ABOVE THE BASE OF THE EXCAVATION THE
HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE MUST BE ADDED TO THE ABOVE PRESSURE
DIS T RIB UTI 0 N I N SA NOS
3. IF SURCHARGE LOADINGS ARE PRESENT AT OR NEAR THE GROUND
SURFACE THESE MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE LATERAL PRESSURE
CALCULATION.
4. VALUES OF m ARE GIVEN IN 5.2.5.1(2)

FIG 5 .12 (After Peck)

PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION COMPLETE EXCAVATION
 - 78 -

Details on contractor's shop drawings should show appropriate means

for posting of struts and walers, lacing of struts in both vertical and
horizontal planes to provide lateral stability, web and connection
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

stiffeners, brackets, and provisions for wedging and jacking of struts

to prevent horizontal movement. Details are a vital element in the adequacy
and safety of temporary earth retaining structures and should be shown
completely on the contractor's shop drawings in conjunction with the
methods and sequence of installation of all elements of the structure.
Particular attention should be given to procedures for pre-stressing,
wedging, or jacking to maintain tight contact for all bracing members and
to provide for uniformity of distribution of load to struts and walers.

(2) Struts

Struts should be designed for the loads calculated from 5.2.5.1. to

5.2.5.3. on the assumption that the members subjected to bending stresses
are hinged at each strut position.

Long struts may be subjected to large temperature-induced stresses

when exposed to the sun and it may be necessary to make an allowance in
design for this effect.

(3) Rakers and raker footings

Rakers and their connections may be designed in the same way as

horizontal struts.

Raker footings should be designed in accordance with the design

principles for shallow foundations subject to inclined loading, as outlined
in Chapter 6 of this Manual. Footings and the foundation material should
be protected from freezing or deterioration.

All raker footings should be located outside the zone of influence

of the Buried portion of soldier piles and at a distance of not less than
1.5D from the piles, where D • depth of penetration of the piles below the
base of the excavation. No excavation should be made within two footing
widths of the raker footings on the side opposite the rakers.

(4) Soldier piles

The design loads defined in 5.2.5.1 to 5.2.5.3 should be used for the
design of soldier piles or soldier beams. Soldier piles should be designed
as continuous members supported at strut or tie back points,and stresses
should be checked for various stages of construction when only partial
support may exist. For preliminary sizing, the members may be selected
assuming walers and piles to be hinged at the support points (i.e. the whole
system is simply supported) and the calculated bending moments reduced by
25 per cent.

Interim construction conditions must be analysed to check flexural

stresses in the soldier piles. When sloping berm excavation procedures are
employed, the depth to the equivalent support point which allows the
effective span of the pile to be determined, may be estimated using the
method illustrated in Fig 5.13.

Unless large soil movements adjacent to the excavation can be tolerated,

the soldier piles should be in place before excavation commences and
should remain in contact with the soil at all times. Consequently, no
excavation behind soldier piles should be allowed.

If soldier piles are installed in pre-augered holes, sloughing or

caving of the holes must be prevented. Immediately after installation of the
piles, the hole should be backfilled with lean concrete. If, because of
possible caving or sloughing, pre-augering is not possible, the soldier piles
should be installed by driving.
 - 79 -

SHA P E

THIS IS BAD PRACTICE

III WILLBE EXCESSIVE
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

(a)

THIS IS GOOD PRACTICE

112 ACCEPTABLE

I
1l2-----i TRENCH IN BERM TO
ACCEPT RAKER AND
I FOOTING (b)
I
I

(c)

h'/2

~;;
EQUIVALENT
SUPPORT POINT D

> 1.5 D

FIG 5·.13
PLACEMENT OF RAKER STRUTS
 p

- 80 -

(5) Lagging

The design of timber planks or lagging should conform with good

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

practice and the lagging should be of good quality hardwood. Lagging

is installed by hand after a depth of several feet is excavated. The
maximum depth made each time before a section of lagging is placed depends
on the soil characteristics. Soft clay and cohesion1ess soils must be
planked in short depths to reduce the amount of soil moving into the exca-
vation. Immediately after placement of lagging, wedges should be driven
to force it tightly against the soil. Voids behind the lagging should be
packed by hand to reduce the amount of loss of ground. The depth of
excavation below any lagging boards that have not been backfilled should not
exceed four feet.

To minimize the possibility of erratic loss of ground in local areas

when excavating sands and silts below original groundwater, it is essential
that straw packing, burlap, or in extreme conditions, grouting be used
behind the lagging as it is installed.

The design of timber lagging, in common practice, is empirical. In

general, the following practice has been found satisfactory for excavation
depths 25 ft or less.

TABLE 5.2

Thickness of lagging related to spacing of soldier piles

Spacing of Soldier Piles Thickness of Lagging

Up to 6.5 ft 2in

6.5 ft to 8.5 ft 3 in

8.5 ft to 10 ft 4 in

For excavation depths greater than 25 ft but less than 75 ft, the lagging
thickness should be increased by 1 in.

(6) Diaphragm walls, sheetpiling

Generally diaphragm walls and sheetpi1ed walls used for excavation

support are designed as continuous walls between supports. (TERZAGHI,1954).

The installation and construction in situ of diaphragm walls is critically

I dependent on construction techniques and should only be carried out by
contractors of recognized competence in this field of work.

(7) Penetration of vertical members

If the bracing system is designed such that there are no struts near the
bottom of the excavation, the depth of penetration provided should be 1.5
times the depth required for moment equilibrium about the lowest strut.

The resistance provided to the portion of wall penetrating below the

base of the excavation is computed using the passive pressure and ignoring
wall friction.

For driven soldier piles, the maximum horizontal force on the flange of
the soldier pile below the bottom of the excavation may be taken as 1.5 times
the values computed for the width of the flange, providing that the pile
spacing is not less than 5 times the flange width.

For piles placed in a concreted base, the diameter of the concrete-filled

hole may be used in place of the flange width as discussed in the preceding
paragraph.
 - 81 -

5.2.5.5 Interim Construction Conditions

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

The design of all members including struts, wa1ers, sheetpi1ing, walls and
soldier piles should be checked for several stages of partial excavation when
the wall is assumed to be continuous over the strut immediately above the
excavation level and supported some distance below the excavation level by the
available passive resistance. (See Fig 5.13 for the case where only a berm
remains to support the wall.) This condition could produce the maximum loading
in struts and wa1ers.

Where excessive stresses or loads would result from interim construction

conditions using regular construction procedures, trenching techniques can be
employed to advantage.

The design of members should also be checked for the condition when portions
of the building within the excavated area are completed and lower struts are
removed. Consideration must be given to the possible increase in loading on the
upper struts remaining in place; also the span between that portion of the
building that has been completed and the lowest strut then in place must be
considered in relation to flexural stresses.

Because of the possibility of delays in construction, it is essential that

the safety of the excavation is satisfactory for long term as opposed to short
term conditions. The pressure distribution diagrams given in Fig 5.12 are for
short term conditions only and in certain cases the pressure distribution can
vary considerably with time. It is therefore essential that monitoring of deforma-
tion (and hence implied stresses) be carried out systematically during construc-
tion and additional struts added if required.

5.2.6. BASAL INSTABILITY

5.2.6.1 Soft to Firm Clays (c u = 250 to 1,000 lb/sq ft)

Deep excavations in these soils are subject to base heave failures which
result from overstressing the soil in shear. (Fig 5.14). The factor of safety
with respect to base heave is:
~~
= yH + q

where c u is the undrained shear strength of the soil below base 1eve1*, Nb is
stability factor dependent upon the geometry of the excavation, and the
remaining parameters are those defined in 5.2.5.1.(2).
As the potential for bottom instability increases, the heave in the base of
the excavation increases and the loss of ground adjacent to the excavation
increases. It should be noted that, in the case of soft clays underlying the base
of the excavation where FSb is less than 2, substantial deformations may result
with consequent loss of ground. If soft clay extends to a considerable depth
below the excavation, the beneficial effects of even relatively stiff sheeting in
reducing deformation have been found to be minimal. However, if the lower portion
of the sheeting is driven into a hard stratum, the effectiveness of the sheeting
in reducing deformation is increased appreciably. No satisfactory theoretical
procedures exist to determine sheeting or wall pressures at depth below the base
of the excavation.

* For clay soils of moderate to high plasticity, definition of c u by conventional means can lead
to an overestimate of shear strength (BJERRUM, 1972).
 - 82 -

q
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

10r---~----~----~--~~--~----~----~--~----~----'

9
SQUARE OR
~ B _
Z CIRCLE T-
8
c:::
o
I-

~ 7
u.
0, INFINITE STRIP
>-
I-

....J
6
al
«
l-
STABILITY FACTOR FOR VARIOUS
V) 5 GEOMETRIES OF CUT

4 ~--~----~----~--~~--~----~----~--~----~--~
o 2 3 4 5
DIMENSION H/B

FIG 5 • 14 (After Janbu)

FACTOR OF SAFETY WITH RESPECT TO BASE HEAVE
 - 83 -

5.2.6.2. Cohesion1ess Soils

In cohesionless soils, basal instability takes the form of plplng or heave

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

and is associated with groundwater flow. Groundwater control can be achieved

by drainage, by using sheetpiling to support the face of the excavation and
providing adequate penetration of the piling for cut-off purposes, or by a
combination of the two methods. This is discussed in detail in 5.3 - CONTROL OF
GROUNDWATER IN EXCAVATIONS •

5.2.7. MOVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCAVATION

5.2.7.1. General

Movements associated with excavations are primarily related to construction

technique and commonly consist of lateral yield of the soil and support system
towards the excavations with corresponding vertical movement adjacent to the
excavation walls. Both lateral and vertical movements due to yield are generally
of the same order of magnitude; however, if very flexible soldier piles are used,
lateral movements can be grossly increased. Where construction technique is poor,
erratic movements can also occur due to loss of ground or erosion behind the wall.

5.2.7.2. Strutted Excavations

Movements due to yield in strutted excavations are, to a large extent,

unavoidable since they are controlled not by design assumptions but by construction
details and procedures. Such movements develop in each excavation phase before
the next level of struts is installed.

(1) Magnitude of movements

For well-constructed support systems, designed in accordance with the

requirements of 5.2.5, STRUTTED WALLS it has been found that deformations
are dependent on the wall height and related to the soil type.

a) cohesion1ess soils

If the struts are installed as soon as the support level is reached

and prestressed to 100 per cent of the design load, the lateral movements
in the system can be expected to be of the order of 0.2 per cent of the-
depth of the excavations.

b) soft to firm clays (c u = 250 to 1,000 1b/sq ft)

Substantial movements often occur when vertical cuts are made in

soft clays. These movements occur in spite of well-constructed and
installed support system. Measurements have shown that 60 to 80 per
cent of the total lateral yield occurs below the excavation level.
Struts should be installed and pre-stressed as soon as the excavation
reaches the support level. The applied prestress should be 100 per cent
of the design load. However, lateral movements below the bottom support
will increase significantly if the excavation reaches a depth where the
factor of safety against base heave becomes less than about 2.0. Even
if the system is properly installed, the maximum lateral movement of the
support system is likely to be 1 to 2 per cent of the excavation depth.

c) stiff clay (c u > 1,000 1b/sq ft)

The lateral movements of temporary support systems decrease sharply

as the shear strength of the soil increases. Limited available data
indicates that maximum lateral movements of excavations in stiff clays
with Cu > 1,5000 lb/sq ft will be less than 0.2 per cent of the excavation
depth and often less than 0.1 per cent provided struts are installed as
b
- 84 -

soon as the support level is reached and prestressed to 100 per cent
of the design load.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

(2) Means of reducing movements

To reduce the magnitude of movements it is necessary to reduce the

shear stresses induced in the ground by excavation. Two possible methods
can be utilized to effect this:

a) The unsupported depth of wall between supports can be shortened by using

more levels of struts. Generally, a vertical spacing of 8 ft between
strut levels is considered a minimum from a construction viewpoint, with
12 ft to 16 ft being preferred. The maximum spacing for small lateral
deformation is generally close to 12 ft, but where underpinning of small
or light adjacent structures is omitted, and tightly braced excavation
walls are intended to prevent movement of such adjacent structures, the
vertical spacing should be kept to the minimum value of 8 ft.

b) The unsupported depth of wall can be shortened by use of the trenching

method as illustrated in Fig 5.13.

5.2.7.3. Anchored Walls

The yield movements of anchored walls are controlled more by design methods
than with strutted walls. The number of anchors and the vertical spacing of such
anchors, plays a significant part in controlling the degree of lateral deformation.
In normal practice, movements due to yield of anchored diaphragms, sheeted or
soldier pile walls are usually less than for strutted walls for the same depth
of excavation.

(1) Magnitude of movements

If the wall and anchor system is designed on the basis of an earth

pressure coefficient K - KA, assuming good construction technique, lateral
wall movements and adjacent vertical settlements are generally about 0.2
per cent of the excavation depth.

If an earth pressure coefficient K - Ko is used in design, associated

movements are generally about 0.1 per cent of the excavation depth.

There is no definitive evidence to date to relate associated movements

with stiffness of the wall, but limited data available suggests that
diaphragm walls tend to induce lesser movements than sheet piled or soldier
pile walls.

In sensitive soils experience has shown that heavy prestressing of

ground anchors with the intention of reducing lateral movements can in fact
lead to overstress of the soil and result in increased vertical movement
adjacent to the wall.

5.2.7.4. Loss of Ground Behind Excavations

(1) Cohesionless soils

Because lateral yield of strutted or anchored excavations in cohesionless

soils is usually small, the loss of ground behind such systems is also
usually small. However, placement of lagging and backfill behind the lagging
must be emphasized (see 5.2.5.4.(5». With good workmanship and
attention to detail, settlements can often be kept to less than 0.05 per cent
of the depth of the excavation.

Two exceptions to the above general rule are sometimes encountered.

These are loss of ground due to flow of water into the cut with concomitant
soil erosion, and loss of ground due to densification of loose cohesionless
deposits. It is difficult to estimate settlements associated with flow or
migration of sands into a cut because of dependence on construction techniques,
 - 85 -

groundwater levels and local soil situations. Settlements due to densifica-

tion of loose cohesionless deposits can be of the order of 1.5 per cent of
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

the depth of the cut.

(2) Soft to firm clays (c u = 250 to 1,000 1b/sq ft)

Because significant lateral yield occurs in cuts in soft clays, the

surface settlements associated with such cuts are also substantial. The
magnitude and extent of these surface settlements may be estimated using
the relationships shown in Fig 5.15.

5.2.8. UNDERPINNING

Structures adjacent to excavations will frequently need to be supported. The support

required will depend on the soil type, and the magnitude of the foundation loads and
their locations with respect to the excavation. The structural loads may be carried by
direct underpinning of the foundations, or by the provision of additional lateral support
to the face of the excavation. The following recommendations assume the foundation
material to be soil. Rather less underpinning and more face support might well be
considered for rock foundations.

5.2.8.1. General Support Requirements

The geometry of zones within which support for adjacent structures is usually
considered necessary is shown on Fig 5.16. In general, foundations of adjacent
heavy structures which lie within the active earth Zone A surrounding the excava-
tion will need to be underpinned. For vertical cuts, this is defined as a zone
inside of the line rising at a slope of 2 vertical on 1 horizontal from a point
2 ft below the edge of the base of the excavation. The limiting slope angle within
which underpinning may be required, Zone B, ranges from 2 vertical on 1 horizontal,
to 1 vertical on 1 horizontal, depending on the character of the soils. Where
building foundations lying immediately between these limits are so heavy that
they would expand the active zone, underpinning should be provided.

Where foundations of smaller structures lying in the active Zone A adjacent

to the excavation apply an equivalent line load on the front wall or on side
walls perpendicular to the street totalling less than 2,000 1b/1in ft, it might'
be possible to eliminate underpinning and control movement by careful excavation
within tightly braced excavation walls.

In all cases of excavation in soil where foundations of adjacent structures

supported in Zones A and B are not underpinned, the temporary retaining structure
and the permanent subsurface structure must be designed to resist the horizontal
and vertical pressures applied by these foundations, computed in the manner
described in Appendix SA.

5.2.8.2. Requirements for Underpinning Supports

For excavation in soil, all portions of the bearing area or tip of the
underpinning members should extend into Zone C of Fig 5.16, below a line rising
at a slope of 1 vertical on 1 horizontal from a point 2 ft below the edge of the
base of the excavation. The support provided to the underpinning member below
this line should accommodate the total applied load with adequate safety factor.
In this case no pressures from the underpinned structure need be considered in
the design of the excavation support system.

Underpinning walls, piers, or piles which form a portion of the excavation

support system should be extended to a depth not less than 2 ft below the lowest
nearby subgrade of the excavation. The bearing support for such underpinning
members should provide an adequate safety factor during excavation and construc-
tion as well as after the completion of construction. Where underpinning members
 - 86 -

0
~
0

z
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

0
;=1
I- ~

Z >
w ~

~
u
w X
W
....J
I- u.. 2
I-
w 0
Vl
I
l-
e..
w
o 3
0 2 3 4
DISTANCE FROM EXCAVATION , %
DEPTH OF EXCAVATION

ZONE I - SAND AND SOFT TO HARD

C LA Y, (c u > 500 L B/ S Q F T)

ZONE IT - VERY SOFT TO SOFT CLAY

(c u < 500 LB/SQ FT)
1) - LIMITED DEPTH OF CLAY
BELOW BASE OF EXCAVATION
2) - SIGNIFICANT DEPTH OF CLAY
BELOW BASE OF EXCAVATION
W HER E F Sb < 1 • 3

ZONE I[[ - VERY SOFT TO SOFT CLAY,

(c u < 500 LB/SQ FT)
1) - SIGNIFICANT DEPTH OF CLAY
BELOW BASE OF EXCAVATION
AND W HER E F Sb > 1 • 3

FIG 5.15 (After Peck)

SETTLEMENTS ADJACENT TO OPEN CUTS
 - 87 -

""I~
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

\
~
2~ TIGHTLY BRACED/TIED
I'", 1\ EXCAVATION WALL

" "\\ BASE 0 F EXCAVATIO N

""\
ZONE A:
FOUNDATIONS WITHIN THIS ZONE GENERALLY REQUIRE
UNDERPINNING. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL PRESSURES
ON EXCAVATION WALL OF NON-UNDERPINNED FOUNDATIONS
MUST BE CONSIDERED

ZONE B:
FOUNDATIONS WITHIN THIS ZONE GENERALLY DO NOT
REQUIRE UNDERPINNING. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL
PRESSURES ON EXCAVATION WALL OF NON-UNDERPINNED
FOUNDATIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED

ZONE C:
UNDERPINNING TO STRUCTURES MUST BE FOUNDED IN
THIS ZONE. PRESSURES FROM UNDERPINNING GENERALLY
NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED

FIG 5.16
REQUIREMENTS FOR UNDERPINNING
3
- 88 -

will be exposed at the sides of the excavation, they must be capable of resisting
any horizontal loads applied to them by non-underpinned foundations in Zones
A and B. These loads may be calculated on the basis of the information given in
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

5.A.6. of Appendix 5A.

Design bearing pressures for foundations of underpinning members should

be limited to the allowable values described elsewhere in the Manual. Note
however, that lower values than usual might well be desired for underpinning
members in order to restrict possible settlements.

5.3. CONTROL OF GROUNDWATER IN EXCAVATIONS

5.3.1. METHODS FOR THE CONTROL AND REMOVAL OF GROUNDWATER

Water may be removed from excavations by gravity drainage or by pumping from

sumps, well points or bored wells. The method adopted will depend upon;

soil conditions, such as the permeability of pervious layers, the sequence of

the soil strata and local variations of permeability within the soil profile,

the depth of excavation below groundwater level or relative to piezometric levels

in underlying strata,

the method of supporting the sides of the excavation, i.e. open or sheeted
excavations, and

the necessity or otherwise of safeguarding existing adjacent structures.

Good practice requires that the following conditions be fulfilled when dewatering
excavations,

A dewatering method be chosen that will assure the stability of sides and bottom
of excavations as well as the integrity and safety of adjacent structures.

The lowered water table be kept constantly under full control thus avoiding
fluctuations liable to cause instability of the excavation.

Effective filters be provided where necessary to prevent loss of ground.

Adequate pumping and standby pumping capacity be provided.

Pumped water be discharged in a manner that will not interfere with the
excavation.

Pumping methods be adopted for groundwater lowering that will not lead to damage
of adjacent structures, such as by settlement.

For most soils, the groundwater table during construction must be maintained at least
2 ft to 5 ft below the bottom of the excavation in order to ensure dry
working conditions. It needs to be maintained at a somewhat lower level
for silts than for sands to keep traffic from pumping water to the surface
and making the bottom of the excavation wet or spongy.

5.3.2. GRA VITY DRAINAGE

Where site conditions permit, water can be drained by gravity from an excavation.
 - 89 -

I 5.3.3. PUMPING FROM INSIDE THE EXCAVATION

Frequently groundwater levels are controlled by pumping from sumps inside the
excavation. This method often creates hazards in construction and in many instances
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

is used when pumping should be carried out from outside the excavation.

The location of drainage channels leading to the sumps should be a matter for
careful consideration in order to ensure that the whole of the excavated area is drained
at all stages. The efficient design and maintenance of drainage ditches are particularly
important where water seeps down a sheeted or sloping face and is intercepted by the
ditches. The slope of the ditches should be sufficient to avoid silting up due to soil
carried into them, but they should not be so steep that erosion occurs. It is often
convenient to pipe the drainage ditches using slotted or perforated pipe surrounded by
graded gravel filter material.

Loss of ground from around the sump must be prevented. The best method is to
install the filter medium between the ground and the sump. This can be accomplished
by placing a cage of perforated metal inside the sump excavation and filling the space
between the cage and the ground with graded gravel filter material, the sheeting for
the sump excavation being withdrawn as the filter material is placed.

5.3.3.1. Pumping from unsupported Excavations

Generally, where excavations are in rock, groundwater will seep down the face
of the excavations, where it can be collected by drainage ditches and led to a
sump without causing instability of the face. However, where faces of excavations
are in permeable soil, the velocity of the water seeping into the excavation may
be sufficient to cause movement of soil particles which leads to collapse of the
sides. To avoid this trouble, the face of the excavation should be cut back to
a stable slope. The water level is lowered by pumping and the water, as it
emerges, at or near the toe of the slope, aan drain into a graded gravel or
stone filter.

(1) Heave due to artesian pressure at depth

Where an excavation is underlain by an impermeable layer, such as

a stratum'of silt or clay that is, in turn, underlain by a pervious
stratum of sand under artesian pressure, upward seepage from the deeper
stratum may keep the bottom of a large excavation wet, even though
drainage sumps may be in use. If this situation exists, it may be
necessary to lower the head in the deep sand stratum below the bottom
of the excavation by means of relief wells. If the intervening clay
stratum, as shown in Fig 5.17 is impervious, the hydrostatic head in
the deep sand can be somewhat higher than the bottom of the excavation,
but in no event should the net head above the bottom of the excavation
exceed 80 per cent of the submerged weight of the soil above the top
of the artesian aquifer. Otherwise heave may occur in the bottom of
the excavation.

(2) Use of relief wells

~ast
If relief wells are installed within the excavation, it should be
noted that the allowable upward seepage gradient depends upon the
uniformity and permeability of the fine-grained soils overlying the
pervious stratum. In clays, gradients as high as 0.5 may be safe, whereas
in silty soils it is necessary to lower the artesian head below the
bottom of the excavation in order to control upward seepage and achieve
a dry, stable bottom. Stratification of the soil will also affect the
allowable uplift pressure.

5.3.3.2. Pumping from Sheeted Excavations

If a sheeted excavation is made using closed sheet piling or an in situ

impermeable diaphragm taken down into a thick impermeable stratum, the flow of
water in the overlying pervious ground will be completely cut off and the
dewatering of the area enclosed by the cofferdam is simple.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

I
I
I

PIEZOMETERS
HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE FROM A
A B

.1 -L - t ---- "1««««"«««('««<',<
;';'
,;:{';·::::~~xn7?;-:~. ~. 7::;;'.:~ .~.. ~ .~:~ ~ (~1.;:/:·);:·s{0.:~}i;;;; B
»W/J7)/U»»»)7jj/)j)r)/ffiYi/» ~ i ," A"'~' if));r/YJ0;;'»7YAJr))ffddY/J.

\0
o
iV: ;:·.;i~:?ir\: ·: ).f/t:.~.•~~R:~~~~:.S ,:.;, ; .~: · . ;!i;(·:~.:'.;. !:.:S~~~D::.·(':.~~>:/;:.i·::/\/:!A I

;Mq,*"''(7).<nJbW)\\\>7,:rtii£<i/~"v}X<:m·m.:w}X'v;j:. Y>lSvaqNw.x,~;(\Jk¥k(V~\%m';.;~~
CLAY OR ROCK

FIG 5.17
ARTESIAN GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS BELOW EXCAVATION

From 'Foundation Engineering' by LEONARDS. Copyright 1962.

Used with permission of the McGraw-Hill Book Company.
 - 91 -

(1) Basal instability of sheeted excavations due to seepage

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

If the sheeting or diaphragm does not penetrate into an impermeable layer,

flow will occur under the sheeting or diaphragm and up into the excavation.
Unless groundwater control is adequate, this flow will cause instability of the
base, generally piping in dense sands or heave in loose sands. Piping occurs if
the seepage exit gradient at the base of the excavations equals about one. Heave
occurs if the uplift force at the sheeting toe exceeds the submerged weight of
the overlying soil column. To prevent piping or heave, sheeting must penetrate a
sufficient depth below the base of the excavation. Fig 5.18 indicates the seepage
exit gradients related to sheeting penetration in isotropic sands.

For clean sand, exit gradients between 0.5 and 0.75 will cause unstable
conditions for men and equipment operating on the subgrade. To avoid this, the
sheeting penetration should be sufficient to provide a safety factor of 1.5 to
2 against piping or heave.

The sheeting penetration required in layered subsoils is given in Fig 5.19.

(2) Heave due to artesian pressure at depth

See paragraph 5.3.3.1.(1)

(3) Use of relief wells

See paragraph 5.3.3.1.(2)

5.3.4. PUMPING FROM OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION

The object of an external groundwater lowering system is to lower the water table
below the level at which work is to be carried out or to reduce the pressures in
underlying pervious layers so that the stability of the excavation is ensured at all
times.

The methods used for lowering the groundwater level outside an excavation can
be listed as follows:

i) Excavated wells or sumps with independent pumps.

ii) A number of small diameter well points (the well point system).

iii) Multiple bored filter wells with independent submersible pumps in each well
(the deep well system), or where the quantities of water to be pumped are
small, well point in jet eductors (the eductor system).

iv) Multi-stage installations of (ii) and (iii) above.

v) Vacuum well methods.

In all methods, loss or disturbance of the ground should be prevented by the use of filters.

When the water is pumped from a well, the quantity pumped depends on the level to
which the water immediately outside the well screens is lowered, on the radius of the
well and on the permeability of the ground. Pumping causes the water table around the
well to take the form of an inverted cone known as the cone ~f depression. When water
is pumped simultaneously from a number of wells, the cones of depression intersect.
The lowering in level of the enclosed water table (Fig 5.20) depends upon the spacing
and size of the wells as well as upon the reduction in the water table immediately
adjacent to the wells. The fact that the cones of depression of the wells intersect
means that the yield of water pumped from anyone of the wells is considerably less than
that of a single isolated well for the same lowering in water level.
•
- 92 -

3.0
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

N
b - -S-

h .., 2.0

d, UNIFORM SIZE SO IL -S-

Tl
2b
T2 1 .0

(a )
0.6 0.8 1.0
NOTE:
Where groundwater I eve I is be low ground surface &
Tl and d, are taken from the groundwater level

(b)

1) FOR TWO PARALLEL WALLS

h
i
ex it

kh
Q PER UNIT LENGTH

2) FOR A CIRCULAR EXCAVATION

, .3
<PI + <P2

Q 2 1T R

3) FOR A SQUARE EXCAVATION

1 .3 (MIDDLE SECTION OF THE SIDES)

h
1.7 x (IN THE CORNERS)
d2
kh
Q 48
0.7 '" 1 + ".
'I' '1'2

FIG 5.18
PENETRATION OF SHEETING AND EXIT GRADIENTS FOR ISOTROPIC
SANDS
 - 93 -

... . '0:·..
SHEETING COARSE SAND UNDERLYING FINE SAND

PRESENCE OF COARSE LAYER MAKES FLOW IN

'
FINE MATERIAL MORE NEARLY VERTICAL AND
.. ..'
...
.. . ' GENERALLY INCREASES SEEPAGE GRADIENTS
IN THE FINE LAYER COMPARED TO THE
HOMOGENEOUS CROSS-SECTION OF FIG. 5.18
h
IF TOP OF COARSE LAYER IS AT A DEPTH BElOW
· ....
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

" ,",
SHEETING TIPS GREATER THAN WIDTH OF
' EXCAVATION, EXIT GRADIENTS OF FIG. 5.IS
;:
j& FOR INFINITE DEPTH APPLY
iii;

; IF TOP OF COARSE LAYER IS AT A DEPTH BElOW

SHEETING TIPS LESS THAN WIDTH OF EXCAVATION,
!t ,.
t o 0 : A. ' • •, '0
• V
0 . . . . . ,.
. , .
THE UPLIFT PRESSURES ARE GREATER THAN FOR THE

I (T 2 - d 2 ) o· o
COARSE • tl HOMOGENEOUS CROSS-SECTION, IF PERMEABILITY

:
II "
OF COARSE LAYER IS MORE THAN TEN TIMES THAT
il o~ ·.·.·.·.··~·D· OF FINE LAYER, FAILURE HEAD (h) = THICKNESS
; IMPERVIOUS
OF FINE LAYER (t )
2

I, <t • o·
FINE SAND UNDERLYING COARSE SAND

If
-:-

..
I) I ·
0

0
.
.£!..1!
.' -=-
o '
,;
PRESENCE OF FINE LAYER CONSTRICTS FLOW
BENEATH SHEETING AND GENERALLY DECREASES
SEEPAGE GRADIENTS IN THE COARSE LAYER

I h
".,.,'. IF TOP OF FINE LAYER LIES BElOW SHEETING TIPS,
EXIT GRADIENTS ARE INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN THOSE

II t
0

d·". ,. -=;;
2 •
O·
• ~"".-----I"COARSE
.0: I·. ..
•

0COARSE: 0, 0
CALCULATED FOR AN IMPERMEABLE BOUNDARY AT
TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE FINE LAYER IN FIG. 5.IS
IF TOP OF THE FINE LAYER LIES ABOVE SHEETING
TIPS THE EXIT GRADIENTS OF FIG. 5.IS ARE
SOMEWHAT CONSERVATIVE FOR PENETRATION

I
'0 ,(I 0, 0' 0 6' • '.
It ,,. •• 0. 0 . 1 > , 0
: '"."", ...... . . " .. REQUIRED

I,
IMPERVIOUS

, . <t .~
.. ". ~
FINE LAYER IN HOMOGENEOUS SAND STRATUM

j I IF THE TOP OF FINE LAYER IS AT A DEPTH GREATER

THAN WIDTH OF EXCAVATION BELOW SHEETING TIPS,
h EXIT GRADIENTS OF FIG.5.tS APPLY, ASSUMING
IMPERVIOUS BASE AT TOP OF FINE LAYER.

I 1FT 0 P 0 F FIN E LA Y ER I SAT A DE PT H L E SST HAN

WIDTH OF EXCAVATION BELOW SHEETING TIPS,
PRESSURE RELIEF IS REQUIRED SO THAT UNBALANCED
HEAD BELOW FINE LAYER DOES NOT EXCEED HEIGHT
OF SOIL ABOVE BASE OF LAYER
• '. " HOM 0 _ ' , ' ~ . t2
.. GENEOUS \ . . IF FINE LAYER LIES ABOVE SUBGRADE OF EXCAVATION,
(T 2 -d 2 ) : ·.• .. S.OIL .. , ", :,',' FINAL CONDITION IS SAFER THAN HOMOGENEOUS
... : ... . . . . . ~ . ~ . .. . CASE, BUT DANGEROUS CONDITION MAY ARISE
VERY FINE LAY DURING EXCAVATION ABOVE THE FINE LAYER AND
PRESSURE RELIEF IS REQUIRED AS IN THE PRECEDING
CASE

IMPERVIOUS

FIG 5.19
PENETRATION OF SHEETING REQUIRED TO PREVENT PIPING IN
S T RA T I FIE D SA N D S
 Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

ROW OF ROW OF
WE L LS WE LLS

WATER LEVEL BEFORE

.-:~ ~--L-- -- · >~::: CONE OF DEPRES'SION

~---~ ~ FOR SINGLE WELL

/ \C
.+:-
/'
.. - .. /
:
" .. / -- "/',--",'\
DEPRESSED WATER LEVEL
'" ,,/"',',"- FOR TWO ROWS OF WELLS , WATER LEVEL IN WELL

FIG 5.20
REDUCTION OF WATER LEVELS BELOW AN EXCAVATION BY WELL GROUNDWATER LOWERING
SYSTEM
 r i
f
- 95 -

The details of these methods and their design is given in various texts. (The
reader is directed to TERZAGHI&PECK,1967 for a comprehensive description.)
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

5.4. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS

5.4.1. DESIGN LOADS

Theoretical wall pressures are discussed in Appendix 5A. The following modifying
factors should be considered.

5.4.1.1. Effect of Wall Movement and Wall Restraint

For a discussion of the effect of wall movement on the coefficient of

lateral earth pressure against rigid walls, see 5.A.2. Appendix SA.

(1) Yielding rigid walls

For cohesionless backfill, reduction of pressures to active values

requires wall rotation. Y/H, of only a few tenths of a percent, (H = height
of the wall and Y - lateral displacement of the top of the wall). For
cohesive backfills, movements necessary to produce active earth pressures
can be much greater.

(2) Restrained rigid walls

Where a rigid wall is prevented from moving, lateral earth pressures

depend greatly on the compaction procedure (See 5.4.1.2.).

5.4.1.2. Effect of Compaction

Compaction of backfill in a confined wedge behind the wall tends to increase

the horizontal pressures.

(1) Cohesionless soils

Cohesionless soils compacted behind rigid, unyielding walls can produce

horizontal pressures up to nearly twice the at rest values depending on
the amount of compaction. Typical values of Ko range from 0.4 to 0.8.

For moderately compacted fill behind rigid yielding walls, design can
be based on active values. Typical values of KA range from 0.2 to 0.4.

(2) Cohesive soils

In cohesive soils, residual compaction pressures can vary substantially.

Where compaction is light to moderate, at rest pressures (K = 1 - sin ~')
may be assumed. Where compaction is heavier (to a density ~reater than 95% of
Standard Proctor), the following points should be noted:

a) yielding walls

The walls should be designed for at rest pressures; however, some

movement is likely as a result of compaction.

b) unyielding walls

Lateral earth pressures corresponding to K = 1.0 or higher are

likely to occur.
 - 96 -

5.4.1.3. Effect of Backfill Type

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

(I) Cohesionless soils

Soils classified as GW, GP, SW, or SP, provide excellent backfill

material and theroetical earth pressures may be considered valid for
design purposes.

(2) Sandy clays and clayey sands

Soils classified as SC, SM, GC or GM, provide suitable wall backfill

if kept dry, but are subject to frost action when wet. Where drainage
is adequate, theoretical earth pressures may be considered valid for
design purposes.

(3) Silts and clayey silts

Soils classified as CL, MH, ML, OL are often subject to excessive frost
action and swelling when used as wall backfill. Under these conditions,
design for active pressures is inadequate, even for yielding walls, as
resulting wall movement is likely to be excessive and continuous; design
=
using an earth pressure coefficient K 1.0 is recommended.

5.4.1.4. Low Walls

For walls less than about 20 ft in height and where the total cost is not
great, detailed testing to determine soil properties, and elaborate pressure
computations, are usually not justified. Wall pressures can be adequately
estimated on the basis of equivalent fluid pressures providing drainage require-
ments are satisfied.

(I) Equivalent fluid pressures

Equivalent fluid pressures for straight slope backfill may be obtained

using Fig 5.21, and for broken slope backfill using Fig 5.22. A dead load
surcharge should be included as an equivalent weight of backfill, and a
line load surcharge included as a resultant force on the back of the wall
obtained using Fig 5.23.

(2) Drainage

The equivalent fluid pressures include effects of seepage and time

conditioned changes in the backfill. However, provisions should be made to
prevent accumulation of water behind the wall. As a minimum measure weep
holes should be provided for drainage. Backfill of soil types in 5.4.l.3.(2}
& (3) should be covered w~th a surface layer of impervious soil.

5.4.2. RETAINING WALL DESIGN

Design criteria for overturning and sliding are given in Fig 5.24.

5.4.2.1. Stability Against Sliding

The base should be placed at least 3 ft below ground surface in front of the
wall and below the depth of frost action, the zone of seasonal volume change and
the depth of scour. Sliding stability must be adequate without including the
passive pressure at the toe. If insufficient sliding resistance is available,
a pile foundation should be provided or the base of the wall should be lowered; in
which case the passive resistance below frost depth should be considered in the
analysis.
 - 97 -

0 10 20 30 40
80
I-

;Z 60
~-
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

-'
LL.

O~ 40
V')1l..

WI-
JLL.
I -' 20
"', I 1/2 K V H2 «0
> V')

t'r
'-....
<D
HH2 -' 0
H

1/3 H
160

I- 140
LL.

Z
120
-'
Il<!:
W
Il..
100 MAX. 3:1
l-
LL.

0
V') 80
'-....
co
-'
60

LL.

0 40
V')
W
J
-'
20
«
>
0
0 10 20 30 40

VALUES OF SLOPE ANGLE i , DEGREES

CIRCLED NUMBERS INDICATE THE FOllOWING SOil TYPES:

1. CLEAN SAND AND GRAVEL: GW, GP, SW, SP.

2. DIRTY SAND AND GRAVEL OF RESTRICTED PERMEABILITY:
GM, GM-GP, SM, SM-SP
3. STIFF RESIDUAL SILTS AND CLAYS, SILTY FINE SANDS,
CLAYEY SANDS AND GRAVELS: Cl, Ml, CH, MH, SM, SC, GC
4. VERY SOFT TO SOFT CLAY, SILTY CLAY, ORGAN IC SILT AND
CLAY: Cl, Ml, Ol, CH, MH, OH
5. MEDIUM TO STIFF CLAY DEPOSITED IN CHUNKS AND PROTECTED
FROM INFILTRATION: Cl, CH
FOR TYPE 5 MATERIAL H IS REDUCED BY 4 FT. RESULTANT ACTS AT A
HEIGHT OF (H-4)/3 ABOVE BASE

FIG 5.21
DES I G N LOA D S FOR LOW RET A I N I N G WA L L S (S T RA I G H T S LOP E
BAC K F ILL)
(From 'Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice' by TERZAGHI & PECK, 1948.
Used with permission of J. Wiley & Sons Inc.).
s
- 98 -

SOIL TYPE 1 SOIL TYPE 2 SO IL TYPE 3

100
I-
U.

z 80
....I

e::: 60
w
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Q..

I-
U.
40
0
V)

"-
<:Ill 20
....I

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 .0
VALUES OF RATIO H1 /H

SOl L TY PE 4 SOIL TYPE 5

160 I I I I

140 r - SLOPE
KH A H:1
I-
u. 120 r - B U:1
MAX. SLOPE C 2 :1
Z
MAX. SLOPE D
::::i 100 - D 3 :1
e:::
w 6 :1
Q..
80 - -
I-
u.
MAX. SLOPE ,.
0
V)

"-
60 - - \/)-'
-- --
ca KV
....I
40 - -
/
/
,.
_D....
~
KV "'0 /
,.. ,..
--- ---
/ ./ E
20 - - I
I /'" " _ --
1./ _ - -
I I I I ~-
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1. 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 .0
VALUES OF RATIO H1/H

HI HI = 0
----i-

FOR TYPE 5 MATERIAL H IS REDUCED BY 4FT I RESULTANT ACTS AT A

HEIGHT OF (H - 4)/3 ABOVE BASE.
FOR DESCRIPTION OF SOIL TYPE SEE FIG. 5.21

FIG 5.22
DESIGN LOADS FOR LOW RETAINING WALLS (BROKEN SLOPE

BAC KF ILL)
(From 'Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice' by TERZAGHI & PECK, 1948.
Used with permission of J. Wiley and Sons Inc.).
 - 99 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

LI N E LOAD Q
L RESULTANT PH = KQ L

SOIL TYPE
FIG. NO. 5.21 VALUE OF K
1 0.27
2 0.30
RESULTANT PH 0.39
3
4 1 .00
5 1 .00

FIG 5.23
RESULTANT FORCE FROM LINE LOAD (APPROXIMATE METHOD

FOR lOW RETAINING WALLS)

 - 100 -

TYPE OF WALL LOAD D lAG RAM DESIGN FACTORS

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

LOCATION OF RESULTANT

P Moments about toe:

GRAVITY A
Wa + PVe - PH b
d
W Pv

Assum i n9 Pp 0

RESISTANCE AGAINST SLID I NG

(W PV ) tan 8
FS s = £ 1 .5
PH
SEMI-GRAVITY
(W + P ) tan
V 8 +
FS s ~ 2.0
PH

~ REINFORCING (W + PV) tan 8

tan 8 Friction factor between

soil and base
W Includes weight of wall
and soil in front for gravity
CANTILEVER and semi-gravity walls.
Includes weight of wall and
so i I above foo ti n9 I for
cantilever and counterfort
walls

FOOTING
SOIL PRESSURE

COUNTERFORT
OVERALL STABILITY, CONTACT
PRESSURE(S)

For analysis of overall stability

COUNTERFORT
and contact pressures, see Chapter 5

SECTION A-A

FIG 5.24
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR RETAINING WALLS
 - 101 -

5.4.2.2. Stability Against Bearing Failure and Overturning

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Allowable bearing pressure at the base of the wall should be checked by the
method defined in Chapter 6 of this Manual. If this method is used, no separate
check on overturning is required.

5.4.2.3. Settlement

If the foundation soil is compressible, the settlement should be computed

and the tilt of the rigid wall due to the settlement estimated. If the consequent
tilt would exceed several degrees, the wall must be proportioned to keep the
resultant force at the midpoint of the base.

5.4.3. OVERALL STABILITY

Where retaining walls are founded on deep layers or strata of cohesive soils, there
is a possibility of failure occurring along a surface passing at some depth below the
wall. The stability of the soil mass containing the retaining wall should be checked
with respect to the most critical surface of sliding. A minimum factor of safety of
2.0 is desirable.

REFERENCES

BISHOP, A.W. and MORGENSTERN, N.R., 1960. Stability coefficients for earth slopes.
Geotechnique, 10: 129-147.

BJERRUM, L., CLAUSEN, C.J.F. and DUNCAN, J.M., 1972. Earth pressures on flexible
structures. Proc. European Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 5th Madrid, 2:
169-196.

CAQUOT, A. and KERISEL, J., 1948. Tables for the calculation of passive pressure,
active pressure and bearing capacity of foundations. Trans1. from French by
M.A. Bec,Gauthier-Vi11ars, Paris, 120 pp.

GOLDER, H.Q., GOULD, J.D., TSCHEBOTARIOFF, G.P. and WILSON, S.D., 1970. Predicted
performance of braced excavations. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Proc. Am. Soc.
Civil Engrs. 96: SM3, 801-816.

LAMBE, T.W., WOLFSKILL, L.A. and WONG, I.H., 1970. Measured performance of braced
excavations. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs. 96:
SM3, 817-836.

NAVFAC D~7. 1971. Design manual - soil mechanics, foundations and earth structures.
U.S. Dept. Navy, Naval Facilities Eng. Command, Wash., D.C.

PECK, R.B., 1969. Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground. Proc. Internat.
Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 7th, Mexico, State of the art volume, 225-290.

SPENCER, E., 1967. A method of analysis for the stability of embankments assuming
parallel inter-slice forces. Geotechnique 17: 11-26.

TERZAGHI, K., 1953. Anchored bulkheads. Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs. Separate 262.

TERZAGHI, K. and PECK, R.B., 1967. Soil Mechanics in engineering practice.

J. Wiley & Sons, N.Y.

Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual. 1974 United States Steel. Pittsburg, Pa.
 APPENDIX SA

THEORETICAL WALL PRESSURES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Page

S.A.l. COEFFICIENT OF LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE K lOS

S.A.2. EARTH PRESSURE AT REST AND EFFECT OF LATERAL STRAIN lOS

5 .A. 3. ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE lOS

Static Groundwater
Sloping Groundwater

5.A.4. PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE 109

Static Groundwater

S • A. 5 • WALL FRICTION 109

S.A.6. EFFECT OF SEEPAGE AND DRAINAGE 109

Horizontal Groundwater

S .A. 7 • SURCHARGE WADING 110

Area Loads
Point or Line Loads

- 103
 APPENDIX 5A

THEORETICAL WALL PRESSURES

5.A.l. COEFFICIENT OF LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE K

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

The coefficient of lateral earth pressure K, at any point, is defined as the ratio
of the horizontal effective stress 0h', to the vertical effective stress, Ov', at that
point.

Le. K - or A.l

5 .A. 2. EARTH PRESSURE AT REST AND EFFECT OF LATERAL STRAIN

The horizontal effective stress which exists in a natural soil in its undisturbed
state is defined as the earth pressure at rest. For normally consolidated soils, the
coefficient of earth pressure at rest Ko, is given approximately by the equation:

Ko = 1 - sin ~' A.2

For heavily overconsolidated soils, Ko can be of the order of 3 or high~r.

Any lateral strain in the soil will alter its horizontal stress condition. Depending
on the strain involved, the final horizontal stress can lie anywhere between two
limiting (failure) conditions. The limiting stresses occur at the active and passive
failure states.

Fig 5A.lillustrates the dominant role of soil strain in determining the horizontal
stress acting on the supporting structure. Much larger strains are necessary to
achieve failure condition. Orders of magnitude of wall rotation Y/H, required to achieve
failure conditions in various soil types are indicated in the following table;

Rotation Y/H*
Soil Type Active Passive

Dense Cohesionless .0005 .002

Loose Cohesionless .002 .006

Stiff Cohesive .01 .02

Soft Cohesive .02 .04

horizontal displacement
height of the wall

5. A. 3 • ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE

The active earth pressure is the mlnlmum value of lateral earth pressure which a
soil mass can exert against a yielding retaining structure. It represents the failure
condition at which the shear strength in the soil is fully mobilized in resisting gravity
forces. The lateral strain (expansion) required to mobilize the soil strength is rela-
tively small, but is nevertheless only possible in structures which are not rigidly
restrained.

The ratio of lateral to vertical effective stress under active failure conditions
KA, can be obtained from the table in Fig 5A.2 for vertical retaining structures. Where
the soil structure interface is not vertical, Fig 5A3 can be used.

- 105 -
, Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

0-
~ 10

-'
8
-' <{
<{ y,cp ~ 6
~ 5
U- UJ
e:::: 4
0 H :::> r PRINCETON TESTS TERZAGHI
UJ V'l
V'l V'l 3 "
UJ
<{
t:tl H/3 e::::
0-
I- 2
:::> :c
------,-- .......... ...
l- LOOSE SAND ""'''''',
0 e::::
t:tl
<{
<{
UJ
,
\
,I
Z -' 1 .0
<{
0 I-
0.8
I- z
<{ -, r- Y
I-
0 0.6
N
0 Kp KA
e:::: y,cp e:::: 0.5 .....
0 0.4 0
U- -I- -i 0"\
:c ~
0
U- 0.3
Z H
0
0 l-
I- Z 0.2
UJ
0 MEDIUM SAND
Z u
0 U-
u
Kp Y H U-
UJ
o. 1
0 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.004
u
WALL ROTATION, Y/H

FIG SA.l
EFFECT OF WALL MOVEMENT ON WALL PRESSURES
 - 107 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

SIGN
CONVENTION

K A' 8 0 = 0

~ 10 15 35 40 45
0
Q Q 20 0
25 0
30° Q
0

-1 .0 0.639 0.513 0.413 0.333 0.267 0.213 0.168 0.131

-0.8 0.644 0.520 0.421 0.340 0.273 0.219 0.174 0.136
-0.6 0.656 0.534 0.434 0.353 0.287 0.230 0.183 0.144
-0.4 0.669 0.549 0.450 0.368 0.300 0.242 O. 192 O. 152
-0.2 0.685 0.567 0.468 0.385 0.315 0.255 0.205 0.161
0 0.704 0.589 0.490 0.406 0.333 0.271 0.217 0.172
+0.2 0.727 0.615 0.517 0.431 0.356 0.290 0.233 0.184
+0.4 0.756 0.648 0.551 0.464 0.386 0.316 0.254 0.201
+0.6 0.793 0.693 0.599 0.510 0.428 0.353 0.286 0.226
+0.8 0.850 0.763 0.674 0.586 0.500 0.419 0.342 0.272
+1.0 1 .044 1 .021 0.979 0.922 0.850 0.767 0.676 0.580
I \

FIG 5A.2
ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS
 Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Example:
P = 110·
i= 20·
30· .=
~" = 10·
K=0.70 K .. r CIC /J ain (/J- -;) ~2
Sequence shown byCDthrough@ .Jain (fJ + fJ ) + ain <9 + 'a)ain (9 - i)
o ain OJ i)
• + 60
, o 10 20 30 40 506090
0 ... -;--
I
I I
,
I
I I
10+170,\ 60
,, cD ro50
I I
I 40
20+160 ,~I>~ / ,,
\ ..~ I --®----- .....
$~ ~ 0
ro 00
150 20 I
I
.. 3°1 \
',I> I I
~~- -"'<ID-
<Q. , I
I .......... ..
40 140 " I ..... _. 10
---
I
50tl30 ~ I
I I
I I
60r:O I
70 110 I
I
9090 I
90 I 130 150 160 170
( I' I I I I I o
NOTE: Wall friction ~an only be mobilized
90 60 50 40 30 20 10 o
by relative movement between the
P- i
wall and backfill.

FIG 5A.3
NOMOGRAM FOR ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENT KA
 - 109 -

Static Groundwater

For stratified soils with a horizontal, or no, groundwater table, KA can be

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

determined for each soil type from the figures using the effective angle of shearing
resistance ~', and neglecting cohesion. In general, the lateral earth pressure inclined
at 0 to the normal, at any depth = KA o~~ where a~ E effective stress at depth z.
Net water pressure must be added to obta1n the total pressure on wall. Formulae are
given in Fig SA.4.

Sloping Groundwater

For more complex situations such as sloping groundwater table or uneven backfill,
refer to 'Soil mechanics, foundations, and earth structures.' NAVFAC Design Manual. 7, U.S.
Dept. Navy, Naval Facilities Eng. Comd. Wash. D.C. 1971.

S.A.4. PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE

The passive earth pressure is the maximum value of lateral earth pressure which can
be mobilized by a structure moving against a soil mass. It represents the failure
conditions at which the shear strength in the soil is fully mobilized in resisting the
lateral forces. The lateral strain (compression) required to mobilize the soil strength
can be quite large and the ability of the wall to move the required distance should be
checked (see S.A.2). If movement is restricted, lower pressure can be expected.

The ratio of lateral to vertical effective stress under passive failure conditions,
Kp, can be obtained from the table in Fig SA5 for the case of a vertical soil-structure
interface. For other conditions, refer to'~oil mechanics, foundations, and earth structures."
NAVFAC Design Manual. 7 U.S. Dept. Navy, Naval Facilities Eng. Comd. Wash. D.C. 1971.

Static Groundwater

For stratified soils with a horizontal,or no groundwater table, Kp can be determined

for each soil type from the figures using the effective angle of shearing resistance,
~', and neglecting cohesion. In general, the lateral earth pressure, inclined at 0 to
the normal, at any depth = Kpa~, where a~ - effective stress at depth z. Net water
pressure must be added to obtain the total pressure on wall. Formulae are given in
Fig SA.6.

S.A.S. WALL FRICTION

Unless a wall is settling, friction on its back acts upward on the active wedge
(angle 0 is positive), reducing active pressures. Wall friction acts downward against
the passive wedge (angle 0 is negative), resisting its upward movement and increasing
passive pressures.

In general, the effect of wall friction on active pressures is small and ordinarily
is disregarded.

The effect of wall friction on passive pressure is large, but definite movement is
necessary for mobilization of wall friction.

In the absence of specific test data, the angle of wall friction 0, where applicable,
should be estimated to be in the range of 1/2 to 2/3 of ~'.

S • A. 6 • EFFECT OF SEEPAGE AND DRAINAGE

Horizontal Groundwater

The effect of the greatest unbalanced water head that will act across the wall must
be included in the pressure computations. For the effect of flow on KA, Kp ' see Fig SA.7(a).

For the effect on wall pressures, see Fig ~.7(b). For static differential head
with insignificant seepage, water pressures on walls should be computed using the
formula in Fig SA.7(b).
 - 110 -

In cohesionless soils, the active force on the wall with static water level at the
top of the backfill is frequently more than double that for dry backfill.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

5.A.7. SURCHARGE LOADING

Area Loads

Where the surcharge behind a wall consists of a uniform area load, the weight of the
surcharge as illustrated in Figs 5A.4 and5A.6 must be included in the design analysis.

Point or Line Loads

Where the surcharge behind a wall consists of a point or line load whose intensity
is small compared to total backfill forces, (total force on wall from surcharge is less
than 30% of the active force), the additional wall pressures may calculated using the
formulae in Fig 5A.B.

For heavy surcharges a wedge analysis should be used. (See "Soil mechanics, foundations,
and earth structures." NAVFAC Design Manual. 7 U.S. Dept. Navy, Naval Facilities Eng.
Comd. Wash. D.C. 1971.)
 - 111-

UNIFORM SURCHARGE, INTENSITY q

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

ZI

b)
LAYER I

z4 Y, CPI KA I
z2

-
c)

tUS,
LAYER 2
z3
YwZ4 Y2 CP2 KA2

EFFECTIVE PRESSURE, (To WATER PRESSURE, (Tw

IN GENERAL
- KA(TzI
(To- (T = (To+(Tw
(Tw= Yw )( NET WATER HEAD

AT a) (To = q K A
I

b) (To (q+ZIYI) KAI

C) (T 0 = (q + ZI YI + Z2 Y II) K A , IN LAY E R I

(T 0 (q + z, YI + Z2 Y II) K A2 IN LAY E R 2

d) (To = (q + ZI YI + Z2 Y I, + Z3 Y '2) K A2

FIG 5A.4
CALCULATION OF ACTIVE PRESSURES
 - 112 -

SIGN
CONVENTION
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

J\ ~ 10 0 15 0
20 0 25 ° 30 0
35 ° 40° 45 °

0 1 .42 1.70 2.04 2.46 3.00 3.69 4.58 5.83

- 0.1 1 .38 1.63 1 .92 2.27 2.67 3.10 3.77 4.54
- 0.2 1 .36 1 .56 1.81 2.08 2.38 2.71 3.09 3.50
- 0.3 1 .32 1 .49 1.69 1 .89 2.10 2.30 2.50 2.68
- 0.4 1 .28 1 .42 1 .57 1 .70 1 .82 1 .92 1 .99 2.02
- 0.5 1 ,23 1.34 1 .44 1 .51 1 .56 1 .58 1 .56 1 .48
- 0.6 1 ,18 1 .25 1 .30 1 .32 1 .32 I .28 1 .19 1 .06
- 0.7 I .12 1.15 1 .17 1.14 1 .09 1 .00 0.880 0.731
- 0.8 1 .07 1 .06 1 .03 0.97 0.882 0.764 0.626 0,480
- 0.9 1.00 0.961 0.895 0.803 0.686 0.557 0.422 0.292
- 1 .0 0.848 0.749 0.637 0.520 0.404 0.296 0.200 O. 123

Kp'' 8'p 2

It \~ 0
10 0

1 .54
15°

1 .97
20°

2.55
25°

3.38 4.62
30° 35°

6.55
40°

9.73
45°

15.48
- 0.1 1 .51 1 .90 2.40 3.12 4.12 5.63 8.00 12.06
- 0.2 1 .48 1 .81 2.26 2.06 3.66 4.81 6.56 9.52
- 0.3 1 .404 1 .73 2.11 2.59 3.23 4.09 5.30 7.11
- 0.4 1 .39 1.64 1 .96 2.33 2.80 3.41 4.23 5.36
- 0.5 1 .35 1 .55 1 .80 2.08 2.41 2.81 3.31 3.94
- 0.6 1 .29 1 .45 1 .63 1 .82 2.03 2.27 2.52 2.82
- 0.7 1 .22 1 .34 1 .46 1 .57 1 .67 1 .78 1 .87 1 .94
- 0.8 1 .17 1 .23 1 .29 1 .33 1 .36 1 .35 1 .32 1 ,27
- 0.9 1 .09 1.11 1 .12 1 .10 1.06 0.988 0.895 0.776
1 .0 0.925 0.868 0.797 0.714 0.623 0.525 0.425 0.327
cos 8P 0.996 0.991 0.9 0.976 0.965 0.953 0.939 0.923

t \~ 10° 15° 20° 25° 30° 35° 40° 45°

0 1 .59 2.08 2.76 3.78 5.31 7.97 12.63 22.11

0.1 1 .55 2.00 2.61 3.48 4.79 6.86 10.39 17.22
- 0.2 1 .52 1.91 2.45 3. 19 4.26 5.86 8.51 13.26
- 0,3 1 .49 1 .83 2.29 2.90 3.75 4.98 6.89 10.16
- 0.4 1 .44 1 .73 2.12 2.61 3.26 4.16 5.49 7.65
- 0.5 1 .39 1.64 1 .95 2.33 2.80 3.42 4.30 5.62
- 0.6 1 .33 1 .52 1 .76 2.03 2.36 2.76 3.27 4.02
- 0.7 1.26 1 .41 1 .58 1 .75 1 .95 2.16 2.42 2.77

---
0.8 1 .20 1 .30 1 .39 1 .49 1 .58 1 .65 1.72 1 .82
0.9 1 .12 1.17 1 .21 1 .23 1 .23 1 .20 1.16 1.10
1 .0 0.956 0.917 0.864 0.799 0.724 0.64 0.553 0.466
cos 8p 0.991 0.980 0.965 0.947 0.923 0.896 0.866 0.843

FIG 5A.5
PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS
 - 113 -

UNIFORM SURCHARGE, INTENSITY q

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

ZI

~
b) --
LAYER I

z4 YI <1>1 K p,
z2

c)

LAYER 2
z3
YwZ4 Y2 <1>2 Kp2

EFFECTIVE PRESSURE, CTp WATER PRESSURE, CTW

IN GENERAL
CT = CTp + CTW
CTw= Yw x NET WATER HEAD

AT 0) CTp=qK p ,
b) CTp = ( q + z I YI) KP I
c) CTp= (q+z,y, +Z2y l ,) K p , IN L AYE R I

CT P = (q + z I y, + z 2 y', ) K p 2 IN LAYER 2

d) CTp = (q + z I y, + z2 y', + z 3 Y 12 ) Kp 2

FIG 5A.6
CALCULATION OF PASSIVE PRESSURES
-.............. ----------~~~~~------
- 114 -

PA P WA Pp PWP ARE . ,;' .'. ~

RESULTANTS FOR
CONDITIONS OF NO
6PA 6P p ARE
CORRECTIONS FOR

E/
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

SEEPAGE
-4T--~P A 6 PA
~~~-.--.....",.....- PWA 3
H

6PA =A(0)(Yw)(H w )

4 r-r----r----r-,
01

IMPERVIOUS

flOW NET FOR SEEPAGE BENEATH

5 7.2 .3 .4
WALL FOR CONSTANT DIFFERENTIAL
HEAD;:: HW VALUE OF Kp VALUE OF KA
(0) EFFECT OF SEEPAGE BENEATH WALL

INCREASE OF WALL FORCE

WITH RISING WATER LEVEL
1 .O~--~--~-~-r-~

0.8
:r:
z " 3= 0 • 6
H :r:
0 0 .4
PAl
~:---- ..... y = I 25 LB I CU F
{NO WATER ~ 0.2
LEVEL 1 YSUB = 62.5 LB/CUF

-=*.~~..-~,.......a ~ o~-~--~--~--~~

I 1.0 1.4 1.8

IMPERVIOUS
RAT 10 (PA + P w) / P~

(b) EFFECT OF STATIC WATER LEVEL

FIG 5A.7
EFFECTS OF SEEPAGE AND STATIC GROUNDWATER LEVEL
 - 115 -

0.2
..
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

:J: LIN E POINT

"'- LOAD LOAD
NO.4

o
w
:::> 0.6
....J
4:
>
0.2IO.78IO.59H
0.4 0.78 0.59H
0.8
0.6 0.45 0.48H

1 .0
o o .2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 .0 0.5 1 .0 1 .5 2.0

V A LU E 0 F cr H (~:)

LINE LOAD Q POINT LOAD Q

L p

FO R m ~ 0.4:

crH(~)= 0.20n
QL (0.16+n2)2

P = 0. 55Q L
H

FOR m > 0.4:

H H
FOR m ~ 0.4:

H2 0.28n 2
cr H (Qp) = (0. 1 6 + n 2 ) 3
P 0.64QL
H= - - - FOR m > 0.4:
(m 2 + 1)
2 2
H2 1.77m n
PRESSURES FROM LINE LOAD Q
L cr H (0)
P
= (m 2 + n 2 )3
(BOUSSINESQ EQUATION MODIFIED BY EXPERIMENT)

cr HI = cr H cos 2 (1.1 8)

....J
....J
4:
3:

SECTION a
PRESSURES FROM POINT LOAD Qp
(BOUSSINESQ EQUATION MODIFIED
BY EXPERIMENT)

FIG 5A.8
HORIZONTAL PRESSURES ON WALL DUE TO SURCHARGE
 CHAPTER 6

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

TAB LEO F CON TEN T S

6.1. GENERAL 119

6.1.1. VALIDITY OF THE METHOD OF DESIGN FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 119

6.1.1.1. Bearing Capacity And Settlement
6.1.1.2. Stress Distribution
6.1.1.3. Foundation Flexibility
6.1.1.4. Construction
6.1.2. ESTIMATES OF ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE 121

6.2. BEARING PRESSURE ON ROCK 121

6. 2.1. GENERAL 121

6.2.2. FOUNDATION ON SOUND ROCK 122
6.2.3. FOUNDATION ON POOR ROCK 123
6.2.3.1. Pressuremeter
6.2.3.2. Limitations

6.3. BEARING PRESSURE ON SOIL 125

6.3.1. GENERAL 125

6.3.2. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST IN NON-COHESIVE SOILS 125
6.3.2.1. Limitations
6.3.3. DYNAMIC CONE TEST IN NON-COHESIVE SOILS 128
6.3.3.1. Application
6.3.3.2. Limitations
6.3.4. STATIC CONE PENETRATION TEST IN NON-COHESIVE SOIL 129
6.3.4.1. Limitations
6 . 3 •5 . PRESSUREMETER TEST 129
6.3.5.1. Limitations
6.3.6. ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATED FROM THE SOIL SHEARING
6.3.6.1. Limitations
STRENGTH 131
6.3.6.2. Effect Of Groundwater Table
6.3.6.3. Shape Factor
6.3.6.4. Eccentricity And Inclination Factor
6.3.6.5. Slope Factor
6.3.7. FACTOR OF SAFETY 135
6.3.7.1. Depth Term

6.4. STRESS DISTRIBUTION 135

6.4.1. GENERAL 135

6.4.2. CALCULATION OF STRESSES IMPOSED BY A LOADED AREA 136
6.4.3. SIMPLIFIED METHOD 136

- 117 -
5

- 118 -

6.5. SETTLEMENT 139

6.5.1. GENERAL 139

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

6.5.1.1. Cohesive (Fine-Grained) Soils

6.5.1.2. Non-Cohesive (Coarse-Grained) Soils
6.5.2. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST IN NON-COHESIVE SOIL 139
6.5.2.l. Submergence
6.5.2.2. Limitations
6.5.3. STATIC CONE PENETRATION TEST IN NON-COHESIVE SOIL 141
6.5.3.1. Limitations
6.5.4. PLATE BEARING TEST ON NON-COHESIVE SOIL 142
6.5.4.1. Limitations
6.5.5. PRESSUREMETER TEST 143
6.5.5.1. Limitations
6.5.6. CRITICAL POINT METHOD 143
6.5.6.l. Definition
6.5.6.2. Formula
6.5.6.3. Application
6.5.6.4. Limitations
6.5.7. CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT OF COHESIVE SOIL 148
6.5.7.1. Settlement-Time Relationships
6.5.7.2. Limitations
6.5.8• ALLOWABLE SETTLEMENT 152
6.5.8.1. Differential Settlement
6.5.8.2. Total Settlement
6.5.8.3. Limitations

6.6. DESIGN BEARING PRESSURE 154

 CHAPTER 6

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

6.1 GENERAL
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

A shallow foundation generally derives its support from the soil or rock close to the
lowest part of the building which it supports. The depth of the bearing area below the
adjacent ground is usually about equal to or less than the width of the bearing area, and
vertical loads on the sides of the foundation due to adhesion or friction may normally be
neglected.

Shallow foundations include such common footing types as slabs, rafts, spread footings,
strip footings, pads, mats and sills.

6.1.1. VALIDITY OF THE METHOD OF DESIGN FOR SHALWW FOUNDATIONS

6.1.1.1. Bearing Capacity and Settlement

The design of a foundation unit normally requires that both bearing capacity
and settlement be checked. While either bearing capacity or settlement criteria
may provide the limiting condition, it is normal for settlement to govern.
Structural distress from settlement as evidenced by such occurrences as cracking,
and distortion of doors and window frames, is common experience. The drastic
effects of a bearing capacity failure are rare except perhaps during construction
where shallow temporary footings are frequently used with fa1sework.

(1) Bearing capacity

The bearing capacity of both cohesive and non-cohesive soils can be

determined with reliability by relatively simple calculations assuming
that the strength parameters for the bearing soil are accurately known
within the depth of influence of the footing.

(2) Settlement

(a) Cohesive soil

The settlement of a structure on cohesive soil can be calculated with

less accuracy than the bearing capacity. Such a calculation is affected
by a number of complicating factors usually requiring judgement to assess.
The most important of these is an estimate of the preconso1idation pressure;
that is, the maximum past pressure on the in situ soil. Because of the
various uncertainties, errors of a factor of two should be expected in the
calculation of settlement.

(b) Non-cohesive soil

The settlement of a structure on non-cohesive soil normally can only

be estimated by empirical methods. Such an estimate usually is taken to
mean the settlement directly related to the load, but this settlement
occurs rapidly and frequently during the construction period. Post-construc-
tion settlement in such a case will be negligible and may be considerably
less than the predicted settlement.

Post-construction settlement may occur at a considerable period after

construction and after a period of successful performance of the structure
as the result of vibrations or changes in the groundwater conditions,
whether natural or man-made; for example, earthquake or blasting, flooding
or groundwater lowering. Settlement of this nature is not usually included
in an empirical estimation, but may be assessed and allowed for.

- 119 -
s
- 120 -

6.1.1.2. Stress Distribution

The stress distribution beneath a structure can be assessed using conven-

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

tionally acceptable procedures based on the Boussinesq or similar equations.

Various charts, graphs and tables of influence values are available to aid in
such calculations. It is easily possible for the stress analysis to be carried
out in detail not warranted by the potential accuracy of a succeeding settlement
analysis.

Using such a stress analysis, it can be seen that the loaded area beneath
a large footing is greater than beneath a small one and it follows that the
settlement under the larger footing will also be greater for the same intensity
of loading. The concept is illustrated in Fig 6.1.

q PER UNIT AREA

A/ ~ B

"'"\>77 , Ml1,, '77'" >77," "7," '77"""", ,

~~tf(1f{(~
Atlf\ ?iX\,};),'\>'}
\
/1\ 'I'
'-\ O.25q ,
I
" I , ~ 0 .7 5q
I
\
,
~
/
... --_--....
'"
I
I
I
,
,
\
\
I
I', "I
I ........ ....'" I
\ ,--' I
, 0 .5 Oq /'
o . 25 q / ' . . . . . """"- ...... ___ ... 41fIII'
..../

FIG 6.1
EFFECT OF SIZE OF FOOTING ON STRESS DISTRIBUTION
(From 'Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice' by TERZAGHI & PECK, 1948.
Used with permission of J. Wiley & Sons, Inc.).

6.1.1.3. Foundation Flexibility

Shallow foundations may be flexible or rigid. Design methods of calculating

stresses and resulting settlement normally are based on an assumption of complete
flexibility of the foundation. Such a case, however, seldom occurs. Normally,
foundations are not flexible and the stress distribution will be different from
the assumptions. It follows that the settlement will also be different from
that calculated. Corrections can be made for this effect and calculations of
total settlement adjusted. Such a procedure is, however, not justified for
routine problems.*

6.1.1.4. Construction

The calculation of bearing capacity, the distribution of stresses, and the

prediction of settlement may be labour in vain and the choice of allowable load
may be grossly in error if the construction techniques are not considered or if
they do not conform to good practice. It is necessary to consider such factors
as the following which may alter the conditions assumed in design beyond recogni-
tion:

*This problem is avoided in the Critical Point Method of design; See 6.5.6.
 - 121 -

(1) Occurrence during excavation

- bottom heave,
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

- wetting, swelling and softening of an expansive clay or rock,

- piping in sands and silts, and
- remoulding of silts and sensitive clays.

(2) Adjacent construction activities

groundwater lowering,
excavation, and
- blasting,

(3) Other effects during or following construction

scour and erosion,

frost action, and
flooding.

6.1.2. ESTIMATES OF ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE

Universally applicable values of allowable bearing pressure cannot be given. Many

factors affect bearing capacity, as discussed in 6.2 BEARING PRESSURES ON ROCK and the
allowable load will frequently be controlled by settlement criteria, as described in
6.5 SETTLEMENT. Nevertheless, it is often useful to estimate the allowable bearing
pressure for preliminary design on the basis of the material description, although such
values must be checked or treated with great caution for final design.

6.2 BEARING PRESSURE ON ROCK

6.2.1. GENERAL

Rock is usually recognized as the best foundation material. However, design

engineers should be aware of the dangers associated with unfavourable rock conditions
since overstressing a rock foundation may result in large settlement or sudden failure.
A foundation on rock should be designed with at least the same care as a foundation on
any type of soil.

The methods proposed in this Manual for the determination of the allowable bearing
pressure on rock apply for various ranges of rock quality. Guidance on the applicability
of the proposed methods is outlined in Table 6.1.
 - 122 -

TABLE 6.1.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Applicability of Methods for the Determination

of Allowable Bearing Pressure on Rock

Basis of Design Method Rock Quality

Rock Description Sound rock and broken rock with wide

(See Table 6.2 for or very wide spacing of discontinui-
preliminary estimate) ties.

Core Strength Rock mass with closed discontinuities

(See 6.2.2.) at moderately close, wide and very wide
spacing

Pressuremeter Rock of low to very low strength!

(See 6.2.3.1. and rock mass with discontinuities at
Commentary 8.8) close or very close spacing;
fragmented or weathered rock.

Soil Mechanics Rock of very low strength: rock mass

Approach with discontinuities at very close
spacing; fragmented or weathered rock.

( Terms in italics are defined in 3.2.4. )

6.2.2. FOUNDATION ON SOUND ROCK

For the purpose of this section, a rock is considered as sound where the unconfined
compression strength is in excess of 125 lb/sq in and the spacing of discontinuities
is in excess of 3 ft. This includes rock of very low strength.

Where the rock is sound, the strength of the rock foundation is generally much in
excess of the design requirements, provided the discontinuities are closed and are
favourably oriented with respect to the applied forces. The investigation should,
therefore, be concentrated on:

The identification and mapping of all discontinuities in the rock mass within
the zone of influence of the foundation including the determination of the
thickness of discontinuities.

An evaluation of the mechanical properties of these discontinuities: frictional

resistance, compressibility and strength of infilling material; and

The identification and evaluation of the strength of the rock material.

Such investigations should be carried out by a person competent in this field of work.

The final determination of the bearing pressure on rock results from the analysis
of the influence of the discontinuities on the behaviour of the foundation. As a
guideline, in the case of a rock mass with favourable characteristics (i.e., the rock
surface is perpendicular to the foundation, the load has no tangential component, the
rock mass has no open discontinuities), the allowable bearing pressure may be estimated
from:
 - 123 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

where allowable bearing pressure,

average unconfined compressive strength of rock cores, as
determined from ASTM D2938-7l, and
K empirical coefficient depending on the spacing of disconti-
sp nuities and including a factor of safety of 3 as follows:

Spacing of Discontinuities K
sp

Very wide 0.4

Wide 0.25

MOderately close 0.1

( Terms in italics are defined in 3.2.4. )

Note: The factors influencing the magnitude of coefficient K~p are shown graphical-
ly in Fig 6.2 to provide additional understanding of the effects of dis-
continuities. The relationship given in Fig 6.2 is valid for a rock mass
with spacing of discontinuities greater than one foot, thickness of dis-
continuities less than ~ inch (or less than one inch if filled with soil
or rock debri~ and for a foundation width greater than one foot. For
sedimentary or foliated rocks, the strata must be level or nearly so.

6.2.3. FOUNDATION ON POOR ROCK

Conditions are frequently encountered where the rock is of very low strength, has
discontinuities at a very close spacing, or is weathered or fragmented. It is common
practice in such cases to consider the rock as a granular mass and to design the
foundation on the basis of conventional soil mechanics. However, the strength parameters
necessary for such a design are difficult to evaluate.

6.2.3.1. Pressuremeter

The pressuremeter allows for a direct determination of the strength of a

rock mass, including the effect of discontinuities and weathering for the
design of foundations on poor rock. The allowable bearing pressure may be
calculated with a factor of safety of 3 against failure using the following
relationship:

where allowable bearing pressure, ton/sq ft,

limit pressure determined by pressuremeter, ton/sq ft,
y unit weight of soil or rock, ton/cu ft,
Df depth of footing, ft, and
Kd empirical coefficient as follows:
 - 124 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

0.5

0.4
3 + c/B
K
sp 10 VI + 300 8/c
a.
~
'" 0.3
SPACING OF DISCONTINUITIES

0 8 THICKNESS OF DISCONTINUITIES
w FOOTING WIDTH
=>
« NOTE: The coefficient K takes
> 0.2 sp
into account the size effect
and presence of discontinuities
and contains a nominal factor
of safety of 3 against general
foundation failure
0.1
0.080

o
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

RATIO c/B

FIG 6.2
BEARING PRESSURE COEFFICIENT K
sp
 - 125 -

Depth of Footing Kd

Load at rock surface 0.8

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Radius of foundation unit 2.0

4 x radius of foundation unit 3.6

10 x radius of foundation unit 5

6.2.3.2. Limitations

The pressuremeter test is an in situ test carried out with specialized

equipment. Its use and the interpretation of the results should be restricted
to geotechnical specialists.

REFERENCES

MENARD, L., 1965. Reg1es pour 1e ca1cu1 de 1a force portante et du tassement

des fondations en fonction des resu1tats pressiometriques. Pxoc. Inter.
Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 6th, Montreal, 2: 295-299.

MENARD, L., 1972. Rules for the calculation of bearing capacity and foundation
settlement based on pressuremeter results. Draft Translation 159, U.S. Army
Corps of Engrs. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.

6.3. BEARING PRESSURE ON SOIL

6.3.1. GENERAL

The allowable bearing pressure may be estimated from Table 6.2 on the basis of a
description of the material type. In the following paragraphs, a variety of methods
are presented for arriving at the allowable bearing pressure based on some form of field
or laboratory test procedure. Generally, settlement must be considered separately from
the allowable bearing pressure.

6.3.2. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST IN NON-COHESIVE SOILS

The allowable bearing pressure can be roughly estimated in sands from the results
of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) by using the relationships between N, the number
of blows per foot, and the bearing pressure as shown on Fig 6.3.*

By entering Fig 6.3(a) with the width of footing B and tpc value of N, the allowable
soil pressure for a footing surrounded by no surcharge can be obtained. If a surcharge
exists, Fig 6.3(b) indicates the additional allowable soil pressure due to the surcharge.

The diagrams are applicable without modification if the groundwater level is at a

depth of B or more below the base of the footing. If the groundwater is or is likely
to be at the base of the footing, the safe soil pressure obtained from Fig 6.3(a) should
be divided by two. If the groundwater is at the top of the surcharge surrounding the
footings, the increment of allowable soil pressure due to the surcharge, as given in
Fig 6.3(b), should also be divided by two.
~----------------------------------------
* The charts of PECK, HANSON & THORNBURN have been altered in the 1974 Edition which
includes a useful discussion of the bearing capacity of non-cohesive soil.
 126 -

TABLE 6.2

ESTIMATES OF ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE

These presumed values of the allowable bearing pressure are estimates and may need alteration
upwards or downvards. No addition has been made for the depth of embedment of the foundation.
Reference should be made to other parts of the Manual when using this table.

Group Types and conditions of rocks Strength Presumed Allowable

and soils of Rock Material Bearing Pressure
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Ton /sq ft Remarks

Massive igneous and metamorphic High to very high 100 These values are based
rocks (granite, diorite, basalt, on the assumption that
gneiss) in sound condition (2) the foundations are
carried down to unweather-
Foliated metamorphic rocks Medium to high 30 ed rock.
(slate, schist) in sound
condition (1) (2)

Sedimentary rocks: cemented Medium to high 10-40

shale, siltstone, sandstone,
limestone without cavities,
thoroughly cemented conglome-
rates, all in sound condition
Rocks (1) (2)

Compaction shale and other Low to medium

argillaceous rocks in sound
condition (2) (4)

Broken rocks of any kind with 10

IOOderately close spacing of
discontinuities (1 ft or
greater). except argillaceous
rocks (shale)

Thinly bedded limestone, See note (3)

sands tones, shale

Heavily shattered or weather- See note (3)

ed rocks

Dense gravel or dense sand and >6 Width of foundation (8)

gravel not less than 3 ft.
Groundwater level
Compact gravel or compact sand assumed to be at a depth
and gravel 2-6 not less than B below
the base of the founda-
Non- Loose gravel or loose sand and tion.
cohesive gravel <2
soils
Dense sand >3

Compact sand 1-3

Loose sand <1

Very stiff to hard clays or 3-6 Cohesive soils are

heterogeneous mixtures such as susceptible to long-term
till consolidation settlement

Stiff clays 1.5-3

Cohesive Firm clays 0.75-1.5

soils
Soft clays and silts <0.75

Very soft clays and silts not applicable

i i

I
Organic
soils
Peat and organic soils o~~l .1
I
Fill Fill applicable

NOTES:

(1) The above values for sedimentary or foliated rocks apply where the strata or foliation are level or nearly
so, and, then only if the area has ample lateral support. Tilted strata and their relation to nearby
slopes or excavations shall be assessed by a person knowledgeable in this field of work.

(2) Sound rock conditions allow minor cracks at spacing not less than 3 feet.

(3) To be assessed by examination in situ, including loading tests if necessary, by a person knowledgeable in th1a
field of work.

(4) These rocks are apt to swell on release of stress, and on exposure to water they are apt to soften
and swell appreciably.
 - 127 -

14 14
l- _ l-
LL
12 LL -12
M
eM
~II V') II

. . . . . >- 10 . . . . . >- 10
z~
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Zl-
W
OLL OLL
1-« V')
8 1-« 8 V')

w LL w LL
0::0
::::)
6 ~O 6
V') 0:: 0::
V')

V') 0 0
V')
wI-
WI-
O::u 4 4
~u
0-« «
-I LL -ILL
2 2
0 0
V')
V')

0
0 5 10 15 20
FOOTING WIDTH, B, FT DEPTH OF SURCHARGE, D , FT
f
(0) ALLOWABLE SOIL (b) ADDITIONAL ALLOWABLE SOIL
PRESSURE WITHOUT PRESSURE DUE TO SURCHARGE
SURCHARGE, D = 0
f

CHARTS BASED ON WATER TABLE NOT CLOSER THAN B

BELOW BASE OF FOOTING

FIG 6.3
ALLOWABLE SOIL PRESSURES BENEATH FOOTINGS NON-COHESIVE
SOILS AS DETERMINED BY BEARING CAPACITY
(From 'Foundation Engineering' by PECK, HANSON and THORNBURN, 1953.
Used with permission of J. Wiley & Sons, Inc.).

6.3.2.1. Limitations

The Standard Penetration Test is subject to many errors in practice,

including the skill of the operator. The material at the bottom of a borehole
is frequently disturbed by the drilling process or by the upward flow of water,
leading to an underestimation of N. The drop distance of the 140 lb hammer is
frequently too small and the friction of the rope on the shieves and winch drum
is frequently too high, leading to an overestimation of N. (See Commentary 8.1
on the Standard Penetration Test, Chapter 8.) The relationship becween Nand
the angle of shearing resistance ~, is remote and the calculation of bearing
capacity from N values is therefore highly suspect. It remains a fact that
bearing capacity is frequently calculated from the Standard Penetration Test,
particularly in granular soils and in many cases this is the only approach
readily available. Such estimates should be treated with caution.

REFERENCES

CSA Al19.l-l960, Code for split-barrel sampling of soils.

MEYERHOF, G.G., 1956. Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless

soils. Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., 82: SM1, Paper 866, 19 p.

PECK, R.B., HANSON, W.E. and THORNBURN, T.H., 1973. Foundation Engineering.
J. Wiley & Sons, N.Y.
r 128 -

6.3.3. DYNAMIC CONE TEST IN NON-COHESIVE SOILS

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Where the soil classification is known, the allowable bearing capacity may be
estimated from the results of a dynamic cone test. This test is frequently used
to provide subsurface data between conventional boreholes where standard penetration
test data is available.

A standard dynamic cone test uses a 2-1/4 in. diam., 60 degree cone driven into
the ground by blows of a 140 1b hammer with a 30 in. drop. The blow count for every
foot of penetration is recorded.

6.3.3.1. Application

The dynamic cone penetration resistance, N ' may be related to the

cone
Standard Penetration Test.

Ncone 1.5 N

The allowable bearing pressure is then estimated as described in 6.3.2.

Alternatively, the allowable bearing pressure for shallow foundations

( DIB < 4 ) can be estimated using the Dutch formula. The allowable soil
pressure is estimated by dividing the dynamic cone resistance by a factor of 20.

A e (M + P)

where Rd unit resistance, 1blsq ft

e penetration per blow, ft
M mass of hammer, 1b
H height of fall of hammer, ft
P mass of pipe, 1b, and
A cross-sectional area of cone, sq ft

6.3.3.2. Limitations

The dynamic cone penetration test is subject to most of the limitations

of the Standard Penetration Test, although it avoids the errors imposed by the
process of making a borehole. Without a borehole, friction on the drilling
rods must be accounted for and use of a sleeved cone is recommended.

REFERENCES

GADSBY, J.W., 1971. Discussion of "The correlation of cone size in the

dynamic cone penetration test with the standard penetration test", Geotech.
21, 2: 188-189.

MOHAN, D., AGGARWAL, U.S. and TOLlA, D.S., 1970. The correlation of cone size
in the dynamic cone penetration test with the standard penetration test;
Geotech. 20: 315-319.

SANGLERAT, G., 1972. The penetrometer and soil exploration; Elsevier Pub1. Co.,
Amsterdam.
 - 129 -

6.3.4. STATIC CONE PENETRATION TEST IN NON-COHESIVE SOIL

Where the soil classification is known, the allowable bearing pressure may be
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

estimated from the results of a static cone penetration test. A standard cone is
considered to be 10 cm 2 in cross-section or 1.4 in. in diameter, with an apex angle of
60 degrees.

For shallow footings of commonly used dimensions with an embedment of about 3 ft,
the allowable bearing pressure may be estimated from the approximate relationship:

where allowable bearing pressure, and

cone resistance

This formula should be used with caution for simple cases only. For other cases,
the relationship developed by MEYERHOF (1956) may be used (See Fig 6.4).

6.3.4.1. Limitations

The static cone penetration test is free of many of the objections to the
Standard Penetration Test described in 6.3.2. However, the static cone was
developed for use in deep deposits of loose, uniform, fine-grained soil. The
equipment normally used is effective in such soils, but may give trouble in dense
or mixed grain deposits.

REFERENCES

MEYERHOF, G.G., 1956. Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless

soils. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs. 82: SM1,
Paper 866, 19 p.

SANGLERAT, G., 1972. The penetrometer and soil exploration. Elsevier Publ.
Co., Amsterdam.

6.3.5. PRESSUREMETER TEST

The allowable bearing pressure may be derived from the results of in situ pressure-
meter tests by the relationship:

where qa allowable bearing pressure, ton/sq ft

PL limit pressure as obtained from pressuremeter tests within a depth
of 2B below the foundation level, ton/sq ft
y unit weight of the soil, ton/cu ft
D depth of the footing, ft, and
f
\ empirical coefficient, which is a function of the nature of the soil
and the geometry of the footing, as follows:
F
- 130 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Df IB = 3 2 1.5 0.5
0.100 ~------~~~--~~----.-~----~-.--~

0.075

Q)

~ 0 . 050
u
0-
'-....
o
0-

0.025

o 2 4 6 8 10 12

B, F T

FIG 6.4
ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE FROM STATIC CONE PENETRATION
TESTS
 - 131 -

Type of Soil Kg
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Cohesive 1 + 0.2 B/L

Non-cohesive, loose 1.1 + 0.22 BIL
Non-cohesive, dense 1.2 + 0.4 BIL

where B width of the footing, and

L length of the footing

6.3.5.1. Lindtations

The pressuremeter test is an in situ test carried out with specialized

equipment. The results of which are highly dependent on the quality of the
borehole. Use of the pressuremeter and the interpretation of the results of
the test should be restricted to geotechnical specialists. The relationship
between PL ~~d qa is empirical and should be used only for soils in which it
has already been proved applicable; i.e., in all non-cohesive soils as well as
in stiff, non-sensitive clays. The relationship should not be used for sensitive
clays for which no experience 1s available.

The pressuremeter method is particularly well suited for soils generally

difficult to investigate, such as sand, gravel and tills.

REFERENCES

MENARD, L., 1965. pour Ie cal cuI de la force portante et du tassement

des fondations en fonction des resultats pressiometriques; Proc. Internat.
Conf. Soil Mecb. Found. Eng. 6th Montreal, 2: 295-299.

MENARD, L., 1972. Rules for the calculation of bearing capacity and foundation
settlement based on pressuremeter tests. Draft Translation 159, U.S. Army
Corps of Engrs., Cold Regions Researcb and Eng,g. Lab.

6.3.6. ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATED FROM THE SOIL SHEARING STRENGTH

The ultimate bearing capacity may be calculated using values of the shearing
strength of the soil. The ultimate bearing capacity describes the load at which
general shear failure of the soil beneath a footing takes place. The allowable bearing
pressure is the ultimate bearing capacity divided by an appropriate factor of safety;
it can be determined for a continuous strip footing where the strength of the subsoil
is known by use of the following equation:

where allowable bearing pressure, lb/sq ft

width of strip footing, ft
c cohesive strength, lb/sq ft
unit weight, lblcu ft
depth of foundation, ft, and
NC' N , N bearing capacity factors, depending on the angle of internal
q Y friction or angle of shearing resistance (~ or ~t). (See Fig. 6.5)
 - 132 -

1 10
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

1 00 FOR ¢ 0
>-.... Nc = 5 .14
Z
0 90
Nq =
Z Ny = 0
<{
a-
Z
80

u
Z 70

V)

0 60
I-
U
<{
U-
50
>-
I-

U
<{ 40
a..
<{
U
l')
30
z
~

<{
L1.J
20
co

10

ANGLE OF SHEARING RESISTANCE, cp

FIG 6.5 (After Hansen)

BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS

 - 133 -

Note: The determination of ~, the angle of shearing resistance, is difficult

for soils sensitive to sampling and testing techniques. Since small
changes in ~ greatly affect the bearing capacity factor, judgement must
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

be used in its selection. Frequently cohesive soils are overconso1idated

and the angle of shearing resistance ~ (~' in terms of effective stresses)
will appear to be variable, depending upon the rate of loading in either
the laboratory or the field case. The choice of ~ and of the bearing
capacity factors for use in calculation must then be made with the loading
rate in mind, using values appropriate to the field problem.

6.3.6.1. Limitations

The use of this expression for calculation of the limiting equilibrium

assumes that the ground surface is level and that the soil properties are known
correctly and remain constant within the zone affected by the footing; i.e.,
to a depth below the bearing area greater than the width B, of the bearing area.
In addition, Nc ' Nq and Ny are variable, depending on the theories used to
compute them. The values selected here are those of Hansen as taken from D1N
4017.

6.3.6.2. Effect of Groundwater Table

The depth to the groundwater table should be considered, particularly when

dealing with footings on granular soils and can be accounted for by using the
submerged unit weight y', where the groundwater table is above the bearing level,
or intermediate values where intermediate groundwater levels apply.

6.3.6.3. Shape Factor

The shape of the footing can be considered using the following shape
factors in the modified equation;

1
FS

SHAPE FACTORS

Shape factors
Shape of Footing
S S
c' Sq Y
Strip 1.0 1.0

Rectangular 1 + 0.3 B/L 1 - 0.4 B/L

Square or round 1.3 0.6

(from D1N 4017)

where B width of the footing, and

L length of the footing

6.3.6.4. Eccentricity and Inclination Factor

The eccentricity of loading and the effect of an inclined load may be

considered by reducing the effective bearing surface and by using inclination
factors in a modified formula using dimensions and symbols as shown in Fig 6.6
(See MEYERHOF 1963).
 -134 -

I
-1e~
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

BI 2e
APPROX. FAILURE SURFACE

FIG 6.6 (After Meyerhof)

BASE UNDER ECCENTRIC INCLINED LOAD AT FAILURE

In considering eccentricity e, of the resultant load R, on the base of a

foundation of width B, the effective width should be considered as the actual
width, less twice the eccentricity:

B' = B - 2e

For eccentricity in two directions, the corrections may be made in both

dimensions:

B' B and

L' L - 2e
L

For loads inclined at an angle to the vertical, the effect can be considered
by using inclination factors in the modified equation:

1
qa FS (c Nc i c + Y D Nq i q + ~ Y B Ny i y J

where i
c
i
qa
(1 - 0./901;»2
and i (1 - 0./4J)2
Y

The effect of inclination may also be considered using slightly more

complicated relationships by reference to DIN 4017.
 - 135 -

6.3.6.5. Slope Factor

Strip footings on sloping ground or on level ground at the top of a slope

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

may also be considered by using modified equations, (MEYERHOF, 1957). The

bearing capacity is decreased by increasing the steepness of the slope. The
decrease may be small for clays, but can be considerable for sands and gravels.

REFERENCES

MEYERHOF, G.G., 1963. Some recent research on bearing capacity of foundations,

Can. Geotech. J., 1: 16-26.

MEYERHOF, G.G., 1957. "The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on slopes",

Proc. Internat. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. 4th, London. 1: 384.

DEUTCHER NORMENAUSSCHUSS, DIN 4017 (1973)

Bl 1 Vornorm Baugrund; Grundbruchberechnungen von lotrecht mittig

belasteten FlachgrUnden. Richtlinien (8) (1965)

Bl 2 Vornorm Baugrund; Grundbruchberechnungen von aussermittig und schr~g

belasteten FlachgrUndungen. Empfehlungen (4) (1970)

6.3.7. FACTOR OF SAFETY

A factor of safety of three is commonly applied to the calculated ultimate bearing

capacity to arrive at the allowable bearing pressure. Occasionally, under particular
loading conditions, lower factors of safety may be justified; however, where allowable
settlements govern, higher factors of safety may be required.

6.3.7.1. Depth Term

There is little or no ambiguity associated with the depth term YD, in the
bearing capacity equations; i.e., the soil beneath the footing has already
supported the weight removed in excavation. It is common to handle this term,
unmodified by the bearing capacity factor Nq , independently with a factor of
safety of unity.

6.4. STRESS DISTRIBUTION

6.4.1. GENERAL

To calculate settlement under an imposed loading, it is necessary first to calculate

the increase of stresses within the ground resulting from this loading. This is
conventionally done for a number of conveniently chosen increments of depth using
influence values developed from the Boussinesq equations.

The Boussinesq equations are based on theories of elasticity assuming a perfectly

flexible loaded area. Calculations will remain tolerably accurate within a loading
range in which stresses are related to strains by constant ratios. This will normally
be true at loadings where conventional factors of safety are used. It will normally
 - 136 -

not be true where failure is imminent or where distinctly non-linear stress-strain

curves are typical of the particular soil. More rigorous solutions considering
anisotropy of the soil mass are available, but it is likely that the errors in cal-
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

culating settlement will outweigh the possible advantage of such detailed stress
calculations.

6.4.2. CALCULATION OF STRESSES IMPOSED BY A LOADED AREA

The stresses in the ground resulting from a rectangular, uniformly loaded area
may be calculated beneath a corner using the relationships illustrated in Fig 6.7(a)

The stress at any location under a loaded area may be calculated by dividing the
surface in question into rectangles. The corner stress for each of four rectangles
may be calculated and the stress at the point in question is the sum of these, as shown
in Fig 6.7(b). Similarly, the stress outside the projected area of the footing may
be calculated by constructing rectangles as shown in Fig 6.7(c).

The stress at any location under a line or point load may be calculated using the
relationships illustrated in Fig 6.8.

The stress at any location under various configurations of surface loads may be
calculated using the tables prepared by JURGENSEN, 1934.

The stress at any location under a loaded area of irregular shape may be calculated
using the charts developed by NEWMARK, 1942. This is described by TERZAGHI and PECK, 1948,
1967; TAYLOR, 1948; and will be found in many other textbooks.

6.4.3. SIMPLIFIED METHOD

The stress imposed by a loaded area may also be calculated by assuming a uniform
spread of the load. It is common practice to assume a spread of one horizontal to two
vertical. The load is assumed to be distributed uniformly over the area of any
horizontal plane within the frustum of a pyramid extending downward from the perimeter
of the foundation unit.

REFERENCES

JURGENSEN, L., 1934. The application of elasticity and plasticity to foundation

problems. J. Boston Soc. Civil Engrs, 21: 206-241.

NEWMARK, N.M., 1942. Influence charts for computation of stresses in elastic

foundations. Univ. Illinois Eng. EXp. Sta. Bull. 338, 28 p.

STEINBRENNER, W., 1934. Tafe1n zur Setzungsberechnung, Die Strasse, 1: 121-124.

STEINBRENNER, W., 1936. A rational method for determination of vertical normal

stresses under foundations. Prac. Internat. Conf. SoiL Mech. Found. Eng. 1st
Cambridge, Mass., 2: 142-143.
 - 137 -

0 0

2.0
U'z iq
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

4.0
0.5
6.0 q
co L co

"'"
N 8.0 "'"
N

0 z L > B 0
l- 10.0 1.0 I-
«
0::
«
0::

J:
l-
12.0 • J:
I-
0.. 0..
W
0 14.0
(a ) LU
0

1 .5
16.0

18.0

20.0 2.0
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

INFLUENCE VALUE, UZ / q

U
z
VERTICAL STRESS AT DEPTH z
q S T RES SAT BA S E 0 FUN I FO RM LY LOADED RECTANGULAR
AREA OF DIMENSIONS L & B

UN I UNIFORMLY
RMLY
LOADED AREA LOADED AREA

(b) ( c)

G
STRESS BE POINT BELOW POINT
A CALCULATED FROM A CALCULAT FROM
SUM 0 THE STRE THE ALGEBRAIC SUM
THE REC~ANGLES A
A I--_ _ _+J=---_-I H OF THE STRESSES FOR
THE RECTANG LES AS
FOLLOWS

ACE G - A B F G -A C D H + A B J H
G

FIG 6.7 (After Steinbrenner)

DETERMINATION OF STRESS BELOW CORNER OF UNIFORMLY
LOA D E D R E eTA N G U LA R ARE A
 - 138 -

Q..

0
..
C 0.7
4:
0
..... ,
,,
...J

0.6
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

t--
Z
0
,,
"0
Q..

c.::: 0.5 , POINT LOAD Q p

Wu-
=> '~lINE LOAD Q L
~
>
._N
.
0.4
,,
wO
u
...J

.. 0.3
, ,,
Z
wC
=>4: ,,
...JO
U-...J
0.2 ,,
Z
_w
Z
, .......
...J .......
O. 1
'
c.:::
0
u-
......
..... _-
0
0 0.4 0.8 1 .2 1 .6 2.0
A ND x
z z

FIG 6.8
STRESS AT DEPTH z FOR A LINE LOAD OR POINT LOAD AT DISTANCE
x OR r RESPECTIVELY
 - 139 -

6.5. SETTLEMENT

6. 5.1. GENERAL
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Settlement of a structure is the result of the deformation of the supporting subsoil.

It may be evidence of:

- elastic deformation,

- volume changes due to a reduction of the water content (consolidation), or of

the air content (compaction),

general shear movement, or

- other factors such as subsoil collapse as in sink-hole formation or mining

subsidence.

Of these, elastic deformation is usually too small to be significant and may

normally be neglected. General shear movement, is considered under 6.2. BEARING
PRESSLTRES ON ROCK and 6.3. BEARING PRESSURES ON SOIL and is of little concern where
factors of safety, as considered in 6.3.7, are used. Subsoil collapse, is a local
occurrence usually considered on the basis of regional experience.

Consolidation settlement involves a reduction in the water content of the subsoil

and can be estimated and measured. It occurs in all soils.

6.5.1.1. Cohesive (Fine-Grained) Soils

The permeability of clay and silt is low, settlement is slow, and the
prediction of its magnitude and rate is generally of importance.

6.5.1.2. Non-Cohesive (Coarse-Grained) Soils

The permeability of sands and gravels is sufficiently great that consolida-

tion normally takes place during the construction period. Settlement of sands
and gravels is largely the result of rearrangement of the particles and may be
significant, particularly in loose deposits. Settlement, even when very low
soil pressures are used in design, is likely to follow submergence, soaking, or
vibration from blasting, machine operations, or earthquake.

6.5.2. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST IN NON-COHESIVE SOIL

The settlement of shallow footings may be roughly related to the N value obtained
from the Standard Penetration Test. However, the accuracy of settlement predicted this
way is questionable. As a simplified approach, TERZAGHI & PECK have suggested the
relationship shown in Fig 6.9. The allowable bearing pressure obtained from this rela-
tionship is such that the resulting settlement will be about 1 in.
 FI'
)'i

I
- 140 -

"
7

I--
u.. 6 VERY DENSE
0-
V) cc
N
01:::
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

WI 50
Q..I-- 5
Z~
0°
1--3;
4
~O
01:::....1
::::>w
V)cc
V)w
W....I 3 30
OI:::cc
Q..<{
....II--

O~ 2
V) I--
w<{
....13;
cc_
<{ COMPACT
3; N 10
0
....I
....I
<{
LOOSE
0
0 5 10 15 20
WIDTH B OF FOOTING, FEET

FIG 6.9
ALLOWABLE SOIL PRESSURE FOR FOOTINGS ON NON-COHESIVE
SOILS ON THE BASIS OF 1 IN. SETTLEMENT
(From 'Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice' by TERZAGHI & PECK, 1948.
Used with permission of J. Wiley & Sons, Inc.).

6. 5 • 2 .1 • Subrrergence

According to theory, the submergence of the sand located beneath the base
of a footing should approximately double the settlement, provided the base is
located at or near the surface of the sand. The values obtained from Fig 6.9.
should be reduced by 50 per cent.

This procedure leads to conservative and probably over-conservative results

(HEYERHOF,1965). Submergence may reduce the penetration resistance, in which
case the use of the N values determined in the field inherently includes a
correction for submergence. In practice, therefore, it is common to neglect the
effect of submergence and this may quite properly be done where local experience
supports the procedure or where the possibility of greater settlement is not of
controlling importance in the design.

6.5.2.2. Limitations

Settlement calculated using this procedure is generally greater than that

actually observed.

The method is of limited value for soils containing gravel, cobbles, or

boulders where single fragments may affect the blow count, and is not valid for
cohesive or cemented soil.
 - 141 -

REFERENCES

D'APPOLONIA, D.J., D'APPOLONIA, E. and BRISSETTE, K.F., 1968. Settlement of

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

spread footings on sand. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Prac. Am. Soc. Civil
Engrs., 94: SM3, 735-760.

FLETCHER, G.F.A., 1965. Standard Penetration Test: Its uses and abuses.
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., 91: SM4, 67-75.

MEYERHOF, G.G., 1965. Shallow foundations. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div.,

Prac. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., 91: SM2, 21-31.

PECK, R.B., HANSON, W.E. and THORNBURN, T.H., 1954. Foundation Engineering.
J. Wiley & Sons, N.Y.

6.5.3. STATIC CONE PENETRATION TEST IN NON-COHESIVE SOIL

Settlement may be estimated from the results of static cone penetration tests
by means of the relationship between the coefficient of compressibility, a and the
c
cone point resistance, qcone'

where a coefficient of compressibility

c
qcone cone resistance

Po effective overburden pressure, and

S is a coefficient depending on soil density as follows"

Soil density e
Dense sand <1

Compact sand 1

Loose sand 1.5

Settlement under a shallow foundation can then be estimated by substituting the

value of a into the settlement equation.
c

s 2.3

where S settlement
H thickness of deposit, and
Ap pressure change applied to the soil layer

6.5.3.1. Limitations

The static cone test was developed for use in loose, uniform, fine-grained
soils and field verification has been restricted largely to deposits of these
materials. The equipment normally used is effective in such soils, but may give
p
- 142 -

trouble in dense or mixed-grain deposits.

Experience indicates that the a c calculated by this method is usually low,

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

giving an upper limit to estimated settlements. The static cone penetration

test should be supplemented with subsurface data from conventional boreholes.

REFERENCES

SANGLERAT, G., 1972. The penetrometer and soil exploration, Elsevier Pub1.
Co., Amsterdam.

SCHMERTMANN, J.R., 1970. Static cone to compute static settlement over sand,
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., 96: SM3, 1011-1043.

6.5.4. PLATE BEARING TEST ON NON-COHESIVE SOIL

A plate bearing test may be carried out on non-cohesive soils in which the settlement
of a 1 ft sq test plate is measured and related to the expected settlement of a footing.
The relationship suggested by TERZAGHI & PECK (1948, 1967), who also describe the
conditions required for a Standard Load Test is:

where settlement of footing with width B, ft, and

settlement of a 1 ft sq loading plate under the pressure
expected to be applied by the footing.

6.5.4.1. Limitations

The method is only considered suitable for use in non-cohesive soils where
time-dependent settlement relationships are negligible. It tests only a shallow
depth of soil which must be representative of the stratum affected by the
footing. Extrapolation to large footings should be carried out with caution.

From an inspection of Fig 6.1, it will be obvious that the model footing
of a plate loading test smaller than the prototype will stress an entirely
different depth of material. It follows that the test will be misleading if the
material properties change within the depth affected by the larger footing.

The test is cumbersome to perform and potentially misleading. It requires

supplementary information from boreholes and, generally, these will yield
sufficient information to allow satisfactory estimates to be made without the
use of detailed load tests.

REFERENCES

D'APPOLONIA, D.J., D'APPOLONIA, E. and BRISSETTE, R.F., 1968. Settlement

of spread footings on sand. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Proc. Am. Soc.
Civil Engrs., 94: SM3, 735-760.
 -143 _

6.5.5. PRESSUREMETER TEST

Settlement may be estimated from the results of an in situ pressuremeter test, by

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

means of the following simplified formula:

S f

where S settlement, ft,

net design bearing pressure, ton/sq ft,
pressuremeter modulus as obtained from pressuremeter test,
within a depth of 2B below the foundation level, ton/sq ft, and
f empirical coefficient, ft which is a function of the nature of the soil and
the geometry of the footing, as given in Fig 6.10.

6.5.5.1. Limitations

The pressuremeter test is an in situ test carried out with specialized

equipment. Its use and the interpretation of the results should be restricted
to geotechnical specialists.

The determination of the pressuremeter modulus Ep ' is highly sensitive to

the method of boring and testing. Reliable results can be expected in stiff
or dense soils, provided bentonite mud is used as the drilling fluid. The method
is not applicable in loose sand and silt deposits or in soft clays.
REFERENCES

MENARD, L., 1965. RegIe pour Ie calcul de la force portante et du tassement

des fondations en fonction des resultats pressiometriques. Proc. Internat.
Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. 6th, Montreal, 2: 295-299.

MENARD, L., 1972. Rules for the calculation of bearing capacity and foundation
settlement based on pressuremeter tests. Draft Translation 159, U.S. Army
Corps of Engrs. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.

6. 5. 6. CRITICAL POINT METHOD

6.5.6.1. Definition

The critical point is that point of a foundation under which the settlement
is independent of the footing's rigidity. Therefore, the settlement under that
point, as computed from the Boussinesq solution for flexible footings, will be
equal to the settlement of a rigid footing of the same area supporting the same
load.

A determination of the settlement can be made simply for the critical point,
assuming a constant value of the elastic modulus of the soil (KANY, 1959.)
 - 144 -

5.0

STRIP FOOTING
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

SQUARE FOOTING

4.0
CLAY

I--
w
w
u..

I-- 3 .0
Z
w

u
u.. SILT
u..
w
a
u
I--
Z 2.0
w
:E SAND
w
....J &
I--
I-- G RA VE L
w
Vl

1 .0

o
o 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
WID THO F Fa a TIN G I BI FEE T

FIG 6.10
SETTLEMENT COEFFIC lENT I f (PRESSUREMETER TEST)
 145 -

6.5.6.2. Formula

The settlement may be estimated using the relationship:

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

B qnet
S = -E--
s

where S settlement, ft
B footing width, ft

qnet net design bearing pressure, ton/sq ft

E modulus of elasticity of the soil, ton/sq ft, and
s
f settlement coefficient, as given in Fig 6.11.
c

6.5.6.3. Application

To apply the method, a representative value of Es must be selected.

1) In non-cohesive soils

The settlement is independent of time. Es may be determined from:

(a) SPT results as shown in Fig 6.12;

(b) Static cone penetration test results by means of the relationship;

E 1.5
s

where ~ is the average point resistance, ton/sq ft, or

(c) The density of the soil, as follows:

Modulus of elasticity of cohesionless soils E , ton/sq ft

s
Density
Soil Type Loose Medium Dense

Gravel 300 - 800 800 - 1000 1000 - 2000

Sand 100 - 300 300 - 500 500 - 800

Fine Sand 80 - 120 120 - 200 200 - 300

( after KEZDI )

2) In cohesive soils

The settlement is time-dependent; two cases must be considered:

(a) For the immediate settlement, is taken equal to Eu , as determined

from the vane strength, c u , by means of the empirical relationship:
 - 146 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

o .74 B/2

0.74L/2

0.10

0.15
L ~ B
0.20
Df
0.30
COMPRESS I BLE LA YE R
z
d:l 0.40 Es I Y.
~
N
0.50 '''' /. '\

I
l-
e... 0.70
w
a
w 1 .00
:::
I-
<{
....J 1 .50
w
0<:

2.00
SETTLEMENT
3.00 CALCULATION

4.00 S '" fc

5.00

7.00 WHERE q q - Y Df

10.00
LIB 1 .0
15.00

20.00
0 0.5 1 .0 1 .5
SETTLEMENT COEFFICIENT, f
c

FIG 6.11 (After Kany)

CURVES FOR CALCULATION OF SETTLEMENT AT THE CRITICAL
POINT, C
 - 147 -

N
:f 1000
u
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

""
()
~ 900
yH
b 800
0:::
0
u..
>
700
E

"" 600
11'1
u.J

>- 500
I-

....J
-a:::l
400
V')
V')
u.J
0:::
a...
:f
0
300
"" ""
u
"" ""
u..
0
200
"" ""
V')

::>
....J
1 00
""
""~AFTER SCHULTZE

"" ""
::> AND MENZENBACH
0 (1961)
0
:f a
a 1a 20 30 40 50 60
NUMBER OF BLOWS, N

FIG 6 • 12 (After Schultze and Melzer)

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MODULUS OF COMPRESSIBILITY,
E
s
= 11m v AND NUMBER OF BLOWS, N
 - 148 -

E 500 c for soft sensitive clays

u u
E 1000 c for firm to stiff clays
u u
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

E 1500 c for very stiff clays

u u

(b) For long-term settlement, Es is taken equal to 1/~, where Mv is

determined from consolidation tests. (Note that Es is the slope
of the consolidation curve when plotted on a linear nh versus load
plot).

3} In stratified deposits

In cases where layers with different moduli occur within a depth of

3B below the foundation level, this fact may be accounted for by using
the modified formula:

S B q [:1
SI
+
f
2
-
E
S2
f
1
+ +
f - f
n E n-I
sn
)
J

where f I , f2' f 3 , ' e e fp are the settlement coefficients obtained

assuming the depth of the compressible layer z to be equal to
zI' z2' z3' ••• zn' depth of the bottom of layers 1, 2, 3, ••• n
and where EsI , Es2 ' E~3' ••• Esn are the moduli of layers 1, 2,3,
n. (See Fig 6.11).

6.5.6.4. Limitations

This method requires an approximation of the value of the modulus of

elasticity Es' It is well known that Es is a function of the stress level and
therefore variable with depth and applied load. The settlements estimated by
this method will therefore be only as good as the estimate of the representative
value of Es selected by the designer.

The method is useful for preliminary design purposes, but should be used
with discretion for final design.

REFERENCES

KANY, M., 1959. Beitrag zur Berechnung von F1achengrUndungen, Wilh. Ernst
& Sohn, Berlin.

KEZDI, A., 1964. Bodenmechanik. VEB Verlag fur Bauwesen, Berlin, Band 1.

SCHULTZE, E. and MELZER, K.-J., 1965. The determination of the density and
the modulus of compressibility of non-cohesive soils by soundings,
Proc. Internat. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 6th, Montreal, 1: 354-358.

SANGLERAT, G., 1972. The penetrometer and soil exploration, Elsevier Publ.
Co., Amsterdam.

6.5.7. CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT OF COHESIVE SOIL

The consolidation settlement of cohesive soil is normally computed on the basis of

laboratory tests. Consolidation tests are carried out in the laboratory on undisturbed
samples of clay or silt contained in a rigid ring between porous stones and loaded
axially. The results of the test and, by analogy, settlement of a confined soil stratum
in the field can be expressed as follows:
 - 149 -

+ L\p
S H log
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

where S total settlement,

H original thickness of stratum,
C compression index,
c
e initial void ratio,
0

Po average initial effective pressure,

L\p the average change in pressure in the compressible stratum
considered.

The values of both eo and Cc must normally be determined by test. The value of
eo for saturated soil is directly related to water content and can be found simply.
The value of Cc is obtained from a consolidation test which requires detailed laboratory
procedures.

The value of Cc is grossly affected by the consolidation history of the clay. The
value of Cc obtained on the first loading of the soil will be many times greater than
the value obtained upon recompression. Computation of settlement, then, must take into
account the preconsolidation pressure (over-consolidation) of the clay; that is, the
greatest pressure in excess of the existing overburden pressure with which the soil
has been in equilibrium. The relationships of the compression indices to void ratio e,
and pressure are illustrated in Fig 6.13.

CHANGE IN PRESSURE=!::,.
p

SLOP E

VI
o
J RECOMPRESSION LINE

__
j
ASSUMED PRECONSOLIDATION
PRESSURE (pc)

-----.I-ViRGIN COMPRESSION
o LIN E
> INTENSITY OF
APPLIED LOAD

d SLOPE

LOG PRESSURE, p

NOTE:
Settlement is dependent upon both C cr and C c

FIG 6.13
FIE L 0 e - log RE LA T ION S HIP
p

(From "The Design of Foundations for Buildings' by JOHNSON & KAVANAGH,

Copyright 1968. Used with permission of McGraw-Hill Book Company).
 - 150 -

For loadings less than the preconsolidation pressure, Pc settlement will be computed
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

using a value of the compression index representing recompression, Ccr • For loadings
greater than the preconsolidation pressure, settlement will be computed using the
compression index, Cco Where the increase in pressure represents both recompression
and loading in excess of the precompression load, the settlement equation may be written:

S log

The estimation of the preconsolidation pressure is technically complicated and will

usually require geological confirmation. Results are frequently ambiguous.

6.5.7.1. Settlement-Time Relationships

Consolidation is a time-dependent process and, typically, under a particular

load will plot as shown in Fig 6.14.

TIME LOG OF TIME

Z 0
0
u... ..... 25
0«
w O 50
~...J*
0 0 .. 75
wVl::J
o Z 100
0 ............................ ..... .....
U ..... .....
..... .....
(a) (b)

FIG 6.14
TYPICAL TIME - SETTLEMENT RELATIONSHIPS

(From 'Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice' by TERZAGHI & PECK, 1948.

Used with permission of J. Wiley & Sons, Inc.).

Three significant portions of the measured settlement may be considered:

(i) An initial compression which occurs immediately owing at least in part

to the compression of gas in the pore space (not shown in Fig 6.14);

(ii) The compression indicated by the solid lines of Fig 6.14 known as primary
consolidation, which is accompanied by a corresponding drop in pore water
pressure;

The time at which consolidation will take place can be calculated from the
equation:
 _ 151 _

Tn
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

where t time for the degree of consolidation U, in per cent,

n expressed by n, in per cent to occur, min.,
H length of drainage path, ft, (for the usual case of
double drainage, 2H equals the thickness of the
consolidating stratum),
c coefficient of consolidation* (sq ft/min) for the
v
appropriate range of pressures, and
Tn time factor, as follows **

U% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

T .003 .031 .071 .126 .197 .287 .403 .557 .848

n

(iii) The compression indicated by the difference between the solid and dashed
lines of Fig 6.14, known as secondary compression, or the consolidation
resulting from the secondary time effect. This takes place at constant
effective stress with no change in pore water and is related to the portion
of the curve in which excess pore water pressures are negligible.

Secondary compression is significant in comparison with primary consolida-

tion when considering some highly compressible clays, peat, highly organic
soil, and some micaceous soils. For a discussion of the settlement of
peat, refer to the Muskeg Engineering Handbook, MacFARLANE (1969).

6.5.7.2. Limitations

The settlement calculation must be based on an estimate of the field

consolidation curve. The principal difficulty in making such an estimate
is that of determining the preconsolidation pressure Pc' Where the preconsoli-
dation pressure is not clearly defined or not carefully determined the indicated
values of the compression index Ce , may be in error by as much as an order of
magnitude.
Settlement-time predictions are also subject to considerable error. Labora-
tory values of the coefficient of consolidation c v ' are not easily derived and
field drainage conditions may be difficult to determine. Where time is important,
such predictions are usually checked by field measurements.

Organic and other materials subject to significant secondary compression

are difficult to sample and test and estimates of the amount of settlement and
time are usually based on field experience.

* An approximate value of C
v can be obtained from the relationship:

where k permeability, ft/min,

E modulus of elasticity, as discussed in
s
6.5.6.3. and
unit weight of water, ton/cu ft

** These values relate to a constant initial state of hydrostatic excess pressure and this is the
relationship most common in practice. Other relationships are referred to in the literature.
 - 152 -

REFERENCES

BJERRUM, L., 1967. Engineering geology of Norwegian normally-consolidated

marine clays as related to settlements of buildings. Seventh Rankine
Lecture, Geotechnique, 17: 83-117.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

CRAWFORD, C.B., 1964. Interpretation of the consolidation test. J. Soil

Mech. Found. Div., Pxoc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs. 90: SM5, 87-102.

CRAWFORD, C.B., 1965. The resistance of soil structure to consolidation.

Can. Geotech. J., 2: 90-97.

MacFARLANE, I.C., Editor, 1969. Muskeg Engineering Handbook. Univ. Toronto

Press, Toronto.

SCHMERTMANN, J.H., 1953. Estimating the true consolidation behaviour of

clay from laboratory test results, Proc. Am. Soc. civil Engrs., 79:
Separate 3U.

SKEMPTON, A.W. and BJERRUM, L., 1957. A contribution to the settlement

analysis of foundations on clay, Geotechnique, 7: 168-178.

6.5. B. ALWWABLE SETTLEMENT

For any given structure there is a certain amount of settlement, either differential
or total, that can be tolerated without:

overstressing the structure;

creating an unacceptable maintenance or aesthetic problem.

The foundation must be designed so that anticipated settlements do not exceed the lesser
of these amounts.

6.S.B.l. Differential Settlement

Allowable displacement criteria in common use are as follows:

(i) Maximum deflection between supports where L is the span length

Members supporting walls or partitions

masonry, glass or other frangible material L/360

metal cladding or similar nonfrangible finishes L/240

Steel or concrete frames L/150 to L/IBO

Timber frames L/lOO

Steel or concrete shear walls by design

 - 153-

(ii) Limitation on slope

Type of construction Maximum slope*

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

High continuous brick walls .005 to .001

Brick dwellings .003

Brick cladding between columns .001

Reinforced concrete building frame .0025 to .004

Reinforced concrete curtain wall .003

Continuous steel frame .002

Simply supported steel frame .005

Similarly values are given by BJERRUM (1963), in Fig 6.15.

ANGULAR DISTORTION! 8/L

1 1 1 1 1
300 400 500 600 700

LIMIT WHERE DIFFICULTIES WITH

MACHINERY SENSITIVE TO
SETTlEMENTS ARE TO BE FEARED

LIMIT OF DANGER FOR

FRAMES WITH DIAGONALS

SAFE LIMIT FOR BUILDINGS WHERE

CRACKING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE

LIMIT WHERE FIRST CRACKING IN

PANEL WALLS IS TO BE EXPECTED

LIMIT WHERE DIFFICULTIES WITH

OVERHEAD CRANES ARE TO BE EXPECTED

LIMIT WHERE TILTING OF HIGH, RIGID

BUILDINGS MIGHT BECOME VISIBLE

CONSIDERABLE CRACKING IN PANEL WALLS AND BRICK WALLS

SAFE LIMIT FOR FLEXIBLE BRICK WALLS, h/L < 1/4

LIMIT WHERE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE OF

BUILDINGS IS TO BE FEARED

FIG' 6.15 (After Bjerrum)

D IFF ERE NT I A L SET T L EM E NT AND A N G U LA R DIS TOR T ION RE LA TED
TO BUILDING PERFORMANCE

* Maximum slope of deflected configuration from line of reference as-built configuration.

 - 154-

6.5.8.2. Total Settlement

Differential settlement will occur in all cases because of the natural

variability of soils even where total settlements are calculated to be uniform.
The magnitude of these differential settlements may be related to the magnitude
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

of the total settlements, for example, see D'APPOLONIA et a1 1968. Consequently,

limiting the total settlement of a structure is frequently used as an indirect
means of controlling the amount of differential settlement.

The following values are suggested:

Maximum total settlement

Structures on clay 3 in.

Structures on sand 1i in.

6.5.8.3. Linlitations

Design limits on differential settlement are frequently set in totally

unrealistic terms. In fact, each structure should be considered individually
with the tabulated values providing only a guide.

Design limits on total settlement are simple criteria to apply and are
commonly used. Many successful structures may be seen, however, with total
settlement greatly in excess of the values quoted.

REFERENCES

D'APPOLONIA, D.J., D'APPOLONIA, E. and BRISSETTE, R.F., 1968. Settlements

of spread footings on sand. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Proc. Am. Soc.
Civil Engrs. 94: SM3, 735-760.

BJERRUM, L., 1963. Allowable settlements of structures. Proc. European Conf.

Soil Mech. Found. Engr., Wiesbaden 2: 135-137.

FELD, J., 1965. Tolerance of structures to settlement. J. Soil Mech. Found.

Div., Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs. 91: 8M3, 63-77.

POLSHIN, D.E. and TOKAR, R.A., 1957. Maximum allowable non-uniform settlement
of structures. Proc. Internat. Conf., Soil Mech. Found. Eng. 4th,
London, 1: 402-405.

SKEMPTON, A.W. and MacDONALD, D.H., 1956. The allowable settlement of buildings.
Proc. Inst. Civil Engrs., Part III, Volume 5, 727-768.

SOWERS, G.F., 1962. Shallow Foundations. In: G.A. LEONARDS. Foundation

Engineering. McGraw-Hill, N.Y.

6.6. DESIGN BEARING PRESSURE

The design bearing pressure is limited by two considerations:

the foundation must be safe against shear failure of the supporting soil, and

post-construction settlement must not be excessive.

The design bearing pressure is the lesser of the values dictated by these two requirements.

A detailed flow diagram for the design of shallow foundations is shown in Fig 6.16. In
many cases this can be simplified.
 - 155 -

FLOW D I A GRAM FOR FOUNDAT I ON DES I GN

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

ASSEMBLE INFORMATION
REGARDING SITE FOR
PROP STRUCTURE:-
TOPOGRAPHY,
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

FiElD INVESTIGATION
EXAMINE NUMBER OF
FOUNDATION ----1
URATIONS AND
MAKE TENTATIVE ECONOMIC I
I
EVALUATION OF EACH I

..
I
I
I
-, I
I I
I I
I i
_______ J :
_ _ _ __ .J

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -T --
I
FACTORS AFFECTING DEPTH
OF FOOTING:- FROST '* I
I
I
f
I
I

•
PROTECTION, SLOPE
I
1--"'11---1 EROSION,
I
SO Il I I
WATER lEVEL, I I
I I
I
I
I
()
z 1
I
I
l
;:: r- --j I I
0 I I I
I I I I
2 I I I I

(;
Z
:;: I
I
I
j.
I
I
YES
•
--:...,...J
I
I
I
•I
I
I
I
lI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I YES I I I
0 1------- I I I
I I : I
;! I I I I
I I
::J

V
I
IL _____
,
I
I
I
I
!I
::J
I YES .... __ .1I ___ JI I
:;:; I
I
I
-::. I
V I
Z I
:r: I
V I
I
0 ---~
I
0
+I
I
---.,..---- --- ----{
I
I
I
I

* THESE FACTORS FREQUENTlY CONTROL FOUNDATION DESIGN

FIG 6 .16
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
 CHAPTER 7

DEEP FOUNDATIONS

TAB LEO F CON TEN T S

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

7. 1. GENERAL 159
7.2. GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS 159

7.2.1. DEEP FOUNDATIONS ON ROCK 159

7.2.1.1. General
7.2.1.2. Load Capaci ty
7.2.1.3. Settlements
7.2.2. PILES IN GRANULAR SOILS 163
7.2.2.1. General
7.2.2.2. Allowable Load On A Single Pile
7.2.2.3. Allowable Load On A Pile Group
7.2.2.4. Settlement Of A Single Pile
7.2.2.5. Settlement Of A pile Group
7.2.3. PILES IN COHESIVE SOILS 170
7.2.3.1. General
7.2.3.2. Allowable Load On A Single Pile
7.2.3.3. Allowable Load On A Pile Group
7.2.3.4. Settlement Of A Single Pile
7.2.3.5. Settlement Of A Pile Group
7.2.3.6. Negative Skin Friction
7.2.3.7. Special Problems
7.2.4. PILES IN LAYERED DEPOSITS 182
7.2.4.1. General
7.2.4.2. Allowable Pile Capacity
7.2.4.3. Settlement Of Pile Groups
7.2.5. PILES SUBJECTED TO HORIZONTAL LOADS 183
7.2.5.1. General
7.2.5.2. Pile Groups With Inclined Piles
7.2.5.3. Horizontal Load Capacity Of Vertical Piles
7.2.6. PILES SUBJECTED TO UPLIFT FORCES 185
7.2.6.1. General
7.2.6.2. Uplift Resistance Of A Single Pile
7.2.6.3. Uplift Resistance Of Pile Groups

7.3. STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS 186

7. 3.1. GENERAL 186

7.3.1.1. Structural Capacity Of Deep Foundations
7.3.1.2. Wave Equation Analysis
7.3.2. TIMBER PILES 188
7.3.2.1. Use Of Timber Piles
7.3.2.2. Materials
7.3.2.3. Structural Design
7.3.2.4. Installation Of Timber Piles

7.3.3. PRECAST AND PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILES 189

7.3.3.1. Use Of Precast And Prestressed Concrete Piles
7.3.3.2. Materials And Fabrication
7.3.3.3. Pile Splices
7.3.3.4. Structural Design
7.3.3.5. Installation

- 157 -
 - 158 -

7.3.4. STEEL H PILES 193

7.3.4.1. Use Of Steel H piles
7.3.4.2. Materials
7.3.4.3. Splices
7.3.4.4. Structural Design
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

7.3.4.5. Installation
7.3.5. STEEL PIPE PILES 195
7.3.5.1. Use Of Steel pipe Piles
7.3.5.2. Materials
7.3.5.3. Structural Design
7.3.5.4. Installation
7.3.6. COMPACTED EXPANDED BASE CONCRETE PILES 198
7.3.6.1. Use Of Compacted Concrete Piles
7.3.6.2. Materials
7.3.6.3. Structural Design
7.3.6.4. Installation
7.3.7. BORED PILES 201
7.3.7.1. Use Of Bored Piles
7.3.7.2. Materials
7.3.7.3. Structural Design
7.3.7.4. Installation

7.4. LOAD TESTS ON DEEP FOUNDATIONS 204

7.4.1. USE OF LOAD TESTS 204

7.4.1.1. Load Tests During Design
7.4.1.2. Load Tests During Construction
7.4.1.3. Routine Load Tests For Control
7.4.2. RECOMMENDED TEST METHODS 205
7.4.2.1. ASTM D 1143-69 Method (Method A)
7.4.2.2. Conptant Rate Of Penetration Method (Method B)
7.4.2.3. Other Tests
7.4.2.4. Presentation Of Load Tests Results
7.4.3. INTERPRETATION OF LOAD TEST RESULTS 207
7.4.3.1. Method Based On A Failure Criterion
7.4.3.2. Other Methods Of Interpretation

7.5. INSPECTION OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS 210

7.5.1. GENERAL 210

7.5.2. DOCUMENTS 210
7 .5. 3. LOCAT ION AND ALIGNMENT 211
7.5.3.1. Location
7.5.3.2. Alignment
7.5.4. INSPECTION OF PILE DRIVING OPERATIONS 212
7.5.4.1. General
7.5.4.2. Driving Equipment
7.5.4.3. Piles
7.5.4.4. Driving Operations
7.5.5. INSPECTION OF COMPACTED CONCRETE PILES 215
7.5.5.1. General
7.5.5.2. Equipment
7.5.5.3. Installation

7 • 5 .6. INSPECTION OF BORED DEEP FOUNDATIONS 216

7.5.6.1. Preliminary Information
7.5.6.2. Excavation
7.5.6.3. Concreting
 CHAPTER 7

DEEP FOUNDATIONS

7.1. GENERAL
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

7.1.1. DEFINITIONS

A deep foundation is a foundation unit that provides support for a building by

transferring loads either by end-bearing to a soil or rock at considerable depth below
the building, or by adhesion or friction, or both, in the soil or rock in which it is
placed. Piles are the most common type of deep foundation.

Piles can be pre-manufactured or cast-in-place; they can be driven, jacked, jetted,

screwed, bored or excavated. They can be of wood, concrete or steel, or combination
thereof. Bored piles of large diameter are frequently referred to as caissons in Canada;
in this Manual they are considered under bored piles.

7.1.2. RELATIONSHIP OF NBC SUBSECTION 4.2.7. AND THIS CHAPTER

The quality of a deep foundation is highly dependent on construction technique, on

equipment and on workmanship. Such parameters cannot be quantified nor taken into
account in normal design procedures. Consequently, as implied in NBC Subsection 4.2.7.
it is highly desirable to design deep foundations on the basis of in situ load tests on
actual foundation units.

Few projects however, are large enough to warrant full scale load tests during the
design phase, and in most cases load tests are performed only during or even after
construction of the foundation. Therefore, it is necessary to provide the engineer with
appropriate design methods. This chapter presents a series of alternative methods
applicable to the various types of deep foundations encountered in practice.

7.1.3. LIMITATIONS

Due to the determining influence of construction procedures on the behaviour of deep

foundations, the methods presented in this chapter may lead to successful designs of deep
foundations only if appropriate inspection of the construction is carried out as required
in Article 4.2.2.3. of the NBC. Inspection should be considered as an integral part of
the design of any foundation.

Load tests should always be performed to check the validity of the design, since the
best design method is still not so reliable as a load test.

7.2. GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS

7.2.1. DEEP FOUNDATIONS ON ROCK

7.2.1.1. General

Deep foundations sitting on or socketed into rock normally carry heavy loads.
They may be bored or excavated and cast-in-place. In this case the area of
contact with rock is known and the load capacity can be evaluated by means of the
design methods given in 7.2.1.2.

Deep foundations may also be driven to rock. In this case, which includes
steel H piles, pipe piles driven with a closed end or precast concrete piles, the
exact area of contact with rock, the depth of penetration into rock as well as
the quality of rock at the foundation level are largely unknown. Consequently,
the determination of the load capacity of such deep foundations cannot be made by
means of the methods given below, and should be made on the basis of driving
observations, local experience and load tests.

- 159 -
 - 160 -

7.2.1.2. Load Capacity

(1) Design assumptions

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

In most cases where cast-in-place deep foundations are socketed into

rock the depth of the socket is typically 1 to 3 times the diameter of the
foundation. Present Canadian practice for the design of such deep
foundations varies from region to region. Three different design assumptions
are in use:

(a) The load capacity is assumed to be derived from point resistance only.
This assumption can be considered as safe, since the bearing capacity of
the rock is available, irrespective of the construction procedure.
However, if the bottom of the excavation is not properly cleaned, the
bearing capacity may not be mobilized before large settlements occur due
to the compression of mud remaining in the bottom of the socket.

Design methods based on this assumption are given in 7.2.1.2. (2) and (3).

(b) The load capacity is assumed to be derived from the bond between concrete
and rock along the surface perimeter of the socket. This assumption is
not necessarily safe. Theoretical considerations indicate that a uniform
mobilization of the bond is possible only if the modulus of elasticity of
both concrete and surrounding rock are of the same order of magnitude
(COATES 1967). Furthermore the available bond strength is highly depen-
dent on the quality of the rock surface on the walls of the socket.

The design method based on this assumption is discussed in 7.2.1.2. (4).

(c) The load capacity is assumed to be derived from both point resistance and
lateral bond. This assumption leads to unreasonably high load capacities.
It should not be used unless it can be proved applicable by means of full
scale load tests or well-supported local experience.

(2) Allowable bearing pressure from properties of rock cores

The method described in Chapter 6 of this Manual is applicable to deep

foundations. In this case the effect of depth is included and the formula
becomes:

q q K d
a u-core sp

where allowable bearing pressure,

qu-core average unconfined compressive strength of rock core,

from ASTM D2938-7l,
empirical factor as given in 6.2.2. including a factor
of safety of 3, and
d depth factor:
H
s
0.8 + 0.2 II ~ 2

where H depth of the socket in rock

s
having a strength qu-core
D diameter of the socket

This method is generally not applicable to soft stratified rocks such

as shales or limestones. The values of the basic. parameter qv-cor ' are
generally not representative of the actual mechan~cal propert~es of the rock
mass because of the effect of sampling disturbance and the absence of dis-
continuities in the test specimens.

The allowable bearing pressure as obtained from this method should be

checked against the range of values shown in Table 6.2.
 - 161 -

(3) Allowable bearing pressure from pressuremeter test results

In situ pressuremeter tests allow for a direct determination of the

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

strength of the rock mass, including the effect of joints and weathering.
Where performed properly (see Commentary 8.8) the pressuremeter test gives
a strength index of the rock mass called the limit pressure, PL. The test
and the corresponding design methods are particularly suited for weathered
or closely jointed rocks and for soft rocks in general.

The allowable bearing pressure is given by:

where allowable bearing p{essure, ton/sq ft

(a factor of safety of 3 is included),
overburden pressure at the elevation of
the pile tip, ton/sq ft,
q at rest horizontal stress in the rock
o
at the elevation of the pile tip, ton/sq ft
(for practical purposes, it can be assumed
that: q = p )
00'
limit pressure as determined from pressure-
meter tests in the zone extending 2 pile
diameters above and below the pile tip, ton/sq ft, and
an empirical bearing capacity coefficient
as follows:

Depth of socket
Pile diameter 0 1 2 3 5 7

0.8 2.8 3.6 4.2 4.9 5.2

~

(4) Load capacity from bond between concrete and rock

It is common practice in some regions to assume that the entire load from
the pile is transferred to the rock by adhesion between the concrete of the
socket and the surrounding rock. The allowable load capacity is given by:

1T D H T
S a
2000

where allowable load on pile, ton,

D pile diameter, in.,
~ depth of socket in sound rock, in.,
and allowable bond strength between concrete and rock, lb/sq in.

The available bond strength T is a function of the strength of con-

crete and rock as well as of the ~uality of the contact area resulting from
the excavation process. T is generally higher than the bond strength
normally considered in con~rete design due to the Poisson's effect in the
confined concrete socket.
 - 162 -

Design values of 100 to 300 1b/sq in. are used but much lower values have
been observed on actual sockets where the construction process had produced
a poor contact area.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

The application of this design method is based on the assumption that

the walls of the socket are of sound rock, unshattered by the excavation
process and are clean from any drilling mud or smear. Experience shows that
this is difficult to achieve particularly in sedimentary rocks. The design
method should therefore be used with great caution and a careful visual
inspection of the rock socket before concreting is mandatory. Furthermore,
and to ensure the safety of the design it is recommended that the load
capacity Q determined by this method be limited to the maximum value
resulting from method (2) or (3).

REFERENCES

COATES, D.F., 1967. Rock mechanics principles. Mines Branch Monograph 874,
Queen's Printer, Ottawa, pp. 358.

MENARD, L., 1965. pour 1e ca1cu1 de 1a force portante et du tassement

des fondations en fonction des resu1tats pressiometriques. Proc.
Internat. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 6th, MOntreal, 2: 285-299.

TAVENAS, F.A., 1971. Contra1e du roc de fondation de pieux fores a haute

capacite. Can. Geotech. J., 8: 400-416.

7.2.1.3. Settlements

Settlement analysis of piles sitting on or socketed in rock is very difficult

and frequently unreliable because of the discontinuous nature of rock masses.

In general, in sound rock, settlements are minute and can be neglected.

Important rock settlements are generally associated with the presence of open
joints in the rock mass and, in sedimentary rocks, with the occurrence of seams
of compressible material. Where such conditions are expected to exist special
investigations and analysis are required and should be carried out by a person
competent in this field of work.

Settlements may also result from the presence of debris between the bottom
of the concrete shaft and the rock surface. Careful inspection of the bottom of
each excavation is necessary to eliminate this problem especially in the case
where the deep foundation has been designed according to 7.2.1.2. (2) or (3).

In some cases, such as for deep foundations of large dimensions or those

carrying high loads, a settlement analysis may be desirable. Three methods are
available.

(1) Settlements from tests on rock cores

Elastic moduli measured on rock core samples have little relation to the
actual settlement behavior of rock masses, since the influence of joints and
other rock discontinuities is neglected. A settlement analysis based on such
moduli must include arbitrary assumptions on the influence of joints, and is
therefore of limited practical value.

(2) Settlements from pressuremeter tests

Settlements can be estimated on the basis of in situ pressuremeter tests.

To do so, a large number of tests must be performed to allow for an assessment
of the variability of elastic moduli of the rock mass, including some measure
of the influence of joints and other discontinuities. In first approximation
the settlement is given by:

qd D
S
9 a E
m p
 - 163 -

where S settlement, in.

design pressure, ton/sq ft
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

tip diameter of the pile, in.

average pressuremeter modulus in the zone extending
3 diameters below the pile tip, ton/sq ft
a a coefficient which is a function of the structure
m
of the rock mass as follows:

Spacing of >10 ft 3 to 10 ft 1 to 3 ft 3 in to 1 ft
Discontinuities

a 1 0.75 0.5 0.25

m

This method is applicable to homogeneous as well as to stratified rock

masses. In the latter case the modulus to be used in the formula is taken
as a weighted average of the moduli measured in the different strata,
provided the moduli do not differ by more than a factor of 10.

the effect of thin horizontal joints or compressible seams cannot be taken

into account in this method and the results may be misleading if such joints
or seams occur.

(3) Settlements from plate load tests

In situ plate load tests may be used to assess the settlement behaviour
of a rock mass under a deep foundation.

The importance of size effects on the results of such tests should be

recognized. Ideally the plate should be of the same diameter as the deep
foundation. For practical reasons, however, this is seldom possible and
smaller plates are generally used. The results obtained from loading
smaller plates may generally be considered representative of the actual
foundation behaviour provided the diameter of the plate is not less than
half the diameter of the foundation, and is always in excess of 1 ft.

Plate load tests are difficult to carry out properly and results are
frequently variable. To obtain a reliable evaluation of the foundation
behaviour, series of tests have to be carried out. The cost of such tests
and of the resulting design is high, and is, in general, only justified for
projects of a very large size or when the structure to be supported is very
sensitive to settlements.

The performance and interpretation of such plate load tests should be

carried out by a person competent in this field of work.

7.2.2. PILES IN GRANULAR SOILS

7.2.2.1. General

The following paragraphs cover the design of all kinds of piles embedded in
granular soils, i.e. gravels, sands, and non-cohesive silts. The design methods
described are applicable only to unstratified deposits where granular soils extend
to a significant depth beneath the lowest part of the deep foundation or to layered
deposits where granular soils are underlain by more competent materials such as
tills or rock.

In cases of layered deposits where granular soils are underlain by compressible

materials the design methods described in 7.2.4. should be used.
 - 164 -

Piles in granular soils derive their load carrying capacity from both point
resistance and shaft friction. The relative contributions of point resistance and
shaft friction to the total capacity of the pile depend essentially on the density
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

and shear strength of the soil and on the characteristics of the pile.

It is usual to distinguish between a displacement pile, which is driven into

the soil and displaces a volume of soil equal to its overall volume and a non-
displacement pile, where a volume of soil equal to that of the pile is removed by
excavation before the pile is placed. It is generally considered that a dis-
placement pile has an intrinsically higher bearing capacity but none of the
available design methods takes this consideration into account.

7.2.2.2. Allowable Load On A Single Pile

(1) Method based on the standard penetration test

(a) Ultimate bearing capacity

The ultimate bearing capacity of a single pile in granular soils may

be determined from the results of the Standard Penetration Test as
suggested by MEYERHOF, 1956.

Qf 4 N A
P

where Qf ultimate pile load, ton

N average standard penetration index at the pile tip
elevation, blows/ft
cross-sectional area of the pile tip, sq ft
~
N average standard penetration index along the pile
shaft, blows/ft, and
A surface area of the pile shaft, sq ft
s
(b) Factor of safety

The Standard Penetration Test is subject to many errors (See Commentary

8.1) and much care must be exercised when using the test results. For this
reason a minimum factor of safety of 4 should be applied to Qf. The
allowable load capacity of a pile is therefore:

REFERENCES

MEYERHOF, G.G., 1956. Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesion-

less soils. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., 82: SM1,
Paper No. 866.

FLETCHER, G.F.A., 1965. Standard Penetration Test: its uses and abuses.
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., 91: SM4, 67-75.

(2) Method based on the theory of plasticity

The allowable load on a single pile in a granular soil may be determined

from the friction angle of the soil by use of the theory of plasticity (or
bearing capacity theory).

(a) Critical depth

The bearing capacity of a pile in granular soil is not a continuous

linear function of the overburden pressure. It has been demonstrated by
 - 165 -

VESIC (1970) that both the point resistance and the skin friction become
constant below a critical depth H ' which, for all practical purposes, is
c
equal to:
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

H 20D
c

where D is the diameter of the pile.

(b) Ultimate point resistance

For piles with a length in granular soil less than Hc the ultimate
point resistance is given by:

q
fp y Lp Nq *

where qfp ultimate point resistanc~ lb/sq ft

Y effective unit weight of the soil, lb/cu ft
L length of the pile in soil, ft
P
N*q a bearing capacity coefficient for piles as derived
from BEREZANTSEV (1961). N~ is given as a function
of the angle of shearing resistance $ of the soil
as follows:

0
$0 25 0 30 0 35 40 0

Soil density
I loose
I compact
I dense

N*q 15 30 75 150

Considering the exponential increase of N~ with $

the selection of a design value of $ should be
made with caution.

For lengths of piles in excess of Hc' the ultimate point resistance is

constant and equal to:

(c) Skin friction

The ultimate skin friction acting on a pile of length L is related

p
to the ultimate point resistance by the formula:
qfp
a$

where a$ = a coefficient defined by VESIC (1970). a$ is given as a

function of the angle of shearing resistance $ of the soil as follows:
 - 166 -

(d) Factor of safety

The factor of safety to apply to qfp and ff should be at least equal

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

to 3.

The resulting allowable load on a single pile with a diameter D and a

length L, is computed as follows~
p

- for Lp < H
c

1 1TD2 ff
Qa "3 [qfp 4 + 21T D LpJ

where qfp and ff are computed at depth Lp

for Lp > H
c
1TD2 ff
Qa t (qfP -4-) + ( -
2 1T D Hc) + ff 1T D (Lp - Hc»)

where qfp and ff are computed at depth H 20D.

c

REFERENCES

BEREZANTSEV, V.G., KRISTOFOROV, V.S. and GOLUBKOV, V.N., 1961. Load

bearing capacity and deformation of piles foundations. Proc.
Internat. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 5th, Paris, 2; 11-15.

VESIC, A.S., 1970. Tests on instrumented piles, Ogeechee River site.

J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., 96: SM2, 561-584.

(3) Method based on static penetration tests

The allowable load on a pile in granular soil can best be computed

from the results of static cone penetration tests (Dutch cone). The test
is best suited for silts and sands that are loose to dense. It is dif-
ficult to carry out in coarse gravels and in sands that are very dense.

(a) Ultimate load capacity

The ultimate load capacity of a single pile in granular soil may be

determined from:

R A + 2 F A
P P c s

where ultimate pile load, ton

point resistance from cone tests, ton/sq ft. (It is
recommended that for piles with D > 18 in. a design value of
R less than the measured average R and equal to the
p minimum measured R be used). p
p
A cross-sectional area of the pile tip, sq ft,
P
F average skin friction measured by cone tests, ton/sq ft.
c
(The use of a cone equipped with a friction sleeve is
recommended).
A surface area of the pile shaft, sq ft.
s
 - 167 -

(b) Factor of safety

The results of static cone penetration tests are more reproducible

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

than those of the Standard Penetration Test and a greater confidence can
be put in the design method based upon them.

The factor of safety to apply to Qf should be between 2.5 and 3

depending on the number of cone tests performed and on the observed
variability of the test results; the minimum factor of safety corresponding
to a large number of results with a variability of less than ± 10% of the
average.

REFERENCES

VAN DER VEEN, C. and BOERSMA, L., 1957. The bearing capacity of a pile
predetermined by a cone penetration test. Proc. Internat. Conf.
Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 4th, London, 2: 72-75.

De BEER, E.E., 1963. The scale effect in the transposition of the results
of deep sounding tests on the ultimate bearing capacity of piles and
caisson foundations. Geotechnique, 13: 39-75.

(4) Method based on load tests

The design of piles on the basis of theoretical or empirical methods,

as described above, are subject to some uncertainties:

- soil properties cannot be measured with great accuracy and are always
variable within a building site;

- the correlations between the soil parameters and the bearing capacity
of a pile include a margin of error;

- the actual driving or placing conditions vary from pile to pile and
cannot be properly taken into account.

Therefore, the best method of assessing the bearing capacity of piles

is to load test typical units.

General considerations on the use of load tests, the recommended methods

of testing and interpreting the test results are given in 7.4 LOAD TESTS ON
DEEP FOUNDATIONS.

For piles in granular soils, it is recommended that test Method A as

described in 7.4 be used and that a factor of safety of 2.0 to 2.5 be applied
to the ultimate pile capacity. Selection of the appropriate factor of safety
will depend on the observed settlement behaviour of the tested pile and on
the toleration to settlements of the structure to be supported.

(5) Compacted concrete piles

Compacted concrete piles in granular soils derive their bearing capacity

from the densification of the soil around the base. The bearing capacity of
such piles is therefore entirely dependent on the construction method and can
only be assessed from load tests and from well documented local experience.

(6) Relaxation and freeze

In some granular soils the ultimate capacity of driven piles is subject

to changes with time following driving. In fine-grained soils such as non-
cohesive silts and fine sands the ultimate pile capacity may decrease after
driving. This effect is known as relaxation. It should be taken into account
in design and load tests should be carried out only after a sufficient delay
following driving.
 - 168 -

In sands and coarse grained materials the ultimate load capacity of

piles may increase after driving. This effect is known as freeze. It may
be recognized by means of re-driving tests but it can be taken quantitatively
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

into account in design only when it has been investigated by load tests. The
effect of freeze should be treated with great caution in large pile groups.

REFERENCE

YANG, N.C., 1970. Relaxation of piles in sand and inorganic silt. J. Soil
Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., 96: SM2, 395-410.

7.2.2.3. Allowable Load On A Pile Group

It is common practice to define the allowable load on a pile group as the sum
of the allowable loads of the individual piles in the group. However, it is known
that piles in groups in granular soils develop a larger load capacity than isolated
piles: their group efficiency, defined as the ratio of the ultimate load capacity
of a pile in a group to that of the same pile when isolated, is greater than 100%.
Where it would be necessary to take this effect into account in design, the in-
fluence of pile spacing and pile cap should be considered.

(1) Influence of spacing and pile cap

(a) Spacing

Piles in groups:

act as individual piles at spacing greater than seven times the

average pile diameter,

act as a group at spacing varying from 2.5 to 7 times the average

pile diameter,

should not be installed at spacing less than 2.5 times the average
pile diameter.

(b) Pile cap

The pile cap on top of a pile group may be in contact with the soil
or above the soil surface. Experience has shown that a pile cap in contact
with the soil develops a bearing capacity which increases the apparent
group efficiency.

(c) References

VESIC, A.S., 1969. Experiments with instrumented pile groups in sand.

Am. Soc. Test. Matls. Spec. Tech. Publ. 444. Performance of deep
foundations, 177-222.

KISHIDA, H. and MEYERHOF, G.G., 1965. Bearing capacity of pile groups

under eccentric loads in sand. Proc. Internat. Conf. Soil Mech.
Found. Eng., 6th, Montreal: 2, 270-274.

7.2.2.4. Settlement Of A Single Pile

Many factors that cannot be included in theoretical analysis influence the

actual settlement of piles, with the result that estimates based only upon con-
siderations of the elastic properties of the soil and pile material are generally
so inaccurate as to be of no practical value. Instead, estimates of settlements
of piles are based upon empirical relationships.
 - 169 -

(1) Empirical methods

Experience has shown that the settlement of a single pile in granular

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

soils is a function of the ratio of applied load to ultimate load capacity

and of the diameter of the pile.

(a) Displacement piles

For normal load levels, the settlement of a pile may be estimated

from the empirical formula (VESIC 1970):

D
S 100 + a
where S settlement of pile head, in.
D pile diameter, in.
a elastic deformation of pile shaft, in. For the
purpose of this analysis it is common practice
to assume:

A E

where Q applied pile load, lb.

A average cross-sectional area of the pile, sq in.
Lp length of the pile, in.
E modulus of elasticity of the pile material in lb/sq in.

(b) Non-displacement piles

Limited experience has shown that the settlement of non-displacement

piles may be four times larger than that of displacement piles under
similar conditions.

REFERENCES

SKEMPTON, A.W., YASSIN, A.A. and GIBSON, R.E., 1953. Theorie de la force
portante des pieux dans Ie sable. Ann. Inst. Tech. Bati. Travaux
Pubs, 63-64, 285-561.

VESIC, A.S., 1970. Tests on instrumented piles, Ogeechee river site.

J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civil Eng., 96, SM2, 561.

(2) Settlement from load tests

Since time effects are usually negligible in granular soils, the

settlements observed during load tests conducted according to method A
described in 7.4, can be considered as representative of the long term
behaviour of the pile.

7.2.2.5. Settlement Of A pile Group

The settlement of a pile group is evaluated on empirical bases and the

methods are less reliable than those used for single piles because of the limited
data that are available. It is recommended that the settlement of a pile group
be evaluated on the basis proposed by SKEMPTON et al (1953).

(1) Skempton's method

The settlement of a pile group S is always larger than that of the

individual piles forming the group. group
 - 170 -

S C1 S
group g
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

where S settlement of a single pile under its allowable load.

C1 group settlement ratio; a function of the dimension of
g
the group and of the pile spacing, or of the ratio BID
of the width of the pile group to the diameter of the
piles as follows:

10 20 40 60

C1 5 7.5 10 12

REFERENCE

SKEMPTON, A.W., YASSIN, A.A., GIBSON, R.E., 1953. Theorie de la force

portante des pieux dans Ie sable. Ann. Inst. Tech. Bati. Travaux
Pubs., 63-64, 285-290.

7.2.3. PILES IN COHESIVE SOILS

7.2.3.1. General

(1) Limitations of design methods

Design methods for piles in cohesive soils are in some cases of

doubtful reliability. This is particularly so for the bearing capacity of
friction piles in clays of medium to high shear strength. Therefore, the
design methods described in this section should be used with caution and
essentially only for;

- the preliminary design of large foundations. In this case in situ full

scale load tests should be performed as part of the final design or at
the beginning of construction.

- the design of small foundations, provided adequate safety factors are used.

Settlements of groups of friction piles in clay are estimated by means

of the methods normally used for shallow foundations with an additional
empirical assumption concerning the transfer of load from the piles to the
soil (see Chapter 6). Consequently, settlement estimates will be
reliable only in terms of an order of magnitude. Differential settlements
are difficult to predict.

(2) Disturbance caused by driving

Piles driven into cohesive soils induce some disturbance which is a

function of;

- the soil properties, particularly sensitivity,

- the geometry of the pile foundation (diameter of piles, number and

spacing of piles in the groups), and

- the driving method and sequence.

This disturbance results in loss of strength of the soils and consequently

in reduction of support provided to the piles.
 - 171 -

In some cases, such as in soft sensitive clays, complete remoulding of

the clay may occur with the result that further construction becomes im-
possible.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

The effect of disturbance diminishes with time following driving as the

soil adjacent to the pile consolidates. This results in an increase in the
bearing capacity of the pile. This phenomenon is substantially influenced
by the pile material: consolidation and gain in strength are limited in
amount and develop at a slow rate for steel piles; they are maximum and
develop within a few weeks for timber piles.

Load testing of a pile in clay should not be carried out without an

awareness of these processes. It is advisable not to load test within two
weeks of driving.

REFERENCES

CUMMINGS, A.E., KERKHOFF, G.O. and PECK, R.B., 1950. Effect of driving
piles into soft clays. Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., 115: 275-285.

EIDE, P., HUTCHINSON, J.N. and LANDVA, A., 1961. Short and long term
loading of a friction pile in clay. Prac. Internat. Conf. Soil Mech.
Found. Eng., 5th, Paris, 2: 45-53.

FLAATE, K., 1972. Effects of pile driving in clay. Can. Geotech. J. 9:

81-88.

CLARK, J.I. and MEYERHOF, G.G., 1972. The behaviour of piles driven in
clay. I. An investigation of soil stress and pore water pressure
as related to soil properties. Can. Geotech. J., 9: 351-373.

(3) Pore water pressures induced by driving

Driving piles in clay generates high pore water pressures, the effect
of which is to:

- temporarily reduce the bearing capacity of the piles,

- affect the process of reconso1idation of the clay around the pile thereby
making it necessary to delay the application of the load.

- alter the natural stability conditions in sloping ground. (Examples exist

of landslides triggered by pile driving operations).

As demonstrated by LO and STERMAC (1965), pore water pressures at the

end of driving can, in first approximation, be assumed equal to the effective
initial overburden pressure along the full length of the pile within a ring
equal in width to the pile diameter. As reconso1idation of clay around the
pile occurs the high pore water pressures are diminished by gradual re-
distribution of stresses to the less disturbed soil further from the pile.

REFERENCE

LO, K.Y. and STERMAC, A.G., 1965. Induced pore pressures during pile
driving operations. Proc. Internat. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng.,
6th, MOntreal, 2: 285-289.

7.2.3.2. Allowable Load On A Single Pile

Piles in cohesive soils generally derive their load capacity from shaft
adhesion or friction. However, in very stiff clays or in cohesive tills, a
substantial point resistance may be mobilized which, for large diameter bored
piles, may represent the total bearing capacity of the pile.
 - 172 -

(1) Total stress vs effective stress approach

Until recent times, it was the general practice to evaluate the bearing
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

capacity of piles in clay from a total stress approach, i.e. on the basis of
the undrained shear strength c of the clay. Empirical correlations
between Cu and the point resiMtance and skin friction on a pile have been
developed, but these have not proved entirely reliable, particularly for e u
in excess of 500 1b/sq ft and analysis in terms of effective stresses
appear more rational.

(2) Driven piles in clays where C

u < 2000 lb/sq ft

A pile driven in clay with an undrained shear strength of less than

2000 1b/sq ft derives its load capacity almost entirely from shaft adhesion
or friction.

(a) Ultimate capacity in terms of total stresses

It is common practice to determine the ultimate load capacity of a

single pile from the formula:

c
ua
As

where ultimate load capacity, 1b

AS surface area of pile shaft, sq ft
c unit adhesion strength, derived from c as in Fig 7.1.
ua u

1500

TIMBER AND
I-
u.. CONCRETE PILES
0
V')

"--. 1000
co
--I

0
;:)
0

Z 500 PILE S
0
V')
w
J:
D
«
0 500 1000 1500 2000
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH c LB/SQ FT
u

FIG 7 •1 (After Tomlinson)

ADHESION ON PILES
 - 173 -

The values of c ua are empirical and actual adhesion may differ

significantly from these values depending on the geometry of the
foundation, the driving method and sequence, the properties of the
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

clay and time effects. The ultimate capacity of piles resulting from
the above formula should be confirmed by load tests.

(b) Ultimate capacity in terms of effective stresses

Recent investigations suggest that the ultimate load capacity of a

single pile in clay may be derived from:

A L
S S avg

where ultimate load capacity, lb

surface area of pile shaft, sq ft
L average effective shaft friction, lb/sq ft
S avg

LS avg is computed from the shaft friction LS at various depths along

pile shaft.

L p' K tan of
s 0 0

where p' effective overburden pressure at the considered

o
depth, lb/sq ft
at rest earth pressure coefficient
effective angle of friction between the clay
and the pile shaft.

This method requires that Ko and of be known. Both parameters are

difficult to measure. However, available test results indicate that,
for clays with C u less than 2000 lb/sq ft, which are not heavily over-
consolidated, the factor (Ko tan ovvaries only from 0.25 to 0.40.
For design purposes a typical value of 0.3 may be used, so that:

It is recommended that the calculated ultimate pile capacity be confirmed

by load tests.

(c) Factor of safety

To obtain the allowable load capacity of the pile, from the ultimate
capacities as given in (a) or (b) above, it is recommended that a factor
of safety of at least 2.5 be applied provided load tests are carried out
during construction of the foundation. In cases where no load tests are
performed, a factor of safety of at least 3.0 should be applied.

REFERENCES

TOMLINSON, M.J., 1957. The adhesion of piles driven in clay soils. Froc.
Internat. Soc. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 4th, London, 2: 66-71.

CLARK, J.I. and MEYERHOF, G.G., 1973. The behaviour of piles driven in
clays. II. Investigation of the bearing capacity using total and
effective strength parameters. Can. Geotech. J., 10: 86-102.
 - 174 -

EIDE, 0., HUTCHINSON, J.N. and LANDVA, A., 1961. Short and long term
test loading of a friction pile in clay. Proc. Internat. Soc. Soil
Mech. FOlmd. Eng., 5th, Paris, 2: 45-53.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

BURLAND, J.B., 1973. Shaft friction of piles in clay - a simple

fundamental approach. Ground Eng., 6: 3, 30-42.

(3) Driven piles in clays where C > 2000 lb/sq ft

u
A pile driven in clay with an undrained shear strength in excess of
2000 lb/sq ft derives its bearing capacity from both shaft adhesion or
friction and point resistance.

The shaft friction of such a pile however, cannot be predicted with

any degree of reliability because little is known of the effect of driving
on the adhesion and on the final effective contact area between clay and
pile.

In this case it is suggested that:

- tapered piles be used to ensure a maximum contact area between

soil and pile,

the ultimate bearing capacity be determined by pile loading tests

during design.

(4) Bored piles in clays where C

u
> 2000 lb/sq ft

Larg~ diameter bored piles with or without enlarged or belled bases

are successfully used in clays or cohesive tills where Cu > 2000 Ib/sq ft.
They derive their load carrying capacity from both shaft adhesion or
friction and point resistance. Present design methods have been derived
from extensive studies on bored piles in London clays. Considering the
unusual properties of these soils, the generalization of empirical design
parameters to other types of cohesive soils should be made with caution.

(a) Shaft adhesion in terms of total stresses

The ultimate load, based upon adhesion between the clay and the pile
shaft, may be obtained from:

c
ua
As

where ultimate shaft resistance, lb

As surface area of pile shaft, sq ft
c ultimate adhesion, lb/sq ft. Experience shows that:
ua

c 0.3 to 0.4 c
~ u

The actual value of C ua is greatly affected by the excavation process

which may cause remoulding or softening of the clay, and by the structure
of the clay such as its degree of fissuring. It is recommended that c ua
be determined from the minimum undrained shear strength c u , and that
it be limited to a maximum of 2000 lb/sq ft.
 - 175 -

(b) Shaft adhesion in terms of effective stresses

The same approach and formula as given in 7.2.3.2. (2)(b) may be

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

applied here. However, the earth pressure coefficient Ka is highly

dependent upon the geological history of a particular clay. It is
therefore impossible to give typical values of (Ko tan 0), and the method
may be applied only where Ka has been determined by appropriate methods
or evaluated from load tests.

(c) Point resistance

The ultimate load that may be carried by point resistance may be

estimated from:

N*ccu p
A

where Qfp ultimate point load, lb

A cross-sectional area of pile point, sq ft
P
c minimum undrained shear strength of the clay at
u
pile point level, lb/sq ft
N*c a bearing capacity coefficient which is a function
of the pile point diameter as follows:

Point Diameter, N*c

Less than 18 in. 9

18 to 36 in. 7
Greater than 36 in. 6

In very stiff clays and tills where samples are difficult to

retrieve and C u is not easily measured, the pressuremeter method, as
described in 7.2.1. may be used.

(d) Allowable loads on bored piles

The allowable loads on bored piles are determined from a combination

of shaft adhesion and point resistance, after the application of
appropriate factors of safety. The relative contribution of the shaft
adhesion and the point resistance is a function of the rigidity of the
pile and the compressibility of the clay around the shaft and below the
base of the pile.

If the soil below the base has the same or greater compressibility
than the soil around the shaft, the allowable load on the pile may be
taken as;

1
2.5

If the soil below the base is less compressible than the soil around
the shaft, the movements of the shaft relative to the soil will generally
be too small to mobilize the full adhesion. In this case it is recommended
that the allowable load on the pile be taken as;
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays - 176 -

While the above formulas may be considered as limiting cases, the

decision to consider shaft adhesion in addition to base resistance must
be made with care and only after properly designed and interpreted load
tests are carried out. Such tests should indicate whether or not the
resistance available is commensurate with strain both around the shaft
and at the base, and any possibility of reduction in shaft resistance with
time. The selection of the allowable load should be based upon permissible
pile movement, as determined from these tests.

REFERENCES

WHITAl<ER, T. and COOKE, R.W., 1966. An investigation on the shaft and

base resistances of large bored piles in London clay. Proc.
Symposium on Large Bored Piles, Inst. Civil Engrs., London, 7-49.

SKEMPTON, A.W., 1959. Cast-in-place bored piles in London clay.

Geotechnique, 9: 153-173.

(5) Pile capacity from load tests

The ultimate load capacity of piles in clays should be determined or

confirmed by means of full scale load tests.

(a) Method

Load tests cannot be performed slowly enough for an evaluation of the

time-settlement behaviour of piles in clays; only the ultimate load
capacity may be determined. Under such conditions it is recommended that
Method B described in 7.4. LOAD TESTS ON DEEP FOUNDATIONS be used. This
method, known as the constant rate of penetration method, is best suited
for a rapid and accurate evaluation of the ultimate pile capacity.

(b) Factor of safety

To obtain the allowable pile capacity a factor of safety of 2.5

should be applied to the ultimate pile capacity determined from 7.4.

7.2.3.3. Allowable Load On A Pile Group

(1) Piles in clays where C < 2000 1b/sq ft

u
When friction piles are driven in groups in clays with an undrained
shear strength of less than 2000 lb/sq ft the ultimate load capacity of the
group is usually less than the sum of the ultimate load capacities of the
individual piles in the group. For spacings of 2.5 to 4 times the average
pile diameter, the group efficiency can be taken to be equal to 70%.

Reference

WHITAKER, T., 1970. The design of piles foundations. Pergamon Press,

London.
 - 177 -

(2) Piles in clays where C > 2000 1b/sq ft

u
It is common practice to neglect group effects in the determination of
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

the load capacity of pile groups in clays with Cu in excess of 2000 lb/sq ft.

7.2.3.4. Settlement Of A Single Pile

(1) piles in clays where C < 2000 1b/sq ft

u
Piles in clays where Cu is less than 2000 lb/sq ft are seldom used
singly but they act as single piles in groups where the spacing is in excess
of 7 times the pile diameter and where the pile cap is not in contact with
the soil. In this case limited field observations indicate that the settle-
ment is due to local shear deformations along the pile shaft rather than to
consolidation settlements, and is therefore very limited. If such cases
occur it is recommended that special analyses, based on load tests be
performed.

(2) Piles in clays where C >-2000 1b/sq ft

u
Because of their high load capacity, bored piles in stiff clays are
often used as single piles.

The analysis of settlement of single piles in stiff clays is difficult

at the present time because little data is available on the actual behaviour
of such piles. Discussions on the validity of available methods of analysis
are found in the references hereunder.

Where it is important to evaluate settlements the use of load tests,

designed, carried out and interpreted by a person competent in this field is
recommended.

REFERENCES

WHITAKER, T. and COOKE, R.W., 1966. An investigation on the shaft and base
resistances of large bored piles in London clay. Proc. Symposium on
Large Bored Piles, Inst. Civil Engrs., London, 7-49.

BURLAND, J.D., BUTLER, F.G. and DUNIGAN, P., 1966. The behavior and design
of large diameter bored piles in stiff clay. Proc. Symposium on Large
Bored Piles, Inst. Civil Engrs., London, 51-71.

TROW, W. and BRADSTOCK, J., 1972. Instrumented foundations for two

43-storey buildings on till, Metropolitan Toronto. Can. Geotech. J.,
9: 290-303.

7.2.3.5. Settlement Of A Pile Group

(1) General

As mentioned in 7.2.3.1. (1), settlements of groups of piles in clay

are estimated by means of methods normally used for shallow foundations,
after application of an additional empirical assumption concerning the
transfer of load from the pile group to the soil. Total and differential
settlement predictions will therefore be less reliable for pile groups than
for footings.

(2) Suggested method

The following method, proposed by TERZAGHI and PECK (1948), and

confirmed by limited field observations, is suggested for the evaluation of
 - 178 -

of the settlement of pile groups in clay. The load carried by the pile group
is assumed to be transferred to the soil through a theoretical footing
located at 1/3 the pile length up from the pile point (Fig. 7.2.). The load
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

is assumed to spread within the frustrum of a pyramid of side slopes at 30° and
to cause uniform additional vertical pressure at lower levels, the pressure
at any level being equal to the load carried by the group divided by the
cross-sectional area of the pyramid at that level. The settlement calculation
then follows the method described in 6.S.7.

REFERENCES

TERZAGHI, K. and PECK, R.B., (1948)(1967). Soil mechanics in engineering

practice. J. Wiley and Sons, N.Y.

BRZEZINSKI, L.S., 1969. Behavi'our of an overpass carried on footings and

friction piles. Can. Geotech. J., 6: 369-382.

7.2.3.6. Negative Skin Friction

(1) General

When a clay deposit, in which or through which piles have been installed,
is subject to consolidation, the resulting downward movement of the clay
around the piles induces downdrag forces on the piles. This force which tends
to reduce the useable pile capacity is called negative skin friction.

Negative skin friction develops in cases where piles are placed in soil
which is consolidating under an applied load, or where a fill is placed
around an existing pile foundation. It develops in clay deposits subject to
general subsidence resulting from lowering of the ground water table or other
causes. It may also be generated by reconso1idation of the remolded clay
layer around any driven pile. The magnitude and significance of negative
skin friction in the design of piles in clays differs widely from case to
case.

Negative skin friction is a pile capacity problem only in the case of a

true end bearing pile on rock, where the pile capacity is generally controlled
by its structural strength and where settlements of the pile are negligible.
In all other cases of piles bearing in compressible soils, where the pile
capacity is controlled by point resistance and shaft adhesion or friction, the
problem of negative skin friction may be regarded as a settlement problem.
See FELLENIUS (1972).

(2) Magnitude of negative skin friction

(a) Present practice

The most common method of computing negative skin friction Tn is to

assume:

T C
n ua

where c is the adhesion as given in Fig 7.1.

ua
(i) Isolated piles

For an isolated pile the total force F due to negative skin friction
is therefore: n
F c A
n ua s

where As is the area of pile in contact with the settling clay layer.
 - 179 -

Q
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

,",",,,, I " r 1111777111

LOAD A SSUMED TO

\JL
Lp VACT AT THIS LEVEL

z ;
1--
- >- - '" - '" - '" -
I
/3
.4- j...-- , p
130° 30°\
I

1 \
\
1 \
I \
Q

1
1
1 (j
z B
z
x L
z
\
,
\
l
* i i i i ~ ~ '1\
i
1 ***
I
// 1- B
z
I L
z
-I \,,\
I

FIG 7.2
STRESS DISTRIBUTION BENEATH PILE GROUP IN CLAY USING
THEORETICAL FOOTING CONCEPT
>
- 180 -

(ii) Pile groups

For pile groups the maximum force on a pile is limited by the weight
of clay between the piles so that:
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

F c A ~ S2 H y
n ua s p

where S pile spacing, ft

P
H thickness of the clay layer, ft
y unit weight of clay, lb/cu ft.

(b) Recommended practice

Field observations on instrumented piles have shown that the magnitude

of negative skin friction is a function of the effective stress acting on
the pile and may be expressed as:

where p' effective overburden pressure

o
K coefficient of earth pressure equal to or greater
than K
o
effective angle of friction between the clay and
the pile material.

For all practical purposes it can be assumed that:

(3) Means for reducing the negative skin friction

For piles driven to rock the occurrence of negative skin friction means
that a considerable increase of structural strength and bearing capacity above
those needed to carry the building load will be required. Negative skin
friction acting on driven piles may be reduced by the application of bituminous
or other viscous coatings to the pile surfaces or in the case of steel piles
by using the electro-osmosis technique. For cast-in-place piles, floating
sleeves have been used successfully. The choice of appropriate method and
evaluation of its effectiveness in any particular case should be left with a
person competent in this field of work.

REFERENCES

FELLENIUS, B.H., 1972. Down drag on piles in clay due to negative skin
friction. Can. Geotech. J., 9: 323-337.

BOZOZUK, M., 1972. Downdrag measurements on a 160 ft floating pipe test

pile in marine clay. Can. Geotech. J., 9: 127-136.

BJERRUM, L., JOHANNESSEN, I.J. and EIDE, 0., 1968. Reduction of negative
skin friction on steel piles to rock. Proc. Internat. Soc. Soil Mech.
Found. Eng., 7th, Mexico, 2: 27-34.
 - 181 -

7.2.3.7. Special Problems

(1) Piles driven near slopes

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

As discussed in 7.2.3.1.(3), driving piles in clay generates pore

water pressures in the clay. After driving, these pore water pressures
are distributed in the clay mass over a considerable distance from the piles.
If piles are driven in the vicinity of a slope, the increase in pore pressure
produced by driving may cause failure of the slope. This phenomenon must
be taken into account in design, particularly in sensitive clays by;

- analysis of the stability of the slope before and after driving, and

- instrumentation of the clay layer for pore water pressure measurements

during driving.

If necessary, pore water pressures can be reduced by;

the use of proper driving techniques and sequences. (Pre-boring is an

efficient way of reducing pore water pressures), and

the use of drain strips attached to the surface of the piles.

(2) Heave due to pile driving

When piles are driven in clays, the volume of soil displaced by the pile
generally causes a heave of the soil surface. The heave of adjacent piles
may also occur, with a resulting loss of capacity of these piles. This
problem is of particular significance when large pile groups are driven.

Experience has shown that the heaved volume at the ground surface is
generally of the order of 40% to 60% of the pile volume. If such heave is
unacceptable, pre-boring is the method usually applied to reduce it.

(3) Piles in swelling clays

Piles driven in swelling clays may be subjected to uplift forces in the

upper active layer as the result of the swelling process. The effect of
these forces on the structural integrity of the piles or on the deformations
of the foundation must be taken into account in design by:

neglecting the contribution to the bearing capacity of that part of the

pile embedded in the active layer of swelling clay.

- ensuring that the uplift resistance of that portion of the pile located
below the active layer of swelling clay is sufficient to withstand uplift
forces generated in the swelling clay layer, and

ensuring that the structural resistance of the pile is sufficient to with-

stand the uplift forces.

If necessary, uplift forces may be eliminated by isolating the piles

from the swelling clay in the active layer. This c~ be achieved by the use
of floating sleeves or of bituminous or other viscous coatings applied to the
pile surface.

REFERENCES

BJERRUM, L. and JOHANNESSEN, I., 1961. Pore pressures resulting from driving
piles in soft clay. Proc. ConI. Pore Pressures and Suction in Soils,
London.

ORRJE, P. and BROMS, B., 1967. Effects of pile driving on soil properties.
Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 93: SM5, 59-74.
 - 182 -

7.2.4. PILES IN LAYERED DEPOSITS

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

7.2.4.1. General
Piles are commonly driven through a layer of soft soil to a competent stratum
or through alternating layers of competent and non-competent soils. In such cases
the pile foundation is generally designed in accordance with the methods described
in 7.2.1. to 7.2.3. but with modifications contingent upon the prevailing subsoil
conditions. In designing such piles particular attention should be paid to:

the relative stiffnesses and strengths of the different layers penetrated by

the piles. (This will lead to an evaluation of the probable relative con-
tribution of these layers to the pile capacity), and

the stratigraphy immediately below the pile tip which influences the stability
and the settlement of pile groups.

7.2.4.2. Allowable Pile Capacity

The relative contribution of the various strata penetrated by a pile to the

capacity of that pile is primarily a function of the relative stiffnesses of
these layers and of the type of pile.

(1) End bearing piles

Piles extending through layers of weaker soils to a very competent

stratum such as bedrock or very dense till or gravel should be assumed to
derive their bearing capacities only from the resistance mobilized in this
supporting stratum. Because of the comparatively high stiffnesses of the
supporting stratum and the pile, the relative displacements of pile and
soil in the upper layers are generally insufficient to mobilize any
significant shaft friction.

Similarly, for compacted concrete piles it should not be assumed that

any other resistance will be mobilized than that obtained at the compacted
base.

(2) Piles in a two-layer deposit

It is generally assumed for piles extending through a layer of soft soil

to some depth into a deep deposit of competent soil such as sand that their
bearing capacities are derived from point resistance and skin friction only
in the lower layer. The upper layer is considered to contribute to the pile
capacity only by increasing the overburden pressure used in the computation.

In cases where the bearing stratum is granular soil the critical depth
mentioned in 7.2.2.2. (2) is taken from the upper surface of that stratum.

(3) Piles in a multi-layer deposit

Piles driven through a multi-layer deposit may derive their load

capacities from both skin friction and point resistance. However, the
evaluation of the relative importance of skin friction and point resistance
are difficult and may need to be confirmed by load tests.

Whenever possible, piles in multi-layer deposits should be driven to a

layer of sufficient strength and thickness that it may be assumed that they
derive their load capacity entirely from that layer. In such a case, the
load capacity may be determined according to the methods given in 7.2.1. to
7.2.3. It is essential to check that the bearing layer extends below the
proposed pile tip elevation to a depth sufficient to ensure safety against a
 - 183 -

punching failure of the bearing layer into a lower weaker material. Safety
against a punching failure may be evaluated by the following empirical
method.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

The total load Q on the pile group is assumed to be transferred to

the soil through a theoretical footing located at the base of the pile group.
The load is assumed to be spread within the frustrum of a pyramid with side
slopes at 30 0 • The resulting stress q' at the upper limit of the lower
weaker layer may then be calculated as shown in Fig 7.3. In the general
case where this layer is of cohesive soil with an undrained shear strength C
u
the margin of safety against a punching failure will be sufficient if:

q' 3 c
u

7.2.4.3. Settlement Of Pile Groups

The methods of evaluating settlements of pile groups given in 7.2.2. and

7.2.3. are applicable to groups in layered deposits provided the layer in which
the pile tips are located extends to a depth at least equal to 3 times the width
of the pile group below the base of the group.

Where alternating layers of compressible and non-compressible soils are

present below the pile tips, the settlement is assumed to originate in the com-
pressible layers only. The total load Q on the pile group is assumed to be
transferred to and distributed in the soil as indicated in Fig 7.3. The stresses
acting on the compressible layers below the pile tips are computed and the cor-
responding settlements are determined according to the method given in 6.5. This
analysis usually leads to an over-estimate of the settlements.

7.2.5. PILES SUBJECTED TO HORIZONTAL LOADS

7.2.5.1. General

Horizontal loads or moments on a vertical pile are taken by the mobilization

of resistance in the surrounding soils as the pile deflects. The lateral load
capacity of the pile depends essentially on the relative stiffnesses of the pile
and of the surrounding soil.

For cases of vertical piles subjected to small and transient horizontal loads
it is common practice to assume that such piles can sustain horizontal loads of up
to 10% of the allowable vertical load without special analysis or design features.

For cases where large transient or permanent horizontal loads must be

resisted or where very soft soils occur it is common practice to install inclined
piles to take horizontal loads. In some cases, however, large horizontal loads
may be safely applied to vertical piles but the design of such piles is difficult.
(See Commentary 8.6; THE DESIGN OF PILES SUBJECTED TO HORIZONTAL LOADS).

7.2.5.2. Pile Groups With Inclined Piles

In cases where the horizontal loads to be resisted exceed the horizontal load
capacity of a group of vertical piles, or for piles installed in soils where this
capacity is negligible, it is common practice to make use of inclined piles. For
simple cases it is assumed that the horizontal loads are resisted by the horizontal
components of the total load capacity of the inclined piles. However, for large
loads a detailed analysis as described by CHELLIS (1961) is recommended.

It is important to note that:

the slope of inclined piles is usually limited to 3 vertical to 1

horizontal because of installation problems.
 - 184 -

Q
PILE GROUP WITH
WIDTH BAN D LENGTH L
" I
1///1////////////1 I //////////'//////////
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

SILT

--- ~ .-- ~ ~
-
SA ND
-- - '-- - -- - -
CLAY

SA ND
-- - - - .-- - -
-- - - - ~ - -
C LA Y

-- - - - - - -
SA ND

- - - - - - - - \

HI

CLAY - UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH c

u

Q
q
(B + 1.15HI) (L + 1.15H I )

PILE GROUP IS SAFE AGAINST PUNCHING IF

FIG 7 .3
SAFETY OF PILE GROUPS AGAINST PUNCHING FAILURE
 - 185 -

when inclined piles are used, the horizontal load capacity of the vertical
piles in the group cannot be considered to contribute to the horizontal
resistance of the pile group because of the restraint of lateral movements
provided by the inclined piles.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

REFERENCE

CHELLIS, R.D., 1961. Pile foundations. 2nd Ed. McGraw Hill, New York.

7.2.5.3. Horizontal Load Capacity Of vertical Piles

The design of vertical piles subjected to large horizontal loads is

difficult and should be carried out only by a person competent in this field of
work.

(1) Design based on theory

Three different problems must be considered;

safety against failure of the soil support.

magnitude of the movements of the pile head and their influence on the
behaviour of the superstructure, and

magnitude of the bending moments in the pile and their influence on

the structural behaviour of the pile.

Methods to analyse these problems have been developed which are summarized
in Commentary 8.6; THE DESIGN OF PILES SUBJECTED TO HORIZONTAL LOADS.

The principal difficulty encountered in the application of these methods

is proper evaluation of the necessary soil parameters. In particular the
basic concept of sub grade reaction and the related coefficient of sub grade
reaction Ks should be treated with great caution.

(2) Design based on load tests

The most reliable method of designing piles subjected to lateral loads

is by means of load tests. However, such load tests are much more difficult
to perform properly than vertical load tests. Consequently, they should be
designed, carried out and interpreted by a person competent in this field of
work.

The following points must be considered:

(a) The method of applying horizontal loads, by inserting horizontal jacks

between the heads of two adjacent piles in a group or a row, is not accep-
table unless the spacing between the piles is in excess of 10 pile diameters.
At closer spacing there will be an interaction between the two piles and the
load test results will be on the unsafe side (Ks and P will be overestimated).
ult
(b) In most cases it is not sufficient to measure the horizontal displacement
of the pile head vs applied horizontal load. To allow for an appropriate
evaluation of the elastic behaviour of the pile-soil system, and in
particular of K , it is also necessary to instrument the pile for the
measurement of sbending stresses or deformations.

(c) Since horizontal loads applied by the structures are generally of a

transient nature (wind loads earthquake, etc •.. ) it is necessary to provide
similar cyclic loading conditions in the tests.

7.2.6. PILES SUBJECTED TO UPLIFT FORCES

7.2.6.1. General

Pile foundations must sometimes resist uplift forces and should be checked
both for their resistance to pullout and their structural ability to carry tensile
stresses.
 - 186 -

7.2.6.2. Uplift Resistance Of A Single Pile

Two cases must be considered.

(1) Piles with straight shaft

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Piles usually have shafts of constant section. The ultimate uplift

resistance of the pile is equal to the skin friction which can be mobilized
along the surface area of the shaft. The skin friction is commonly assumed
equal to that contributing to the bearing capacity of the pile as described
in 7.2.2.2. and 7.2.3.2. The same factors of safety apply.

(2) Piles with variable diameter

When piles are built primarily to resist uplift forces it is common

practice to increase the pullout resistance by providing one or more sections
of a diameter larger than the average pile diameter: enlarged base piles,
underreamed and multiunderreamed piles, and screw piles are typical.

For such piles, the ultimate pullout resistance is generated by skin

friction along the shaft as well as by resistance mobilized above the
sections of large diameter. This resistance may be taken equal to the point
resistance as described in 7.2.2.2. and 7.2.3.2.

The same factors of safety apply.

(3) Pile uplift capacity from load tests

Where the uplift capacity of piles is important in the design of a

building, it is recommended that this capacity be determined by means of full
scale pullout tests, in which the effects of time can be taken into account.
Such tests should be designed, carried out and interpreted by a person co~
petent in this field of work.

The allowable uplift capacity should be determined from the ultimate

pullout resistance by applying a factor of safety of 2.0.

7.2.6.3. Uplift Resistance Of Pile Groups

The uplift resistance of a pile group is the lesser of the two following
values:

the sum of the uplift resistances of the piles in the group,

the sum of the shear resistance mobilized on the surface perimeter of the group
plus the total weight of soil and piles enclosed in this perimeter.

7.3. STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS

7.3.1. GENERAL

The following paragraphs give information on the use of different types of deep
foundations, including special features of structural design and important matters to be
considered in the installation of such foundations.

These paragraphs have not been written as specifications although some parts may be
suitable for such purposes.

7.3.1.1. Structural Capacity Of Deep Foundations

The structural capacity of a deep foundation unit, as resulting from Sentence

4.2.7.4. of the NBC and from considerations given here, represents the maximum
load which could be carried by that deep foundation unit.
 187 -

The allowable load however, will generally be less than the maximum structural
capacity. This reduction is necessary for the following reasons:

The actual placing of deep foundations frequently deviates from the position
and alignment assumed in design; the actual stresses on any section of the deep
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

foundation unit may therefore differ from the design stresses; and local over-
stressing of the material may occur.

Once in place, deep foundation units can neither be inspected nor repaired.
This lack of serviceability should be reflected in the structural deSign by a
reduction in capacity, particularly for cast-in-place deep foundations.

The placement of concrete in cast-in-place deep foundations cannot be done with

the same control as in structural columns: concrete is placed by tremie,
sometimes to great depth, high slump concrete is used, and vibration of concrete
cannot be applied.

Finally, in most cases, the allowable load on a deep foundation unit is governed
by geotechnical considerations: the geometry of the unit (length, cross-section)
is determined to produce the necessary geotechnical capacity; the structural
capacity corresponding to that geometry is generally in excess of the geotech-
nical capacity.

7.3.1.2. Wave Equation Analysis

In this method, the propagation of the stress wave generated by the impact of
a given hammer in a pile is analysed taking into account the characteristics of:

the hammer (weight, drop height or rated energy, impact velocity).

the driving cap (weight, stiffnesses of the capblock and the cushion,
coefficients of restitution of capblock and cushion).

the pile (weight, stiffness, presence of joints or cracks).

the soil (deformation characteristics represented by ground quake and damping

factors for side friction and point resistance).

Representative values for these parameters can either be measured or taken

from published data. (FOREHAND and REESE 1964). The method requires the use of
a simple computer program which is readily available (EDWARDS 1967; BOWLES 1974).
It can be used to advantage at three different stages of the design and installation
of driven deep foundation units:

(1) Driving stresses in piles

It can easily be demonstrated that, for driven piles, the maximum

stresses in the pile material are developed during driving. Therefore, the
structural strength of the pile should be determined for the driving con-
dition. The wave equation analysis is the only method available for
evaluating the stresses generated in the pile material at different stages of
driving. Its use is highly recommended, particularly for the structural
design of precast concrete piles.

(2) Selection of driving equipment

The wave equation analysis is the only rational method for selecting the
most appropriate hammer-capblock-cushion combination and the number of blows
necessary to drive a given pile to a given load capacity in a given soil. Its
use should be considered for large pile foundatio~s O~ when large diameter
piles have to be driven.

(3) Bearing capacity of piles

The wave equation analysis was developed and can most effectively be
used to evaluate the bearing capacity of driven piles. The method yields a
correlation between the number of blows per inch and the ultimate bearing
capacity of the pile for any selected set of design assumptions concerning
 - 188 -

the hammer, the driving cap, the pile and the soil. From this correlation
it is possible to pre-determine a refusal-criterion (minimum blows per inch
necessary to ensure a given allowable load) and the probable depth at refusal,
as well as to control the construction operations.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

In a sense the use of the wave equation analysis is similar to that of

pile driving formulas. However it is free of the serious fundamental errors
involved in these formulas and is therefore much more reliable. (See
Commentary 8.5.; THE USE OF PILE DRIVING FORMULAS).

The use of the wave equation analysis is therefore highly recommended

for the prediction of load capacity of driven piles. Pile driving formula
should not be used for that purpose, because of inherent fundamental errors.

REFERENCES

SMITH, A.E.L., 1960. Pile driving analysis by the wave equation. J. Soil
Mech. Found. Div., J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civil Engrs. 86:
SM4, 35-61.

EDWARDS, T.C., 1967. Pile analysis wave equation computer program utilisation
manual. Texas Transportation Institute. Research Report 33-11, Texas
A & M University.

FOREHAND, P.W. and REESE, J.L., 1964. Prediction of pile capacity by the wave
equation. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc.
Civil Engrs. 80: SM2, 1-25.

BOWLES, J.E., 1974. Analytical and computer methods in foundations. McGraw

Hill, New York.

7.3.2. TIMBER PILES

7.3.2.1. Use Of Timber Piles

Timber piles are:

best suited for use as friction piles in sands, silts and clays because of their
naturally tapered shape.

not recommended for piles to be driven through dense gravel or till, or for end
bearing piles to rock, since they are vulnerable to damage at the head and the
tip in hard driving.

commonly used for depths of 20 to 50 ft, for diameters of 8 to 16 in., corres-

ponding to the natural dimensions of available tree trunks, and for design loads
of 10 to 50 ton. Note that timber piles are difficult to splice.

7.3.2.2. Materials

Timber piles must conform with the requirements of Subsection 4.2.3. of the
NBC.

They may be used untreated where they are entirely located below the permanent
water table, and in this condition they are extremely res.istant to decay, irrespec-
tive of the quality of groundwater.

Where untreated timber piles are exposed to soil or air above the permanent
water table and in particular when they are subjected to intermittent submergence,
they are very vulnerable to decay.

7.3.2.3. Structural Design

The structural design of timber piles must conform with the requirements of
Subsection 4.2.7. of the NBC. No special consideration need to be given to
handling or driving stresses, but special precautions must be taken to protect the
pile tip and head from damage.
 - 189 -

7.3.2.4. Installation Of Timber piles

The only potential problem associated with the installation of timber piles
is the splitting and brooming of the pile tip and head during driving.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

To avoid this the following steps are recommended:

the driving energy per blow (ft-lb) should be limited to:

1500 D

where D is the diameter of the pile tip, in., and

the pile head should be provided with protection in the form of a chamfer if easy
driving is expected as in soft clays, or of a steel ring if hard driving is
expected.

the pile tip should be provided with protection in the form of a cone-shaped tip
for easy driving, a steel ring for medium driving or a special steel point
protection or boot for hard driving.

Even when these precautions are taken, timber piles cannot withstand
very hard driving; overdriving will generally lead to the destruction of
timber piles. To avoid this, it is recommended that:

the maximum driving energy per inch (ft-lb) be limited to:

6000 D

where D is the pile tip diameter, in., and

that driving be stopped immediately when abrupt high resistance to penetration

is encountered.

7.3.3. PRECAST AND PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILES

7.3.3.1. Use Of Precast And Prestressed Concrete Piles

Because of the structural strength and wide choice of possible dimensions,

precast and prestressed concrete piles can have a wide range of load carrying
capacity. They are:

best suited for high capacity piles in sand and gravel and for end bearing
piles to rock.

not recommended for piles subject to uplift forces unless special precautions
are taken, nor for driving in soils containing large boulders.

commonly used for depths of 30 to 45 ft for precast concrete piles without

splicing device, 40 to 60 ft for prestressed concrete piles without splicing
device, and unlimited depths for piles with splicing device.

Typical cross-sections are square with a width of 12 to 24 in., hexagonal

with 10 to 24 in. across the flats, or cylindrical with diameters up to 54 in.
(The larger diameter cylinders are usually hollow and prestressed).

Design loads vary over a wide range depending on the geometry of the pile,
the strength of concrete and the amount of reinforcing steel or of prestressing.

7.3.3.2. Materials And Fabrication

Concrete piles must conform to the requirements of Subsection 4.2.3. of the

NBC. In addition, the following special requirements should be considered:
 - 190 -

(1) Concrete

Concrete used in precast and prestressed concrete piles should have a

strength in excess of 5000 lb/sq in. Higher strength is desirable and con-
crete with strengths in excess of 7500 lb/sq in. is in common use. Such high
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

strengths are necessary to reduce the risk of spalling or cracking during

driving.

(2) Steel

Reinforcing steel should have a yield stress of at least 60,000 lb/sq in.
for normal driving condition, and of 85,000 lb/sq in. when hard driving is
expected. Longitudinal reinforcement should be made up of a minimum of 4
bars in square piles and 6 bars in hexagonal or cylindrical piles, spaced
symmetrically. Spirals or ties are spaced 4 to 8 in. on centers in the
middle of the pile length, but should be spaced no more than 3 in. on
centers at each end of the pile for a length at least equal to three times
the pile diameter. In order to reduce the risk of spalling the thickness of
concrete cover protecting the reinforcing or prestressing steel is reduced
to l~ in. for concrete with a strength at 28 day under 7000 lb/sq in. and to
1 in. for concrete with a strength at 28 day in excess of 7000 lb/sq in.

(3) Forms

Forms fo~ precast and prestressed concrete piles must be extremely

accurate to ensure perfect straightness of the piles, constant cross-sections
and smooth surfaces. The form ends must be exactly perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis to avoid destruction of the pile ends during driving.

7.3.3.3. Pile Splices

Since the length of precast concrete piles is limited by handling conditions,

special pile splices have been developed to allow the construction of very long
precast concrete piles. Quality requirements for concrete pile splices are
stringent because of the determining influence of splices on the drivability of
concrete piles. Pile splices are now produced by specialized manufacturers, and
have been the object of extensive design review and testing. General requirements
for splices are as follows:

the strength of the splice must be at least equal to that of the pile in
compression, tension or bending.

the splice must be designed and positioned so as to ensure and maintain perfect
alignment of the joined sections of piles.

the splice must be designed so that the slack between two joined sections of a
pile is less than 0.02 inch in either compression or tension. A slack in excess
of this amount would produce significant loss of driving energy and impair the
drivability of the pile.

7.3.3.4. Structural Design

The structural design of precast and prestressed concrete piles must conform
with the requirements of Subsection 4.2.7. of the NBC.

(1) Handling conditions

The structural capacity of precast and prestressed concrete piles must

be checked for the handling condition, where the pile is subjected to bending
under its own weight. To allow for impact, it is common practice to compute
handling stresses with a design weight equal to 150% of the actual pile weight.

To ensure proper handling it is common practice to provide the pile with

handling hooks located according to the design assumptions.

Handling conditions govern the maximum length of precast and prestressed

concrete piles.
 - 191 -

(2) Driving conditions

Driving conditions generally govern the structural design of precast and

prestressed concrete piles. Until recent years no design tools were available
to check for these conditions and common practice was limited to a careful
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

monitoring of the driving operations to ensure that no damage would occur to

the visible portion of the pile. With the development of the wave equation
analysis (See 7.3.1.2.) it was possible to evaluate the compressive and
tensile stresses generated in concrete piles during driving and to design
them to withstand such stresses.

For guidance, in cases where such analysis has not been performed, it
has been established that maximum driving stresses in precast and prestressed
concrete piles are about 150% of the static stresses corresponding to the
achieved load capacity. In other words, to take driving stresses into account,
it is recommended that the structural capacity determined from Sentence 4.2.7.4.
of the NBC be multiplied by a reduction factor equal to 0.6.

(3) Working conditions

(a) Precast concrete piles

The design method and details given in CSA Standard A23.3 1973
'Code for the Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings' are those
applicable to laterally supported compression members. However, for piles
subjected to moments or horizontal loads in addition to vertical loads, the
effects of such loads, as determined in 7.2.5., of this Manual, must be
taken into account in the structural design of the piles.

(b) Prestressed concrete piles

Although design is governed by CSA Standard A23.3 it is recommended

that the following formula be used to take into account the reduction of
prestress due to the application of compression working loads:

p Ec Es
(1.1 - - f - ) fpe
J
so

where p governing combination of loads multiplied by

appropriate load factors as specified in
CSA-A23.3, lb.
A gross concrete section of the pile, sq in.
c
If! capacity reduction factor as defined in
:s
CSA-A23.3
strain in concrete at failure, assumed = 0.003
Es modulus of elasticity of prestressing steel, 1b/sq in.
f stress after losses in prestressing steel, 1b/sq in.
so
f effective stress in concrete due to prestress after
pe
losses, Ib/sq in.
f' specified strength of concrete, 1b/sq in.
c

For most practical cases the formula reduces to:

p AcIf! [ f'c - 0.6 f pe)

1

7.3.3.5. Installation
d
Driving of precast or prestressed concrete piles is difficult to perform
properly requiring special driving equipment and extreme care. Two problems
commonly arise:
 - 192

"
regular horizontal tension cracks may form in the early stages of driving when
the resistance to penetration is low; and

the pile tip or head may be crushed in compression under hard driving. To
avoid such problems, the following information is given as a guideline.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

(1) Required quality of pile

(a) Structural integrity

Piles designed and fabricated according to the recommendations in

7.3.3.2. to 7.3.3.4. will have the necessary qualities for successful driving,
However, all piles should be carefully inspected before driving and damaged
piles should be rejected.

Piles which have become fissured or spalled as the result of mis-

handling will generally be impossible to drive properly.

(b) Pile head

It is essential that the pile head be exactly perpendicular to the pile

axis in order to avoid uneven distribution of impact forces. It is good
practice to protect the pile head by means of a steel plate which should be
at least ~ in. thick. The plate should be anchored into the reinforcing
steel of the pile. The pile head should be encased with a steel collar
connected to the head plate and extending to a depth equal to half the pile
diameter. The plate and collar should be cast with the pile.

When easy driving conditions are expected, the pile head need only be
chamfered at the edges and corners. In this case, it is important to
ensure that no reinforcing steel or prestressing strands protrude from the
head.

(c) Pile tip

In most cases the pile tip needs only be chamfered at the edges and
corners.

When hard driving conditions are expected and in particular where piles
are driven to end bearing on rock it is recommended that a special steel
point be attached to the pile tip. The Oslo Point is a common type of tip
protection; its characteristics are such that it can be chiselled into any
type of rock to ensure proper seating.

(d) Joints

When joints are used the straightness of the pile across each joint
should be checked as driving proceeds. With piles cast in horizontal moulds
the face of the pile which was in contact with air during casting and curing
has a different modulus of elasticity. This results in uneven dynamic de-
formations during driving, and, for long piles, in bending. To avoid this
it is recommended that this face of the pile element be rotated 180 0 at each
joint.

REFERENCE

REHNMAN, S.E. and BROMS, B.B., 1971. Bearing capacity of piles driven into
rock. Can. Geotech. J., 8: 2, 151-162.

(2) Driving hammers

(a) Types of hammers

Drop hammers and diesel hammers are the most common types used for
driving precast or prestressed concrete piles. Vibratory hammers are not
recommended for precast or prestressed concrete piles because of the high
tension stresses they generate.
 - 193

(b) weight of haIlTJ11er

The selection of the appropriate weight of hammer is extremely

important. In the absence of a wave equation analysis for such selection,
it is recommended that a heavy hammer (weight at least equal to that of
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

pile) be used. For the same weight a long hammer is more efficient than a
short one.

(c) Energy

In the absence of a wave equation analVsis, it is recommended that the

hammer energy be limited to a maximum equal to 200 x IlD ft lb/sq in. of
pile cross-section, where D is the pile diameter, ft.

Furthermore, it is recommended that the drop height of free fall

hammers be limited to a maximum of 30 in. Higher drop heights result in
higher impact velocities and unacceptable driving stresses.

To avoid the formation of tension cracks it is recommended that the

ram velocity or drop height be reduced during early driving when little
soil resistance is encountered, and in general when driving through soft
soils. With reduced ram velocity the tensile stresses reflected from the
pile tip can be kept within acceptable limits.

(3) Driving cap

(a) Cap dimensions

To avoid the transmission of torsion or bending forces, the driving

cap or helmet should fit loosely but not so loosely as to prevent the
proper alignment of hammer and pile.

(b) Capblock

A capblock must be placed on top of the driving cap to eliminate the

damage caused by direct impact. The capblock must be of a material that
attenuates the peak impact force and transmits the impact energy without
excessive losses.

The most common material for a capblock is a hardwood block with grain
parallel to the pile axis enclosed in a tightly fitting steel sleeve. A
typical thickness is 6 in. However, the hardwood changes its properties
during driving and rapidly looses its effectiveness. It should not be used
therefore once it is crushed or burned, since damage to the pile may result.
The use of micarta as a capblock is desirable and recommended because of the
greater energy transmission characteristics of this material and because it
retains its elastic properties much longer than hardwood.

(c) Cushion

To avoid damage to the head of concrete piles as the result of direct

impact from the steel driving cap, it is essential that a cushion be pro-
vided between the driving cap and the pile head. A typical cushion is made
of compressible material such as masonite with a thickness of 3/4 to 1 in.
It is recommended that the cushion not be used for more than 5000 blows.

7.3.4. STEEL H PILES

7.3.4.1. Use Of Steel H Piles

Steel H piles identified as B.P. are available in various standard sections.

WF sections are not recommended for use as piles because they have relatively thin
web sections.

Steel H piles are:

best suited for end-bearing piles to rock particularly where they are driven
through soft clay deposits. In this case, steel H piles displace a minimum
 - 194 -

volume of clay and reduce the potential problem of heaving (see 7.2.3.7.(2».

not recommended for driving through deposits containing large obstructions.

H piles may be destroyed by separation of flanges and web when hitting major
obstructions. Similar problems may be encountered in very dense gravels.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

commonly used for any depth since splices are easy, (optimum lengths are 40 to
100 ft), and for loads of 40 to 140 ton.

7.3.4.2. Materials

Steel H piles must conform to the requirements of Subsection 4.2.3. of the

NBC but as discussed in 7.3.4.4., it is generally not advantageous to use steel
with a yield stress in excess of 36000 lb/sq in.

Where conditions are known to be corrosive to steel, an increased steel cross-

section, encasement by cast-in-place concrete, precast concrete jackets, or
cathodic protection may be used to ensure a full design cross-section.

7.3.4.3. Splices

Splices can be made either by riveting, bolting or welding; the latter being
the most common. The splice should have at least the same strength as the pile in
compression, tension and bending.

Sufficient time should be allowed for welded splices to cool and strengthen
before driving is resumed.

7.3.4.4. Structural Design

The structural design of steel H piles must conform to the requirements of

Subsection 4.2.7. of the NBC. Due to the high strength of steel, handling
conditions are Usually not considered in the design of steel H piles.

(1) Driving conditions

Driving conditions generally govern the structural design of steel H

piles. Driving conditions can be investigated in detail by means of the wave
equation analysis as referred to in 7.3.1.2.

In the absence of such an analysis, the following may be considered in

evaluating driving conditions:

(a) The driving process and the generation of the geotechnical capacity of steel
H piles is governed, not by the strength of steel used, but.by the axial
stiffness EA/L of the pile. Therefore the geotechnical capacity of the pile
is also independent of the strength of steel and cannot be improved by using,
say, grade 60 steel instead of grade 36 steel, since E is the same for both.

(b) For most practical cases, geotechnically allowable pile loads obtained by
applying a factor of safety of 2.0 to the ultimate capacity resulting from
the driving process will correspond to compressive service stresses in the
pile of the order of 12000 to 14000 lb/sq in. Corresponding maximum driving
stresses will be of the order of 36000 lb/sq in.

(2) Working conditions

The pertinent design method and details given in CSA Standard S16
'Steel Structures for Buildings' are those applicable to laterally supported
compression members. However, for piles subjected to moments or horizontal
loads in addition to vertical loads, the effects of such loads, as described
in 7.2.5. of this Manual, must be taken into account in the structural design
of the piles.
 - 195 -

Since in most cases it will not be possible to drive steel H piles to

allowable load capacities corresponding to service stresses in excess of
14000 1b/sq in., it is recommended:

(a) that the design yield strength of steel be limited to 36000 Ib/sq in.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

(b) that the computed structural capacity be multiplied by a reduction factor

equal to 0.6. (The resulting service stress will be of the order of 13000
1b/sq in.)

(c) that design yield strengths and service stresses in excess of these values
be considered only

for steel H piles driven to true end bearing on rock when the load
capacity is not related to driving,

for piles subject to freeze as described in 7.2.2.2. of this Manual, and

when horizontal loads act on the pile.

7.3.4.5. Installation

Driving of steel H piles is generally easy. Problems arise only when driving
H piles through very dense gravel or tills containing boulders. If left unprotected
under these conditions the pile tip may deform to an unacceptable extent and
separation of the flanges and web may occur. To avoid such problems the following
are recommended:

Protection of the pile

When hard driving conditions are expected it is recommended that the tips
of H piles be protected. Oslo points as described by BJERRUM (1957) may be used
for driving into hard rock. (The heads of H piles are generally left unpro-
tected; damaged sections are cut from the pile head after driving.)

Driving equipment

All kinds of driving hammers may be used to drive steel H piles. However,
the energy of the hammer should be limited to 2000 ft 1b/sq in. of cross-
sectional area. (The recommendations for driving cap and capb10ck are as in
7.3.3.5.(3). Cushions are not used when driving steel H piles.)

REFERENCE

BJERRUM, L., 1957. Norwegian experiences with steel piles to rock. Geotechnique
7: 2, 73-96.

7.3.5. STEEL PIPE PILES

7.3.5.1. Use Of Steel Pipe Piles

Steel pipe piles may be driven with an open or closed end; they may be left
open or filled with concrete. They are;

best suited for end bearing piles to rock or for pi1~s subjected to horizon-
tal loads or momentS. Pipe piles driven open-ended are best for driving
through soils containing obstructions such as till, since the obstructions
can be broken and removed from under the pile tip.

not recommended for friction piles in clay, because of the impermeability

and smoothness of the steel surface.

commonly used

for variable lengths since splices are easily made,

for total lengths of 40 to 120 ft,
with diameters of 12 in. to 20 in. (8 in. to 36 in. diam. are used),
for loads of 80 to 200 ton, depending upon diameter.
 - 196 -

7.3.5.2. Materials

(1) Steel

The materials to be used for steel pipe piles are specified in Sentence
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

4.2.3.9. of the NBC. Where conditions are shown to be corrosive to steel,

Sentence 4.2.3.11. of the NBC applies; most common protection consists in an
increased steel cross-section. Under extreme conditions encasement by cast-
in-place concrete or precast concrete jackets or cathodic protection may be
used.

For detailed information on corrosion of steel piles see the following

references.

REFERENCES

SCHWERDTFEGER, W.G. and ROMANOFF, M., 1972. NBS papers on underground

corrosion of steel piling. NBS MOnograph 127, U.S. Dept Commerce,
Nat. Bur. Stand.

BJERRUM, L., 1967. Norwegian experiences with steel piles to rock.

Geotechnique, 7: 2, 73-96.

(2) Concrete

Steel pipe piles mayor may not be filled with concrete. When concrete
is used it must conform to the requirements of Section 4.5 of the NBC.
However, in most cases, the requirements of CSA A23.l concerning maximum
slump (4") cannot be met for concrete placed by tremie. Slumps of about 7"
are normally used; the mix must be designed accordingly by a person competent
in this field of work.

7.3.5.3. Structural Design

The structural design of steel pipe piles must conform to the requirements of
Subsection 4.2.7. of the NBC. Due to the properties of steel, handling conditions
need not be considered in design.

(1) Driving conditions

Two cases are distinguished here:

(a) Pipe piles driven with an open end

When a pipe pile is driven with an open end, and when it is shown by
inspection that no soil plug forms at the pile tip, driving stresses are
not related to the final load capacity of the pile. In this case, driving
stresses are generally within acceptable limits. However, in cases of
large pile foundations or of piles with large diameters, it is recommended
that driving stresses be evaluated by means of a wave equation analysis,
and that the grade of steel be selected accordingly.

(b) pipe piles driven with a closed end

When a pipe pile is driven with a closed end, the final load capacity
of the pile is directly related to the driving stresses which in turn are
related to the stiffness of the pipe, and not to the strength of the steel.
(See 7.3.4.4.)

In this case it is recommended that driving stresses be determined by

a wave equation analysis.

(2) Working conditions

The structural capacity of steel pipe piles is determined according to

the requirements of Subsection 4.2.7. of the NBC, i.e. according to CSA
Standard S16;"Steel Structures for Buildings."
 - 197 -

(a) Pipe piles driven with an open end

Pipe piles driven with an open end, cleaned out and filled with con-
crete, are to be designed as laterally supported, concrete filled structural
sections used as columns. Grade of steel and strength of concrete may be
selected to fit the design conditions. For piles subjected to moments or
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

horizontal loads the effects of such loads, as described in 7.2.5. of this

Manual, must be taken into account in the structural design of the piles.

(b) Pipe piles driven with a closed end

The geotechnical load capacity is governed by driving conditions and

is dependent on the stiffness of the pile. Consequently, and as discussed
in 7.3.4.4. (2), it is recommended:

that the design yield strength of steel be limited to 36000 lb/sq in.

that the contribution of any concrete filling be neglected

that the structural capacity, as determined from Section 4.6. be

multiplied by a reduction factor equal to 0.6.

that the design yield strength and service stresses in excess of the
above mentioned values, as well as the contribution of concrete filling,
be considered only,

for piles driven to true end bearing where the load capacity
is not related to driving,
for piles subject to freeze as described in 7.2.2.2. of this Manual,
when horizontal loads act on the pile, and
when results of a wave equation analysis show this to be acceptable.

7.3.5.4. Installation

Installation of steel pipe piles is generally easy. Problems arise only when
driving closed end pipe piles through materials containing obstructions or when
driving open end pipe piles through very dense materials. In the first case piles
may deflect and deviate from their design alignment to an unacceptable extent.
In the second case the tip of the pipe may be deformed.

(1) Protection of the pile

(a) Piles driven with closed ends

No special protection is necessary for soft or medium driving. When

hard driving is expected it is desirable to provide a special pile point of
conical shape, made of special steel or alloy. When obstructions such as
boulders are expected pipe piles should be driven with open ends with
provision for the breaking and removal of such obstructions.

(b) Piles driven with open ends

No special protection is necessary for soft or medium driving. When

hard driving is expected such as in dense gravel it is recommended that a
special driving shoe made of special steel or alloy be provided. When pipe
piles are driven with open ends constant control of the driving energy is
necessary to identify obstructions and provide for their removal. Regular
checks on the level of soil within the tube are necessary to recognize the
formation of a soil plug at the pile tip.

(2) Driving equipment

All kinds of driving hammers may be used to drive steel pipe piles.
However, it is recommended that the energy of the hammer blow be limited to
2000 ft lb/sq in. of cross-sectional area. The recommendations for driving
cap and capblock are as described in 7.3.3.5. Cushions are not used when
driving steel pipe piles.
 - 198 -

7.3.6. COMPACTED EXPANDED BASE CONCRETE PILES

7.3.6.1. Use Of Compacted Concrete Piles

Compacted concrete piles were originally developed as a patented technique

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

and require the use of special equipment for their installation. Compacted con-
crete piles develop their bearing capacity primarily from the densification of
soil around the expanded base. They are:

best suited for piles in granular soils, in particular in loose sands where
high capacities can be developed at shallow depths, and for piles subjected
to uplift forces provided they are structurally designed for this condition.

not r~commended in cohesive soils where compaction of the base is impossible.

commonly used with shaft diameters of 12 to 24 in., for loads of 60 to 150 ton
and for lengths of 10 to 60 ft.

7.3.6.2. Materials

Materials used for compacted concrete piles must conform with the requirements
of Subsection 4.2.3. of the NBC. However, because of the installation technique,
dry concrete must be used in the compacted base in all cases and in the compacted
shaft when this is used instead of an encased shaft. (Dry concrete means a concrete
with 0 in. of slump containing about 3.5 gallons of water per cement bag.) The
strength of dry concrete should be checked on special compacted samples, although
there is currently no standard method for such sampling and tests.

Compacted concrete piles are commonly built with an encased shaft. The casing
is usually made of light gauge steel tubing and is intended only to provide the
necessary protection against intrusion of water or soil during concreting operations.

7.3.6.3. Structural Design

The structural design of compacted concrete piles must conform with the
requirements of Subsection 4.2.7. of the NBC, i.e. to CSA Standard A23.3. Since
compacted concrete piles are cast-in-place, only working conditions need be
considered in design.

(1) Working conditions

Two cases are distinguished.

(a) Piles with compacted shaft

In this case the pile shaft is made of dry concrete compacted against
the soil and may be reinforced. The structural capacity of the shaft is
determined according to the requirements of CSA A23.3. The design 28 days
strength of dry concrete is taken equal to 3000 lb/sq in. The area of
concrete effective in load carrying is taken equal to the nominal area of
pile shaft corresponding to the inner diameter of the driving tube. The
resulting structural capacity is multiplied by a reduction factor of about
take the unusual construction conditions into account.

(b) Piles with encased shaft

Piles with encased shafts may be reinforced. The structural capacity

of the shaft is determined according to the requirements of CSA A23.3.
Concrete with any desired strength may be used. The resulting structural
capacity is multiplied by a reduction factor of about 0.7 to take the
unusual construction conditions into account.

Where compacted concrete piles have to resist uplift forces, the

structural strength of the shafts must be determined accordingly. Consider-
ation must be given to a proper continuity of reinforcing at the junction
of the shaft with the base.
 199 -

7.3.6.4. Installation

Installation of compacted concrete piles requires the use of special equip-

ment and is generally carried out in three steps.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

(1) Driving

A plug of dry concrete is placed inside a heavy steel tube properly

aligned at ground surface. A heavy ram (5000 to 10000 lb) is then dropped
from 10 to 20 ft on the plug. As a result of repeated impacts of the ram
the concrete plug is forced into the ground, to the desired depth dragging
the tube with it.

(2) Forming the base

When the base of the tube has been driven to the design depth, the tube
is clamped to the driving rig at ground surface to maintain it at a fixed
elevation. By applying blows of the heavy ram the concrete plug is expelled
into the ground. Dry concrete is added and expelled in a continuing process.
It is essential that a minimum amount of dry concrete be maintained in the
tube at all times and that neither soil nor ground water be allowed to enter
the tube. Both the volume of concrete and the total energy are recorded.
The relationship shown on Fig. 7.4. may be used with caution as a guideline
for estimating the capacity of such a pile.

(3) Forming the shaft

After completion of the base, additional small batches of dry concrete

are placed at the bottom of the tube. With the ram resting on top of each
batch, the tube is withdrawn slightly and several blows of the ram are ap-
plied to compact it. The cycle is repeated until the top of the pile reaches
the design elevation. If the design calls for reinforcing, the steel cage
is placed inside the tube before the last batch of dry concrete is compacted
in the base to ensure an appropriate connection. Care must be exercised to
ensure that the cage is not lifted when the ram is raised.

(4) Encased shaft

If the design calls for an encased shaft, the steel casing is dropped
inside the driving tube after the base has been compacted. A plug of dry
concrete is then placed and compacted by several blows of the ram to ensure
intimate contact with the base. The driving tube is then withdrawn and the
steel casing is filled with concrete in the normal manner.

(5) Common installation problems

Three main problems may be encountered when using compacted concrete

piles. They can be avoided by careful construction and inspection.

(a) Placing of concrete

For piles with compacted shafts, extreme care must be exercised in

7 to order to maintain a sufficient height of dry concrete within the driving
tube at all times. If the tube is withdrawn too rapidly or if too much
concrete is expelled a void may be created between the top of the compacted
concrete column and the bottom of the tube. Water and soil may fill this
void and produce a reduction (necking) or even a complete interruption of
the concrete shaft. A constant control on the quantities of concrete placed,
the elevation of the base of the tube and the elevation of the top of the
compacted concrete, is necessary to avoid this problem.

(b) Heave of adjacent piles

Under particular soil conditions such as when piles have to be driven

through a clay layer into a lower sand deposit, existing piles may heave as
the result of driving new piles adjacent to them. A typical case is dis-
cussed by BRZEZINSKI et al (1973).
 - 200 -

200
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

150

z
o
I-

o
« 1 00
o
...J

W
...J

W
...J
co
50
«
5 V= TOTAL VOLUME OF
o
...J
COMPACTED BASE
...J

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
NUMBER OF BLOWS PER LA S T 5 CU FT

RAM WEIGHT 7000 LB

DROP HE I G H T 20 FT
ENE RG Y PER 140000 FT LB
BLOW

FIG 7.4 (After Nordlund)

ALLOWABLE PILE LOAD FO R COMPACTED EXPANDED BASE
CONCRETE PILES
 - 201 -

(c) Insufficient load capacity

The load capacity of compacted concrete piles is related empirically

to the volume of concrete and energy imparted to the compacted base.
Problems with insufficient load capacities may occur where such piles are
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

used in areas or soil conditions where little or no experience is available.

It should be considered mandatory to check the capacity of compacted con-
crete piles by load tests and, where this capacity is insufficient, to make
the necessary adjustments in the compaction of the base.

REFERENCES

NORDLUND, R.L., 1970. Pressure injected footings. Proc. Conf. Design and
Installation of Pile Foundations and Cellular Structures. Lehigh
Univ., 297-308.

BRZEZINSKI, L.S., SHECTOR, L., MacPHIE, H.L. and Vander NOOT, H.J., 1973.
An experience with heave of cast in situ expanded base piles. Can.
Geotech. J. 10: 246-260.

7.3.7. BORED PILES

7.3.7.1. Use Of Bored Piles

Bored piles can be made in different shapes and dimensions. Cylindrical piles
are the most frequent type; however in recent years elements of diaphragm walls
have been used in various combinations (I, H, X) as deep foundation units. Bored
piles are increasingly used because of their very high load capacities. Bored
piles are:

best suited for end bearing high capacity piles to rock or dense till. Bored
piles are also successfully used in stiff clays.

not recommended in cases where deposits of loose cohesionless materials have to

be penetrated or when artesian groundwater conditions prevail; in such cases it
may be impossible to excavate successfully even with the use of bentonite slurry.

commonly used for variable lengths (bored piles excavated with bentonite slurry
have been installed at depths in excess of 300 ft), for diameters in excess of
36 in. and up to 8 ft, for loads up to 2000 ton.

7.3.7.2. Materials

The materials to be used for bored piles must conform with the requirements of
Subsection 4.2.3. of the NBC. However, where concrete is placed by tremie the
requirements of CSA A23.l concerning maximum slump cannot be met. Slumps of about
7 in. are normally used; the concrete mix should be designed by a person competent
in this field of work.

When bored piles are provided with structural steel casings, the appropriate
considerations discussed in 7.3.5. of this chapter also apply.

When bored piles are excavated with bentonite slurry the quality of the slurry
(density, viscosity, etc .•. ) should be determined by a person competent in this
field of work and it should be kept under constant control to ensure that it per-
forms satisfactorily.

7.3.7.3. Structural Design

Bored piles may be uncased or cased.

(1) Uncased piles

The structural capacity of uncased bored piles must conform with the
requirements of Subsection 4.2.7. of the NBC, i.e. according to the require-
ments of CSA A23.3. As discussed in 7.3.1.1. the full structural capacity
 - 202 -

as resulting from CSA A23.3, should not be considered in design because of

adverse installation conditions. More specifically it is recommended:

to consider that an outer surface of concrete of 1 inch thickness does not

contribute to the structural strength of the pile cross-section. (Experience
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

shows that the surface concrete is often contaminated with soil drilling
and has a reduced strength.)

that the design strength of concrete be limited to f'

c
= 4000 lb/sq in.

that the structural capacity resulting from CSA A23.3 be multiplied by a

reduction factor, the magnitude of which should be selected by the design
engineer to take into consideration the difficulties related to the
construction of the unit. Suggested values of this reduction factor are
given as follows:

Type of REDUCTION FACTORS FOR UNCASED BORED PILES

Deep
Nominal size or diameter of unit
Foundation
Unit 18 in. and less 18 in. to 36 in. 36 in. and more

Unreinforced 0.8 0.85 0.9

Reinforced 0.6 0.7 0.8

(2) Cased piles

The structural capacity of cased bored piles must conform to the require-
ments of Subsection 4.2.7. of the NBC, i.e. according to the requirements of
CSA S16, on concrete-filled hollow structural sections used as columns.

As discussed in 7.3.1.1., the full structural capacity as resulting from

CSA S16 should not be considered in design because of adverse installation
conditions. More specifically it is recommended:

that the design strength of concrete be limited to f~ = 4000 lb/sq in.

that the structural capacity resulting from CSA S16 be multiplied by a

reduction factor, the magnitude of which should be selected by the design
engineer to take into consideration the difficulties related to the cons-
truction of the unit. Suggested values of this reduction factor are given
as follows:

Type of REDUCTION FACTORS FOR CASED BORED PILES

Deep
Nominal size or diameter of unit
Foundation
Unit 18 in. or less 18 in. to 36 in. 36 in. and more

Unreinforced 0.8 0.9 0.9

Reinforced 0.7 0.8 0.9

7.3.7.4. Installation

(1) Excavation

The excavation for a bored pile may be made:

by using a large diameter auger or bucket drill to remove the soil above
the founding level,
 - 203 -

by driving, vibrating or pushing down a heavy casing to the proposed

founding level and by removing the soil from the casing either continu-
ously as driving proceeds or in one sequence after the casing has reached
the founding level.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

by using a clamshell mounted on a Kelly bar to remove the soil and by

keeping the excavation open by use of a bentonite slurry.

by drilling, coring or chopping when penetration into rock is specified.

(Blasting is not permitted since it affects the properties of surrounding
soil and rock.)

Selection of the excavation procedure depends on the soil and prevailing

groundwater conditions. In stiff cohesive soils, free of water-bearing layers,
simple augering is possible. In this case a loose fitting safety liner is
required to protect personnel during clean out and inspection. Where weak or
water-bearing soil overlies the founding level, a temporary casing or liner
is required to support the hole and to hold back the groundwater until the
base is cleaned out, inspected and concrete is placed. Where the soil above
founding level is very weak and wet, the steel casing may be left in place;
in this case the casing may be considered as contributing to the structural
strength of the pile, provided its inside surfaces are cleaned of smeared soil.

Whenever possible the steel casing should be pushed tightly into the
founding layer to control the flow of groundwater into the excavated hole.
Where such flow is too great to be controlled, it may be necessary to clean
out the hole and to place the concrete by tremie without removing the water;
direct inspection of the hole is then impossible. In this case, excavation
without casing but with the use of bentonite slurry may prove more effective.
However this is only feasible where the founding medium is bedrock and where
inspection of the bottom of the excavation by such means as coring is provided.

Belling of the base, where specified, may be done by machine or by hand.

Where the nature of soil requires it, or when groundwater is present, bells
should be sheeted and braced to maintain their shape and permit proper placing
of concrete.

Regardless of the procedure used for excavation it is essential that the

base be cleaned to the sound founding material, and that groundwater be
controlled so that excess uplift pressures do not act below the founding level
and water and soil do not flow over the prepared base. It is also essential
that the walls of a socket in rock be cleaned of loose rock or smear when
loads are designed to be transferred to the founding rock by adhesion of the
concrete to the walls of the socket. (See 7.2.1.).

(2) Placing concrete

After the excavation has been completed, inspected and accepted, concrete
may be placed in one continuous operation.

(a) Placing reinforcement

Steel reinforcement, steel studs or core sections should be accurately

placed and adequately supported. Should the method of pile construction
specify removal of the casing, care sl~Juld be exercised to ensure that the
reinforcement is not disturbed or exposed to surrounding soil during the
removal process. Spacers, capable of sliding on the casing, should be
attached to the reinforcement.

(b) Placing concrete in a dry excavation

Where the excavation is dry, concrete may be placed by buckets, chutes

or elephant trunks so as not to result in segregation. It is permissible to
allow free fall of concrete, but it must be poured through a centering chute
which causes it to fall down the center of the hole, well clear of the walls
of the shaft. Where free fall of concrete is used, it results in adequate
compaction below the top 5 ft. Vibration of the concrete is then required
for the upper 5 ft to produce a concrete of uniform strength.
! i

- 204 -

(c) Withdrawing temporary casing

If ground conditions are such that the casing may be removed during the
concreting of the pile, the procedure used should ensure that the concrete
will not be disturbed, pulled apart or pinched off by earth movement. The
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

level of concrete must be maintained at a minimum of 5 ft above the bottom

of the casing, a higher head being necessary in cases of high groundwater
level in the surrounding soil.

(3) Common installation problems

Some common problems associated with the installation of bored piles are:

Inadequate precautions to control groundwater flow during excavation

resulting in loss of ground and potential long term undermining of floor
areas.

The tremie pipe is pulled out of the concrete during placing so that some
of the concrete flows through water. The result is a layer or pocket of
sand and gravel and a concentration of cement or laitance at cut-off level.

The temporary liner is withdrawn too fast causing soil to intrude in the
theoretical concrete section (necking).

The temporary liner becomes stuck and is withdrawn after partial set of
concrete has taken place, causing cracking of the shaft.

The concrete is too old when placed. Where delays are expected a retarder
should be specified.

Low slump concrete is used without vibration, causing voids to be formed.

REFERENCES

WOODWARD, R.J., GARDNER, W.S. and GREER, D.M., 1972. Drilled pier foundations.
McGraw Hill, New York.

ACI Committee 336, 1972. Suggested design and construction procedures for
pier foundations. J. Am. Cone. Inst., August 1972, 461-480.

7.4. LOAD TESTS ON DEEP FOUNDATIONS

7.4.1. USE OF LOAD TESTS

As indicated in 7.1. of this chapter, load testing of piles is the most positive
method of determining load capacity. Depending upon the type and size of the foundation,
such load tests may be performed at different stages during design and construction.

7.4.1.1. Load Tests During Design

The best method of designing a pile foundation consists in performing pile

driving and loading tests. The number of tests, type of piles tested, method of
driving or of installation and test loading should be selected by the engineer
responsible for design. The following points should be considered:

The test program should be carried out by a person competent in this field of
work.

A detailed soil investigation should be carried out at the test location.

The piles, equipment, used for driving or other method of installation and
procedure should be those intended to be used in the construction of the
foundation.
 - 205 -

The piles should be instrumented for shaft deformations to allow for a measure-
ment of settlement at the head of the pile. ~ere possible, deformation
measurements should also be made at the tip of the pile and at intermediate
points to allow for a separate evaluation of point resistance and skin friction).
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

The driving process should be observed in detail to allow for an analysis by

means of the wave equation. (See 7.5.4.).

The piles should be loaded to at least twice the proposed working load and
preferably beyond failure.

REFERENCE

TAVENAS, F.A., 1971. Load test results on friction piles in sand. Can. Geotech.
7: 7-22.

7.4.1.2. Load Tests During Construction

It is recommended practice to perform load tests on representative deep

foundation units at early stages of construction. The purpose of such tests is
to ascertain that the allowable loads obtained by design are appropriate, and that
the installation procedure is satisfactory.

The selection of the test piles should be made by the engineer responsible
for design on the basis of observed driving behaviour or installation features.

7.4.1.3. Routine Load Tests For Control

Where full advantage of Sentences 4.2.4.1.(1)(c) and 4.2.7.2.(2) of the NBC

is to be taken, a sufficient number of load tests must be carried out on repre-
sentative units to ascertain the uniformity of the allowable loads and of the
behaviour of the constructed foundation. Load tests for control should be per-
formed on one out of each group of 250 units, or portion thereof, of the same type
and capacity. Load tests should also be performed on one out of each group of
units where driving records or other observations indicate that the soil conditions
differ significantly from those normally prevailing at the site. Selection of
the deep foundation units to be load tested is the responsibility of the design
engineer.

7.4.2. RECOMMENDED TEST METHODS

Sentence 4.2.7.2.(2) of the NBC requires that load tests on piles be carried out in
accordance with ASTM Dl143-69, "Load Settlement Relationship for Individual Vertical Piles
Under Static Axial Loads", or other acceptable methods. The ASTM Standard actually presents
three alternative methods. In addition, another test method, acceptable under certain
circumstances is included here.

7.4.2.1. ASTM Dl143-69 Method (Method A)

This standard applies to load tests carried out for control of deep foundations
as discussed in 7.4.1.2. and 7.4.1.3. However, it is recommended that only the
method described in Sentence 5.2.1. of ASTM Dl143-69 be used. The following con-
siderations should be taken into account when using this test method

The loading device described in Sentence 3.1.3. may prove unusable because the
accuracy of measurement of both applied load and settlement may be insufficient
for clear interpretation of results.

Incremental strain measurements, as discussed in Sentence 4.1.5. are recommended

for all design load tests.

The elapsed times between driving and testing of piles, mentioned in Sentence
5.1.1. are minimum values. As discussed in 7.2.2. and 7.2.3. variations in the
bearing capacity of piles can develop over longer periods of time. In most
cases however, the pile capacity increases with time so that early testing will
 - 206 -

result in an underestimate of the actual pile capacity.

Depending on the soil condition, the type of pile and the observations during
previous stages of the load test, the 200 percent design load may not need to
remain on the pile for 24 hours, as required in Sentence 5.2.1.1. A short
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

duration test usually will not indicate the long term behaviour of the pile
but testing the pile to failure as required in Sentence 5.2.1. is of more
significance in the assessment of the pile behaviour.

7.4.2.2. Constant Rate Of Penetration Method (Method B)

Piles in clay cannot be load tested at sufficiently slow rates of loading to

give any indication of the settlement of such piles, and only the ultimate
capacity may be obtained from load tests. The constant rate of penetration (CRP)
method developed by WHITAKER (1970) may be used to determine the ultimate capacity
of tested piles. This method is recommended for testing piles in clay and for
all tests where the ultimate capacity only is to be measured.

(1) Test equipment

Equipment as specified in Sections 3 and 4 of ASTM Dl143-69 may be used.

To produce the necessary constant rate of penetration, the hydraulic jack must
be connected to a pump, electrically operated and equipped with a regulator
capable of providing an adjustable constant flow of oil to the jack. Typical
test equipment is described by GARNEAU and SAMSON (1974).

(2) Test procedure

The minimum elapsed time between driving and testing is specified in ASTM
Dl143-69 and commented on in 7.4.2.1.

The pile head should be forced down at a rate of settlement of 0.02 in./min.

Readings of the pressure in the jack and of the settlement of the pile head
should be taken at regular time intervals not greater than three minutes.

Loading should continue until it reaches 250% of the design load of the
pile, but at least until the observed settlement of the pile head is equal
to the elastic deformation of the pile plus 1 inch; the elastic deformation
being obtained either by direct measurement or by assuming that the test
load acts on the full length of the pile.

REFERENCES

WHITAKER, T., 1970. The design of piled foundations. Pergamon Press, London.

Swedish Commission on Pile Research, 1970. Recommendation for pile driving

test and routine load testing of piles. Prelim. Rep. 11, Royal Swedish
Academy of Engineering Sciences, Stockholm.

GARNEAU, R. and SAMSON, L., 1974. A device for the constant rate of penetra-
tion test on piles. Can. Geotech. J., 11: 298-302.

7.4.2.3. Other Tests

It may be necessary to test piles under loading conditions other than the
usual axial compressive load, ego pullout tests and horizontal load tests may be
specified. There is no standard method for such tests and they should be carried
out under the direction of a person competent in this field of work.

Where the ultimate pullout resistance is to be obtained a reverse CRP method

is recommended. The system used for reaction should be arranged to that no com-
pressive load is applied to the soil surface within a distance of 10 ft from the
pile.

Horizontal load tests are discussed in 7.2.5.3.

 - 207 -

7.4.2.4. Presentation Of Load Test Results

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

The results of load tests performed according to any of the methods described
above should be presented in a report conforming to the requirements of ASTM
Dl143-69, Sentence 6. Graphic presentation of the results should include the
following.

(1) Load-settlement curve

The loads are computed from the observed jack pressures and the calibra-
tion constant of that jack as required in Sentence 3.1.1.1. of ASTM Dl143-69.
The settlements are the average of the readings on at least two dial gauges,
expressed in 1/1000 in.

To facilitate the interpretation of the test results, as discussed in

7.4.3., it is recommended that the scales for the loads and the settlements
be selected so that the line representing the elastic deformation 0 of the
0
pile be inclined at an angle of about 20 to the load axis. The elastic
deformation a is computed from:

QL
~
A E

where 0 elastic deformation, in.

Q test load, lb
Lp pile length, in.
A cross-sectional area of the pile, sq in.
E Young's modulus of the pile material, lbs/sq in.

(2) Time-settlement curves

The time-settlement readings taken for each load increment in Method A

should be presented in graphical form, with the time in minutes on a linear
scale on the abcissa, and the observed settlements in 1/1000 in. on a linear
scale on the ordinate.

7.4.3. INTERPRETATION OF LOAD TEST RESULTS

Only the results of standard tests, as described in 7.4.2.1. and 7.4.2.2. are con-
sidered in the following. The interpretation of pullout or horizontal load tests should
be made by the person responsible for the design of such tests.

There is a wide variety of methods for interpreting standard load tests, which can
be divided into two groups:

Those methods giving an acceptability criterion for the tested pile. Typical of these
is the method specified in the 1970 edition of the NBC. In th~se methods no consider-
ation is given to the failure load of the pile. In most cases a pile is deemed
acceptable if the observed settlements of pile head are within specified limits, which
are selected independently of the type and length of pile.

Those methods giving the failure load of the tested pile, from which the allowable
load may be computed by applying an adequate factor of safety. Such methods are
recommended because they provide a better understanding of pile quality.

7.4.3.1. Method Based On A Failure Criterion

(1) Failure criterion

 - 208 -

Different failure criteria have been proposed in the literature. The

following criterion is considered applicable to all types of load test and
is recommended for use.

The ultimate or failure load Qf of a pile is that load which produces a

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

settlement of the pile head equal to:

D
+ 30

where settlement at failure, in.

D pile diameter, in.
o elastic deformation of pile shaft, in.

o is defined as:

where Q test load, lb

L pile length, in.
p
A cross-sectional area of pile, sq in.
E Young's modulus for pile material, lb/sq in.

(2) Determination of the failure load

The failure criterion defined above is represented by a straight line on

the load-settlement curve (Fig. 7.5.). The observed load-settlement curve
intersects the failure criterion at point F, the abcissa of which, by
definition, is the failure load Qf of the pile. Where the observed load-
settlement curve does not intersect the failure criterion, the maximum test
load should be taken as the failure load.

(3) Factor of safety

To obtain the allowable pile load, the failure load Qf should be divided
by a factor of safety of at least 2.0. Larger factors of safety may be
required:

for friction piles in clay, in particular when Qf has been obtained from
a CRP test. (A value of 2.5. is recommended).

where a limited number of load tests is specified and where soils con-
ditions are variable,

for piles in loose sand and silts where Qf may decrease with time,

to ensure satisfactory settlement behaviour.

7.4.3.2. Other Methods Of Interpretation

Other methods of interpretation commonly used on results of ASTM D1143-69

tests are listed in the following references.

All methods based on maximum allowable gross settlements, which do not take
into account the elastic deformation of the pile shaft are not recommended because
the use of such methods results in overestimates of allowable capacities of short
piles and in underestimates of allowable capacities of long piles.
 - 209 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

0.2

0.4
Z
. 0.6
I-
Z
w
~
w
.....J 0.8
I--
I--
W
lJ')

w 1 .0
.....J

0-

1 .2

1.4
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
APPLIED LOAD, TON

FIG 7.5
EXAMPLE OF RECOMMENDED FAILURE CRITERION
 - 210 -

Detailed analysis of pile test results by means of the method described by

TROW (1967) is useful particularly where the failure load of the pile cannot be
developed.

REFERENCES
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

CHELLIS, R.D., 1951. Pile foundations. McGraw Hill, New York.

FULLER, F.M. and HOY, H.E., 1970. Pile load tests including quick load test
method, conventional methods and interpretations. Highway Research Record,
No. 333 HRB US Nat. Research Council, 74-86.

TROW, W.A., 1967. Analysis of pile load test results. Proceedings 1967 Convention,
Can. Good Roads Assoc., Vancouver, 414-434.

7.5. INSPECTION OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS

7.5.1. GENERAL

The quality of deep foundations is governed by their installation. A proper choice

of installation procedure and equipment, good workmanship and tight control of all
installation work is essential to the construction of a good deep foundation. Consequently,
inspection is of utmost importance. Sentence 4.2.2.3.(l} and (2) of the NBC requires
that Inspection shall be carried out by the designer, or by another suitably qualified
person responsible to the designer to ensure that the sub-surface conditions are con-
sistent with the design and that construction is carried out in accordance with the
design and good engineering practice. Inspection shall be carried out, on a continuous
basis during the construction of all deep foundation units.

It is essential that inspection personnel be well experienced in this field, so as

to be able:

to recognize faulty construction procedures,

to properly interpret pile driving data, particularly when piles are driven to rock,

to properly evaluate actual soil conditions in bored piles.

7.5.2. DOCUMENTS

Good inspection begins prior to actual construction, with the examination of all
design documents. The following should be available to the inspector on the site:

Soil investigation report,

Drawings of the foundation,

Specification,

Contract,

Any other documents on special design features or assumptions.

On the drawings of the foundation, the exact location of each deep foundation unit
should be indicated, and each unit identified by a unique designation: pile number,
column number or structure designation followed by pile number. This designation should
be used for reference throughout the construction and inspection.

If any of the documents contain unclear or contradictory matter, this should be

reported by the inspector and clarified immediately.
 - 211 -

7.5.3. LOCATION AND ALIGNMENT

7.5.3.1. Location
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Exact location of each deep foundation unit should be staked in advance and
checked immediately prior to installation of each unit. After completion of the
installation the location of each unit should be checked against design location
and permissible deviation as indicated on the design documents.

As required in Sentence 4.2.7.5. of the NBC, permissible deviations from the

design location shall be determined by design analysis. For guidance, deviations
to the following maximum values are usually considered acceptable:

3 in. on units placed in groups of 4 units or more, arranged in more than 1 row.

1/20 of the diameter of the unit for single acting units or units arranged in
1 row.

Wrongly located units will result in:

modified load distributions on the different units in a group and a necessary

reduction of the allowable loads on each unit in the group.

modified stress distribution in the cross-section, of single acting units and

a necessary reduction of the structural capacity of the unit.
,,
As required in Sentence 4.2.7.6. of the NBC where a deep foundation unit is
wrongly located, the condition of the foundation shall be assessed by the person
responsible for design and the necessary changes made.

7.5.3.2. Alignment

During and after installation of any deep foundation unit, its alignment should
be checked against the design alignment and the permissible deviation as indicated
on the design documents.

(1) Driven piles

The alignment of driven piles should be checked at regular intervals

during driving. In general, this can be done only by checking the alignment
of the driving leads and of the visible portion of the pile by means of a
mason's level placed against the face of the pile and leads, or against the
vertical face of a template with appropriate shape for battered piles. Where
the pile is provided with a central hole, the alignment of the pile can be
checked at the end of driving. In this case the method used should be such
that the deformed shape of the pile may be measured. A typical example is
given by FELLENIUS (1972). Methods which only determine whether the upper part
of the pile is straight or not are of little value since they do not allow for
an analysis of the effect of bending on the structural capacity of the pile.

REFERENCE

FELLENIUS, B.R., 1972. Bending of piles determined by inclinometer measurements.

Can. Geotech. J., 9: 25-32.

(2) Cast-in-place piles

The alignment of cast-in-p1ace piles should be checked during the process

of boring or driving the casing and after completion of the excavation. Checking
the alignment during boring or driving can be done as discussed in 7.5.3.2.(1).
Checking the alignment after completion of the excavation should be made by a
method such that the exact shape of the excavation may be measured.

(3) Permissible deviations

As required in Sentence 4.2.7.5. of the NBC the permissible deviations

from design alignment of deep foundation units shall be determined by design
analysis.
 - 212 -

Current practice is to limit the total deviation from design alignment

to a certain percentage of the final length of the deep foundation unit: 2%
is a value in common use. However, such practice does not ensure proper
structural behaviour of the unit since it does not take into account the
length over which this deviation is distributed. It should be recognized:
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

that the total deviation from alignment of a deep foundation unit has
little influence on its geotechnical capacity ~nless it exceeds extreme
values such as 10% of the length of the unit.

that practically all piles, particularly when driven, are more or less out
of design alignment. A straight pile is a theoretical concept, seldom
achieved in practice.

that only the radius of curvature of a deep foundation unit is of importance

for its structural and geotechnical behaviour. The maximum allowable radius
of curvature should be determined by design whenever it is specified that
such radius be measured during inspection. A discussion of allowable bending
of piles is given by FELLENIUS (1972), (See 7.5.3.2.(1».

7.5.4. INSPECTION OF PILE DRIVING OPERATIONS

7.5.4.1. General

Item of importance in driving of different t.ypes of piles have been discussed

in 7.3. Qf this Chapter. The following check lists a~e given for guidance of
inspection personnel.

7.5.4.2. Driving Equipment

Items to be checked include the following:

(1) Type of hammer as specified

(2) For drop hammers:

weight of the hammer,

type of crane and trip mechanism,

drop height, and

sliding condition in the leads.

(3) For steam hammers:

type (single or double acting), make, serial number,

weight of the hammer and ram,

positions of the valves, trips, and resulting stroke,

steam pressure,

energy rating,

blows per minute, and

general condition of the hammer.

(4) For die£el hammers:

type, make, serial number,

weight of the hammer and ram,

 - 213 -

stroke,

energy rating, and

blows per minute.

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

(5) For driving cap:

weight of the cap,

dimensions as related to pile, hammer and lead dimensions,

type of capb1ock,

thickness of the capb1ock,

condition of the capb10ck (This should be checked regularly and burned,

crushed or broomed capb10cks should be replaced immediately),

type of cushions used,

thickness of cushion, and

condition of cushion (A new cushion should be used for each pile).

(6) Type and characteristics of other equipment such as drive heads, followers,
etc ..•

7.5.4.3. Piles

Items to be checked include the following:

(1) Type of pile is as specified

(2) For steel piles

that there is a mill certificate indicating that the product meets the
specifications (Each shipment),

that the condition of the piles is satisfactory, not damaged or bent,

that tip and head protections, if any, are as specified,

that proper handling and storing procedures are followed,

that the head of the pile is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, and

that splices conform to specifications.

(3) For precast concrete piles:

(a) At the plant;

that the geometry and other characteristics of the forms are as required,

that dimensions, form and quality of reinforcing, are as specified,

that proper curing conditions are provided,

that proper handling and storage procedures are followed,

that the quality of the concrete: mix, slump, strength, etc ... are
as required by eSA A23.1.

And for prestressed piles

that there is a certificate indicating that the prestressing cables

meet specifications, and
 - ~l4 -

that the prestressing procedure and forces used are as specified.

(b) On site;

that the age of delivered piles and corresponding strength of concrete

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

(based on test cylinders or Schmidt hammer tests), are as specified,

that the geometry of piles: heads perpendicular to longitudinal axis,

length, straightness, conform to specifications,

that proper handling and storage procedures are followed,

that the condition of the piles is satisfactory (not fissured, spalled,

etc •.• ), and

that joins, if any, conform to specifications.

(4) For timber piles:

that there is a certificate indicating the species and grade of timber,

that ther~ is a certificate on protective treatment, where specified,

the length and dimensions at tip, mid-height and head of pile,

that the piles are straight within the specified tolerances,

that proper handling and storage procedures are followed,

that points or boots, if any, conform to specifications and are properly

placed, and

that protective treatment is intact over the full surface of pile where
specified.

7.5.4.4. Driving Operations

Items to be checked or noted include:

general information: date; weather conditions; pile identification,

the exact location of the pile,

the stability and alignment of the driving rig and leads,

the number of blows,

deformations of the pile under blows at various depths,

the position and quality of splices,

the location, time, duration of any interruption in driving,

elastic deformations, permanent set and blows per inch for final blows,

the elevations of ground surface, pile tip and cut off,

any erratic or unusual pile behaviour with record of time and corresponding
tip elevation,

possible heave of adjacent piles, and

other pertinent information.

 - 215 -

7.5.5. INSPECTION OF COMPACTED CONCRETE PILES

7.5.5.1. General
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

The construction of compacted concrete piles requires the use of special

equipment and a particular technique. It should be undertaken only by contractors
well experienced in construction of this particular type of deep foundation.

7.5.5.2. Equipment

The equipment should be checked for conformity to the specifications or to

good practice. Of particular importance are:

the size and weight of the hammer,

the dimensions of the driving tube, and

the adequacy of the clamping equipment to hold the driving tube when
the base.

7.5.5.3. Installation

Items to be checked or noted include:

general information: date; weather conditions; pile identification; time

driving was started and completed, and time concreting was started and completed,

the location of the pile,

the alignment of the driving tube,

the resistance to driving of the tube: drop height; weight of the hammer;
number of b1ows/ft,

the elevation of the bottom of the driving tube before forming the base,

the concrete for the base: the mix used; strength determined from the compacted
samples,

the formation of the base: number of 5 cu ft buckets and number of blows per
bucket; hammer weight, drop height and resulting energy per blow; final volume
of the base and final driving energy for the last bucket against the specifi-
cations or good practice.

elevation of the bottom of the hammer when forming the base; (Minimum should
be 3 in. above the bottom of the driving tube.)

placement of reinforcing, if any,

seating into the base of the permanent liner, if any,

quality of concrete for the shaft: mix, slump, freshness, that there are test
cylinders of each day of pour, of each 40 cubic yards, and of any suspect batch,

the relative position of the bottom of the driving tube and top of the concrete
during compaction of the shaft,

the volume of the concrete in the compacted shaft compared to the length of the
shaft,

the cut-off elevation,

the elevation of the top of the liner, if any, immediately after installation,

the elevation of each liner after all adjacent units are driven (to check for
possible heave), and
 - 216 -

the backfilling of the annular space around the permanent liner.

7.5.6. INSPECTION OF BORED DEEP FOUNDATIONS

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

7.5.6.1. preliminary Information

In addition to the usual information on soil stratigraphy, type and strength,

information on the following should be available:

presence of water bearing strata of gravel, sand or silt; location and thickness
of such strata; piezometric levels in such strata,

piezometric level in the bedrock if the piles are founded in bedrock,

rate of flow from water bearing strata or bedrock into the borehole,

presence of large obstructions above the founding level,

presence of natural gas in the soil or bedrock, and

chemical analysis of the groundwater.

7.5.6.2. Excavation

Items to be checked or noted include:

general information: date, weather conditions, unit identification, time

excavation was started and completed,

location of the unit,

conformity of the excavation technique to the specifications or to good practice,

alignment and dimensions of the excavation at regular intervals,

adequacy of the technique and equipment used to penetrate water bearing strata,
if any,

adequacy of the technique and equipment used to penetrate large obstructions,

if any,

log of stratigraphy penetrated during excavation,

depth of the socket in sound rock, if any, (Elevation of the bottom,),

elevation and shape of the bell, if any,

quality of the founding stratum, (This should be done by visual inspection

whenever possible. For high capacity units, coring and in-situ testing of the
material to a depth of 1 to 2 diameters below the base of the unit is
recommended,),

cleanness of bottom and sides of the excavation and permanent liner, if any,

rate of seepage into the excavation,

quality of the bentonite slurry, if any, and

losses of bentonite slurry, if any, (Time, elevation and quantity.)

7.5.6.3. Concreting

After the excavation has been inspected and accepted, placing of reinforcing
and concrete may proceed. Items to be checked or noted include:
 - 217 -

general information: date, weather conditions, unit identification, time

concreting was started and completed,

quality of the concrete; mix; slump; freshness; that there are test cylinders
for each truck 10ad,for any suspect batch and at least three for each foundation
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

unit,

adequacy of the placing method, proper position of the pouring chute or tube,
(Whether or not the bottom of the tremie pipe was always kept below the surface
of concrete being placed,),

that reinforcing and position 01 the reinforcing cage conform to the drawings
and specifications,

that weight of the concrete is adequate to balance existing groundwater pressure,

quantity of concrete compared to the height of shaft,

concrete level in the casing during casing withdrawal,

vibration of the top 5 to 10 ft of concrete if the concrete has a slump less

than t" in.,

elevations of cutoffs and exact lengths of units,

spot checking of completed units by NX corebarre1, inspection of core and bore-

hole by methods such as borehole camera, caliper logging, ultrasonic logging,
if specified, and

correct location of the completed unit.

REFERENCES

CHELLIS, R.D., 1951. Pile foundations. McGraw Hill, New York.

WOODWARD, R.J., GARDNER, W.S. and GREER, D.M., 1972. Drilled pier foundations.
McGraw Hill, New York.

HUNT, H.W., 1974. Design and installation of pile foundations. Assoc. Pile Fitting
Corp., Clifton, N.J.

DAVISSON, M.T., 1972. Inspection of pile driving operations. Tech. Report M-22,
Cold Regions Res. Eng,g. Labs., Corps Engrs, US Dept. Army.

ACI Committee 336. 1972. Suggested design and construction procedures for pier
foundations. Am. Conc. Inst. J., August, 461-480.

ACI Committee 543. 1973. Recommendations for design, manufacture and installation
of concrete piles. Am. Conc. Inst. J., August 509-544.
 CHAPTER 8

COMMENTARIES

TAB LEO F CON TEN T S

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Page

8.1 THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 221

8.2 THE RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS 227

8.3 THE DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS ON SWELLING AND SHRINKING CLAYS 235

8.4 FROST ACTION AND FOUNDATIONS 265

8.5 THE USE OF PILE DRIVING FORMULAS 277

8.6 THE DESIGN OF PILES SUBJECTED TO HORIZONTAL LOADS 283

8.7 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS 291

8.8 THE PRESSUREMETER TEST 301

- 219 -
 COMMENTARY 8.1

THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

TAB LEO F CON TEN T S

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Page

HISTORY 223

PROCEDURE 223

COHESIONLESS SOILS
COHESIVE SOILS

FACTORS AFFECTING THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 224

CONCLUSIONS 225

REFERENCES

- 221 -
 COMMENTARY 8.1

THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

HISTORY

The Standard Penetration Test can be used for sampling most soils. Its main use, however,
is in evaluating the in situ engineering properties of fine grained granular soils. The intro-
duction in the United States in 1902 of driving a I-in. diam. open-end pipe into the soil during
the wash-boring process marked the beginning of dynamic sampling of soils. Between the late
1920's and early 1930's the test was standardized using a 2-in. O.D. split sampler spoon, driven
into the soil with a 140 lb weight having a free fall of 30 in. The blows required to drive the
split spoon sampler a distance of 12 in. is referred to as the N value or Penetration Index.
This procedure has been widely accepted internationally with only slight modifications.

PROCEDURE

Details of the split-barrel sampler and procedure for the Standard Penetration Test are
described in CSA Al19.l-l960.

The Standard Penetration Test is extremely useful in site exploration and foundation design.
SPT results in exploratory borings give a qualitative guide to the in situ engineering properties
and provide a sample of the soil for classification purposes. This information is helpful in
determining the extent and type of undisturbed samples that may be required.

COHESIONLESS SOILS

TERZAGHI and PECK (1948 and 1968) have suggested that the SPT index N can be related
to the relative density* of sands, as shown below. They emphasize that this relationship
should be used with caution and only with carefully controlled tests.

No of blows! N Density

0 4 Very loose
4 10 Loose
10 30 Medium
30 50 Dense
Over 50 Very dense

This is an empirical relationship. Since its introduction in 1948, it has been and is
being misused to establish data on granular soils far beyond the scope of its original intent.

The above relationships were developed for sand deposits above the water table. The
influence of submergence on SPT results has not been fully investigated. In some cases
submergence reduces the penetration resistance. Reduction of the N value for submerged
sands, as proposed by PECK, HANSON and THORNBURN (1953 and 1974) may not be warranted in
all cases.

COHESIVE SOILS

TERZAGHI & PECK (1948 and 1968) have also suggested the following crude relationship
between the penetration index N, consistency and unconfined compressive strength qu of clay
soils.

* For a discussion of relative density, see Commentary 8.2 of this Manual.

- 223 -
 - 224 -

Consistency qu ton/sq ft
No of blows. N

Below 2 Very soft Below 0.25

2 - 4 Soft 0.25 - 0.50
-
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

4 S Medium 0.50 - 1.00

S - 15 Stiff 1.00 - 2.00
15 - 30 Very stiff 2.00 - 4.00
Over 30 Hard Over 4.00

It is emphasized that the results obtained from this test be supported by compression
strength tests.

FACTORS AFFECTING THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

For all of its wide use and simple procedure, the results of the SPT are greatly affected
by the sampling and drilling operations. In addition, it is generally recognized that in
granular soils of the same density blow counts increase with increasing grain size.

Improper drilling and sampling procedures which can affect the N values are listed in
Table S.l-A.

TABLE S.l-A

Inadequate cleaning of the SPT is not or only partially made in

borehole original soil. Sludge may be trapped
in the sampler and compressed as the
sampler is driven, increasing the blow
count. (This may also prevent sample
recovery.)

Not seating the sampler spoon on Incorrect N values obtained

undisturbed material

Driving of the sampler spoon N values are increased in sands and

above the bottom of the casing reduced in cohesive soils

Failure to maintain sufficient The water table in the borehole must

hydrostatic head in boring be at least equal the piezometric
level in the sand, otherwise the sand
at the bottom of the borehole may be-
come quick and be transformed into a
loose state.

Not using the standard 30 in. Energy delivered per blow is not
hannner drop uniform. British industry has
developed an automatic trip hammer not
currently in use in North America.

Free fall of the drive weight is Using more than I! turns of rope
not attained. around the drum and/or using wire
cable will restrict the fall of
the drive weight.

Not using a 140 lb weight Driller frequently supplies drive

hammers with weights varying from the
standard by as much as 10 lb.

Weight does not strike the Impact energy is reduced increasing

drive cap concentrically N values
 - 225

Not using a guide rod Incorrect N values obtained.

Not using a good tip on the If the tip is damaged and reduces the
sampling spoon opening or increases the end area the
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

N value can be increased.

Use of drill rods heavier than With heavier rods more energy is
1 in. diam. extra heavy pipe or A rod absorbed by the rods causing an in-
crease in the blow count.

Extreme length of drill rods Experience indicates that at depths

over about 50 ft N values are too
high due to energy absorbed by the
drill rods

Not recording blow counts and Incorrect N values obtained.

penetration accurately

Incorrect drilling procedures The SPT was originally developed from

wash boring techniques. Drilling
procedures which seriously disturb
the soil will affect the N value, e.g.
drilling with cable tool equipment.

Using drill holes that are Holes greater than 4 in. in diam are not
too large recommended. Use of larger diameters
may result in decreases in the blow
count.

Inadequate supervision Frequently a sampler will be impeded

by gravel or cobbles causing a sudden
increase in blow count; this is not
recognized by an inexperienced
observer. (Accurate recording of drilling,
sampling and depth is always required.)

Improper logging of soils Not describing the sample correctly.

Using too large a pump Too high a pump capacity will loosen
the soil at the base of the hole
causing a decrease in blow count.

CONCLUSIONS

For the foregoing reasons, it is readily apparent that the accuracy of the Standard Pene-
tration Test is questionable. In addition, unique relationships developed for N value versus an
exact density (referred to as relative density) should be used with caution. It is, however, an
extremely useful and simple test. The extrapolation of SPT results beyond the original purpose
of providing a guide to the in situ density of soil, should be entrusted to experienced geo-
technical personnel.

REFERENCES

FLETCHER, G., 1965. The Standard Penetration Test: its uses and abuses. Am. Soc. Civil
Engrs., 91; SM4 and 92: SM1, SM2 and SM5.

IRELAND, H.O., MORETTO, O. and VARGAS, M., 1970. The dynamic penetration test: a standard
that is not standardized. Geotechnique 20: 185-192 and 452-456.

MOHR, H.A., 1943. Exploration of soil conditions and sampling operations. Soil Mechanics
Series NO 21. Grad. School Engg. Harvard U.

PECK, R.B., HANSON, W.E. and THORNBURN, T.H., 1953 and 1974. Foundation engineering.
J. Wiley & Sons.
 - 226 -

TERZAGHI, K. and PECK, R.B., 1948 and 1968. Soil mechanics in engineering practice.
J. Wiley & Sons.

Code for Split-barrel sampling of soils. Can. Stand. Assoc. Al19.1-1960.

Standard method for penetration test and split-barrel sampling of soils. Am. Soc. Test.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Mat1s., ASTM D 1586-67.

 COMMENTARY 8.2

THE RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

TAB LEO F CON TEN T S

PRESENT METHODS OF MEASUREMENT OF THE RELATIVE DENSITY 229

DEFINITION
MEASUREMENT
Direct Measurement
Indirect Measurement

ACCURACY OF RELATIVE DENSITY MEASUREMENTS 230

ERRORS ON THE MINIMUM DENSITY

ERRORS ON THE MAXIMUM DENSITY
ERRORS IN THE IN SITU DENSITY
RESULTING ERROR IN THE RELATIVE DENSITY

CONSEQUENCES OF THE USE OF THE RELATIVE DENSITY 232

CORRELATIONS OF S.P.T. WITH RELATIVE DENSITY

RELATIVE DENSITY AS A COMPACTION CRITERION
RELATIVE DENSITY AS A DESIGN CRITERION

CONCLUSIONS 233

REFERENCES

- 227 -
 COMMENTARY 8.2

THE RE LA T I V E DEN SIT Y 0 F C 0 H E S ION L E S S SOl L S

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

In the 1975 edition of the National Building Code of Canada, Section 4.2 Foundations and in
this Manual, reference to the term relative density of cohesionless soils has been avoided. This
has been done with full knowledge of the fact that the term relative density is of widespread use.
The present commentary explains briefly the reasons for such a departure from common practice.

PRESENT METHODS OF MEASUREMENT OF THE RELATIVE DENSITY

DEFINITION

The relative density of cohesionless soils is defined as:

- e
D
r - e
min

or

D x
r

The reference unit weights or void ratios corresponding to the loosest and the densest
state of the material under consideration are not defined in the strict sense of the word,
since they are essentially related to the method used for measuring them. Therefore, there
are as many minimum and maximum densities of a given cohesionless material, as there are
methods of producing and measuring these densities. A brief investigation of today's
practice shows that more than 100 methods are in use, including the ASTM D 2049 Standard
method.

MEASUREMENT

Different methods of measuring Dr are available.

Direct Measurement

By means of an appropriate sampling method an undisturbed sample of the cohesionless

material is retrieved. The in situ density can be measured directly. The sample is
then used to determine in the laboratory the minimum and maximum densities by means of
an appropriate testing method, preferably the ASTM D 2049 Standard. From these three
values, the relative density can be calculated.

The same methods apply to the measurement of Dr at shallow depth where the
in situ density can be measured directly by the sand-cone, rubber balloon or nuclear
method. To be of practical value in design the measurement of all three input
densities must be:

independent of the testing method

independent of the operator
of a suitable accuracy.

Recent investigations have shown that none of these conditions are fully satisfied.

- 229 -
 - 230 -

Indirect Measurement

It has been suggested by TERZAGHI and PECK (1948) that the Standard Penetration
Index N is related to the relative density of cohesionless soils, but the proposed
relationship was only qualitative in terms of relative density:
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Standard Penetration Index Relative Density

N (blows/ft)

o 4 very loose
4 10 loose
10 30 medium
30 50 dense
over 50 very dense

Subsequent investigators have proposed "more precise" correlations which supposedly

allow the value of Dr to be determined from the Standard Penetration Index. Three
sets of such correlations are now available: the most common was proposed by GIBBS and
HOLTZ (1957); it has been modified by SCHULTZE and MELZER (1965) and by BAZARAA (1967)
but these more recent correlations have not found as wide an acceptance as that proposed
by GIBBS and HOLTZ. To be of practical value this method of indirect measurement of D
must satisfy three conditions: r

The Standard Penetration Index N must be independent of the operator or

boring method.
The correlation of N versus Dr must be sufficiently accurate that the error
in Dr is within acceptable limits.
The correlation of N versus Dr must be the same for all laboratories or
engineers using it and for all soils.

Investigations have shown that none of these conditions are fully satisfied.

ACCURACY OF RELATIVE DENSITY MEASUREMENTS

Because of its formulation as the ratio of two small differences between large numbers, the
relative density is highly sensitive to the errors on each of the three input densities. However,
it was not until recent years that the problem of the testing accuracy of the minimum and the
maximum densities was considered.

Two investigations have recently been completed; both of which were organized in the form of
comparative test programs, where samples of reference materials were sent to different laboratories
for testing. The investigation by TIEDEMANN (1971) was limited to 15 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Laboratories; the more general investigation by TAVENAS ET AL (1973) involved 42 leading
laboratories in Canada and the United States.

The results of these investigations allow evaluation of the testing errors for the
following cases:

A) Variations between tests within a series performed by a given operator using a given method.
This represents the minimum error of Y min and Y max'
d d
B) Variations between tests performed at different laboratories, using a given method. This
represents the error involved when using the relative density in standard design methods or
when comparing relative densities as obtained by different laboratories.

~ ,

ERRORS ON THE MINIMUM DENSITY

The minimum density can be measured most accurately. The ASTM D 2049 Standard method
is well accepted and easy to use. Results shown here were obtained using this method, but
they are representative of results obtained using any method of measuring Yd min' The errors,
expressed in terms of the 95% intervals, i.e. ±2 standard deviations, are given in Table 8.2.1.
for two extreme materials and the two cases defined above. Errors applicable to other
materials should fall within the values given in Table 8.2.1. For the most common practical
case B the probable error on any measurement of Y min is about ±4 lb/cu ft.
d
 - 231 -

ERRORS ON THE MAXIMUM DENSITY

The maximum density is difficult to measure accurately. This difficulty applies as

much to the ASTM D 2049 standard method of vibratory compaction as to any other method of
dynamic compaction. The limiting errors for cases A and B are also given in Table 8.2.1.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

For the most common practical case B the probable error on any measurement of Yd max is
of the order of ± 7 lblcu ft.

ERRORS IN THE IN SITU DENSITY

Numerous investigations have shown that the error in any in situ density measurement
is of the order of ± 2 lblcu ft which is practically independent of the method of measure-
ment, i.e. sand cone, rubber balloon or nucLear method.

RESULTING ERROR IN THE RELATIVE DENSITY

Any value of relative density calculated from measured minimum, maximum and in situ
densities will be affected by the errors in the input parameters.

TABLE 8.2.1. ERRORS IN MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DENSITY MEASUREMENTS

DENSITY SOIL PROBABLE ERROR IN LB/cu FT

FOR CASE FOR CASE

A B

Uniform fine sand ±l ±3

Yd min
Sandy gravel ±2 ±5

Uniform fine sand ±1.5 ±5

Yd max
Sandy gravel ±3 ±9

NOTE 1 Case A - Variations within a test series

Case B - Variations between laboratories

NOTE 2 Errors given in the Table are equal to ±2 standard

deviations. This interval normally includes 95% of all
test results for a given test series.

Table 8.2.2. summarizes the errors on any relative density determination. The main
conclusions are as follows:

In no case will the error on a measured value of D be less than ± 15%.

r

In all practical cases, where Dr is used in conjunction with standard design

methods or with empirical correlations to other soil properties the error in Dr
will be in excess of ± 30%.

Dr values obtained using different testing methods cannot be compared.

 - 232 -

CONSEQUENCES OF THE USE OF THE RELATIVE DENSITY

The consequences of the demonstrated inaccuracy of relative density measurement on the use
of this soil parameter have been investigated in detail by TAVENAS (1973). They may be summarized
as follows:
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

CORRELATIONS OF S .P.T. WITH RELATIVE DENSITY

The numerical correlations between N and Dr as proposed by GIBBS and HOLTZ (1957)
cannot be used directly since:

the published correlation is affected by an error equivalent to case A.

the user will automatically introduce an error equivalent to case B when he uses the
value Dr to reproduce samples in his own laboratory.

The qualitative relationship proposed by TERZAGHI and PECK (1948) is therefore the
ultimate refinement that can be accepted.

TABLE 8.2.2. ERRORS IN RELATIVE DENS ITY MEASUREMENTS

SOIL PROBABLE ERROR L\D %

r

FOR CASE FOR CASE

A B

Uniform fine sand ±16% ±30%

Sandy gravel ±23% ±45%

NOTE 1 Case A Variations within a test series

Case B - Variations between laboratories

NOTE 2 Errors given in the Table are in percent

relative density. They are equal to ±2
standard deviations.

RELATIVE DENSITY AS A COMPACTION CRITERION

A relative density of 85% is a well accepted compaction criterion. Considering the

errors on D it is obvious that:
r
the quality of different fills, supposedly compacted to 85% relative density under
the control of different laboratories, will vary widely.
it is impossible to demonstrate beyond any doubt that a fill is or is not well-
compacted.
therefore, the relative density cannot be accepted as a reliable compaction criterion.

RELATIVE DENSITY AS A DESIGN CRITERION

The relative density is an accepted design criterion for foundations on soils sensitive
to liquefaction during earthquakes. Present design methods such as those developed by SEED
 - 233 -

and IDRISS (1971) necessitate a very accurate evaluation of the relative density of the
foundation soil. This has been demonstrated impossible with the present testing techniques,
so that the application of such design methods will have only very limited reliability.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

CONCLUSIONS

Because of its formulation and unavoidable testing errors in the three parameters which
serve as a basis for the determination of relative density of cohesionless soils, the error in
any measured value of Dr will be at least in excess of ± 15% and most probably in excess of ± 30%.
With such a degree of inaccuracy the relative density cannot be used as a quantitative soil
parameter in the evaluation of the properties of a natural deposit, as a compaction criterion
and even less as a design criterion.

For these reasons, any reference to Dr has been deleted from the 1975 National Building
Code of Canada and from the present Canadian Manual on Foundation Engineering.

REFERENCES

BAZARAA, A., 1967. Use of the Standard Penetration Test for estimating settlements of
shallow foundations on sand. Ph.D. Thesis,u. Ill.

GIBBS, H.J. and HOLTZ, W.G., 1957. Research on determining the density of sands by spoon
penetration testing. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, London, I: 35-39.

SCHULTZE, E. and MELZER, K.J., 1965. The determination of the density and the modulus of
compressibility of non-cohesive soils by soundings. proceedings of the 6th Interna-
tional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Montreal, 1:
354-358.

SEED, H.B. and IDRISS, I.M., 1971. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction
potential. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., 97: SM9.

TAVENAS, F.A., 1973. Difficulties in the use of relative density as a soil parameter.
Am. Soc. Test. Matls., STP 523.

TAVENAS, F.A., LADD, R.S. and La ROCHELLE, P., 1973. The accuracy of relative density
measurements: Results of a comparative test program. Am. Soc. Test. Matls., STP 523.

TERZAGHI, K. and PECK, R.B., 1948. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. J. Wiley and
Sons.

TIEDEMANN, D.A., 1973. Variability of laboratory relative density tests. Am. Soc. Test.
Matls., STP 523.

ASTM D 2049. Standard Method of Test for Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils.
 COMMENTARY 8.3

THE DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS ON SWELLING AND

SH RINK IN G C LA Y S

TAB LEO F CON TEN T S

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

GENERAL 237

FOUNDATIONS ON ACTIVE SUBSOILS 237

THE ACTIVE ZONE CONCEPT

TWO FOUNDATION DESIGN APPROACHES

ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF SWELLING AND SHRINKING CLAYS 238

EXPANDING AND NON-EXPANDING CLAY MINERALS IN CANADA

VOLUME AND DIMENSION CHANGES
SWELLING PRESSURES
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
ASSESSMENTS AND PREDICTIONS OF SWELLING AND SHRINKING POTENTIALS
BEARING CAPACITY AND COMPRESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS

GROUND AND STRUCTURE MOVEMENTS 252

OPEN-FIELD GROUND MOVEMENTS

THE EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND LANDSCAPING ACTIVITIES
TOTAL AND DIFFERENTIAL MOVEMENTS OF FOUNDATIONS

KEYS TO GOOD DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND PERFORMANCE 257

FOUNDATIONS DESIGNED BY GEOTECHNICAL EXPERTS

NON-ENGINEERED FOUNDATIONS
Shallow Spread Footings, Piers, and Flexible Slabs on or Near
Grade for Heated Buildings
Crawl Spaces Near or Slightly Below Grade on Shallow Foundations
Deep Basements or Crawl Spaces on Shallow Foundations
Deep Foundations in Swelling and Shrinking Soils

GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION PLANNING AND APPROVALS 260

REFERENCES

- 235 -
 COMMENTARY 8.3

THE DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS ON SWELLING

AND SHRINKING CLAYS
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

GENERAL
Many natural and man-made deposits of soils which contain substantial proportions of clay
mineral particles have potentials for swelling or shrinking with change in water content. The
degree to which these potentials are developed and the rate with which volume changes take place
are governed by the environmental changes to which these soils are subjected. The magnitude and
direction of volume change will depend on many factors, including the mineralogy of the clay
minerals present, the relative proportion of active clay-size particles to non-clay particles,
the initial moisture and stress conditions of the soil, the new environmental conditions imposed
on the soil, and the time available for response by the clay.

Traditional foundations for light structures on these clays usually have very large safety
factors with respect to bearing capacity or settlement but often give poor service because they
transmit large distortions to the superstructure. These distortions arise from sizeable volume
changes in soils below or around the structure caused by external forces of climate and vegetation
or reactions by the soils to changed effective stresses and temperatures due to the influence of
the structure. In soils of medium to high potential volume change, the foundation design will
likely be governed by the need to limit distortions caused by these types of reactions rather than
by classical shearing strength-bearing capacity or consolidation-settlement limitations.

FOUNDATIONS ON ACTIVE SUBSOILS

THE ACTIVE ZONE CONCEPT

The active layer is a useful term in permafrost studies to denote the maximum depth of
subsurface material which freezes and thaws annually. In the definition of this term it is
further recognized that the depth of the active layer is not a fixed dimension at any
location but can vary yearly or after any disturbance of the area reBulting from development
or occupancy.

The term active zone is proposed as the key term in a new concept to describe the dynamic
environment around structures on or in potentially active subsoils. The active zone is
considered to encompass all of the subsoil mass around and below a structure which is or will
be appreciably affected by the presence of the structure. Included in these effects are
cyclic or long term changes in soil moisture contents, soil volume changes, ground water
levels, effective stresses, shear strength, soil temperatures, soil chemistry and frost action.

Although the concept of considering shallow foundations with respect to the properties
and extent of a potentially active zone is similar for subsoils susceptible to these other
effects, this commentary will be confined to the subject of swelling and shrinking subsoils
within the active zone near shallow foundations.

TWO FOUNDATION DESIGN APPROACHES

There are basically two approaches to providing foundations for swelling and shrinking
subsoil conditions. For the majority of small buildings, it has been traditional practice
to found these on relatively shallow spread footings. Through evolutionary development, in
areas of active subsoils, combinations of structural strength in the foundation, adjustable
columns and maximum flexibility in the frame, partitions and cladding of superstructures have
somewhat improved the performance of light structures. These measures to resist and accommodate
vertical deformations usually include reinforcement of perimeter walls to form deep beams, the
provision of adjustable length interior columns carrying the main beams and partitions, and the
widespread adoption of wood frame construction with careful attention to fastening of plaster
board interiors.

This first approach has been reasonably successful over short periods of service in
reducing damage to small buildings on subsoils of from low to moderate swelling or shrinking

- 237 -
 - 238 -

potential (Fig 8.3.1.). Over longer service periods it has not successfully coped with
basement floor heaving, differential movement or general tilt of perimeter footings, nor
has it provided satisfactory long-term performance of buildings on subsoils of high to very
high volume change potentials (Fig 8.3.2.).
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

A rational engineering design approach is now fairly commonly taken for foundations
of somewhat larger commercial, institutional and residential buildings. In these it is
common practice to utilize deeper foundation units which induce little or no differential
movements in the superstructure. Usually these foundations are designed to develop their
bearing capacity in stable ground conditions below the active zone (Fig 8.3.3.). Trouble-
free performance from these foundations still requires strict attention to many design and
construction details including: sufficient tensile strength in bearing walls and piles to
resist uplift forces and in foundation beams and walls to resist horizontal and vertical
forces; void spaces maintained between the soil and all grade beams, pile caps, footings
and structural floor systems; and, special attention to connections and transitions between
the main structure and all ground supported appurtenances, such as door steps, sidewalks,
driveways, tunnels, planters, water, sewer, gas, power and communication conduits. The
large differential movements of the latter are usually sharply contrasted against the
stationary structure unless adequate transitions or flexible junctions are provided.

ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF SWELLING AND SHRINKING CLAYS

EXPANDING AND NON-EXPANDING CLAY MINERALS IN CANADA

The nature, origin, occurence and properties of clay minerals in natural soils is a
very complex subject but, fortunately, the immense glacial processes which have reshaped
most of Canada's surface have somewhat simplified the problem of classification of "problem"
soil deposits because of their relative uniformity and massive proportions. Most of the
clay rich deposits of concern in the construction and performance of structures are of
relatively recent origin in geologic terms having been laid down by glacial and post-glacial
processes in the last few thousand years. Most of the inland, clay-rich soils are found
either in lacustrine lakes or in glacial drift and their chemistry has been altered little
from that of the preglacial sources from which they were derived. Low natural temperatures
and little or no leaching have left unaltered most of the subsoil mineralogy.

Illite and chloritic mica are reported as the predominant minerals found in many
lacustrine and glacial drift deposits derived from older sediments of marine origin. Soils
consisting of these and other non-clay particles are generally considered to be non-swelling
but may be subject to large shrinkage upon drying or spectacular reduction in shearing
strength if their high void ratios and flocculated microstructures are changed by drying
or remolding. The infamous Leda clay of the Ottawa Valley and St. Lawrence lowlands is one
of a number of such clays which were laid down in marine or brackish waters.

Bentonite and the montmorillonitic shales of the Cretaceous formations of the interior
great plains of North America have provided the very active clay minerals which give rise to
large, reversible swelling and shrinking properties of the lacustrine clays found in what
were once some of the worlds largest glacial lakes, including Agassiz, Regina and Edmonton,
and many others throughout the western prairies.

Unfortunately, the natural and man-made climatic and vegetative conditions of the
regions in which these deposits are found tend to accentuate their potentials for adverse
reactions. In the more humid areas, the clays sensitive to shrinkage have not previously
been subjected to drying to the extent now occurring due to construction and the introduction
of new vegetation. In the more arid regions, the expansive clay types are now often subjected
to new wetting conditions which have not been equalled or exceeded since their emergence as
land from lake bottom.

The potential volume change of clay-rich soils can be satisfactorily classified from
results of Atterberg limits and grain-size tests (Fig 8.3.4.).

VOLUME ANn nIMENSION CHANGES

Clay-rich soils undergo first episode shrinkage which is directly proportional to

reduction in moisture content from the depositional moisture content to almost the
shrinkage limit. The resulting volume change can be in excess of 50% in soils
 - 239 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

1 FLAT IF TELEPOST
ADJUSTED CORRECTLY
HEAVED LAWN

FIGURE 8 .3 .1
TYPICAL SHORT TERM SHALLOW FOUNDATION PERFORMANCE ON
DEEP DEPOSIT OF ACTIVE CLAY SUBSOILS
 - 240 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

,," .... ,
I "

/' '\
/ '\
"
I

.
,

.,,
I ,
I :

1 I
I
I
,,
,, ..,
,
I
\ I

FIGURE 8 .3 .2
TYPICAL LONG TERM SHALLOW FOUNDATION PERFORMANCE INCLUDING
INFLUENCE OF A DEEP ROOTED TREE
 - 241 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

;
;
;
I

,,
f

··
I
HEAVED MAIN FLOOR I
I

PAVEMENT ,,/
.....,.----------r-T"'""----++------,r-4;--- -..

STRUCTURAL
BASEMENT FLOOR

" HEAVE
" .' 0 , ,
.GROUND SURFACE
". """. "",,, ",
." , .' , ,
" ACTIVE ZONE '
,, ,,'
, . ,'" ,',''
, ,"","" ", ", "
, ,, ,,",,',
','
, ,,
, ,, ," "

FIGURE 8.3.3
TYPICAL LONG TERM DEEP FOUNDATION PERFORMANCE
 - 242 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

IOO~--~~~~----~~--------------~

W
..J
Q.
~
<[
en
VERY HIGH
w
c5 50
:I:
3:

o 50 100
CLAY FRACTION OF WHOLE SAMPLE

FIG 8.3.4 (After Williams)

VOLUME CHANGE POTENTIAL CLASSIFICATION FOR CLAY SOILS
 - 243 -

of high initial void ratio. Large permanent horizontal and vertical dimension
changes take place during the initial shrinkage of flocculated clays. During
rewetting of non-expansive type clays, the rebound expansion is very much less than the
original shrinkage (Fig 8.3.5.). The permanent set has been attributed to re-orientation
of particles. Reversible shrinking and swelling behavior occurs only after severe drying
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

and large reduction from original volume.

The volume-moisture content relationship for expansive clay soils is reversible over
a wide range of moisture content or stress changes (Figs 8.3.6. and 8.3.7.). For laminated
or varved clays, the vertical dimension changes may exceed those in the horizontal direction
by a factor of three, or more. The moisture content-volume and stress-volume relationships
are hysteritic and, hence, it is found, for example, that confining pressure is quite
effective in reducing swelling (See Fig 8.3.8. for test results on Regina clay soils).
Combined field and laboratory experience with specific natural clay soils provides the best
estimates of end-point equilibrium moisture contents, volumes and pressures for reswelling
against various overburden pressures. This experience can be expressed in depth-reduction
factors for unit heaving, as shown in Fig 8.3.9., and equilibrium moisture content-depth
plots for various surface exposure conditions, as shown in Fig 8.3.10. These then form the
bases for reasonably accurate predictions of maximum vertical heaving with depth for specific
soil deposits.

The horizontal component of shrinkage is manifested in fissures and cracks of great

diversity in spacing and dimensions. The variability in shrinkage cracking seems to be
related to previous shrinkage patterns, the rate and nature of the drying forces, and great
complexities introduced by seasonal frost action. In-filling of cracks with debris from
above or evaporites from within introduces further complications which cannot be discussed
in this short overview of the subject.

In addition to normal thermal volume changes, freezing and thawing of clay-rich soils
can cause large volume and dimension changes. Freezing shrinkage has been found to be of
significant magnitude in both natural and compacted unsaturated clay soils.

SWELLING PRESSURES

The swelling pressures which can be generated in the vertical direction due to rewetting
are usually equal or greater than those generated in the horizontal direction in intact
natural soils. Exceptions to this include very heavily over-consolidated deposits in which
horizontal strain relief has not been possible and in fissured soils where crack filling has
been extensive. For the more usual cases of nearly normally consolidated clays, the vertical
swelling pressure is of the same order of magnitude as the matrix suction before wetting.
For instance, clay soils dried by plant roots stressed to the wilting point, or by air drying,
would be expected to exhibit a swelling pressure of several tons per square foot. The
effective stress concept provides a basis for understanding the nature of the problem but,
unfortunately, laboratory methods of measuring swelling pressures and/or strains are usually
considered to be too complex and costly for most small foundation designs. In many sub-humid
and arid regions, the potential vertical swelling pressure is often one order of magnitude
larger than the net bearing pressures of small to intermediate sized buildings.

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

As discussed briefly above, lateral earth pressures in natural field conditions can vary
from zero to greater than the overburden pressure with cyclic or long term changes in soil
moisture. When a structure is placed in direct vertical contact with undisturbed soil, it may
or may not experience large lateral forces depending on the conditions preceding and at the
time of construction. On rare occasions, normally adequate basement walls have been jacked-in
several inches and severely cracked over a few seasons by progressive infilling of shrinkage
cracks during dry periods followed by expansion during wetter periods.

At the present time there is insufficient field data but adequate theoretical basis for
predicting design lateral earth pressures against non-yielding earth retaining structures,
such as basement walls. As discussed in 5.4.1.4., equivalent fluid pressures ranging from
30 to more than 120 lb/cu ft are appropriate for backfill soils ranging from freely drained
coarse grained soils to medium or stiff clay deposited in chunks.
 - 244 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

80 __~------__----~-----r-----'
INITIAL
1-
..J 1\'
(5 70 1\ '
(I) 1\ \
"'- 1\ \
o 1\
t-
:J:
C)
60 \\\
LLI
~
1\
1\ " ,\~,

\ /\~
>-
~
"'-
o
50 1\
\I \
I \
\ \
\
\\
\
\
'\
/
40 1
(I) ,~, A
LLI I • ___ •
C)
Z
« I ---
\&J , \
5 30 >I \
t- ~
u
\ \\
Z
LLI (.!) I \
t-
Z ~l \
o 20 ~1 f- \
o
0\ t; \
LLJ
0:::
:::l
t-
,
, :t:

I
\
\
\
~ 10
I \
o
~ I
,, \
\
oL-~ __ ~ __L--&__ ~~L-~----~

o I 234
NO. OF DRYING AND REWETTING CYCLES

FIG 8 .3 .5 (After Warkentin and Bozozuk)

EFFECT OF DRYING AND REWETTING ON ULTIMATE MOISTURE
CONTENT OF OTTAWA CLAY
 - 245 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

C/)
z
o
iii
z 32~----~----~----~----~----~------r-----'
LaJ
:i
o •
~ 28
o UNDISTURBED SAMPLE.
z
• VERTICAL DIRECTION --~
w
~ 24
z
c(
J:
I-
20
a::
w
~
w
a:: 16
<.!)

I-
Z
w
o 12
a:: x
w
Q.
REMOULDED ~
8 SAMPLE X
C/)
z (VERTICAL a x/
o HORIZONTAL! ~/
iii
z
w
::e
4
/~/X UNDISTURBED SAMPLE.
o / ..../ / " " - - - - HORIZONTAL DIRECTION
.............. x
$ 0 a..=::;;;;_~::::L:~X..L.... _ _-'-___--'-___---'-___.......___---..
W 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
~
...J WATER CONTENT I PER CENT DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL

FIG 8.3.6 (After Warkentin and Bozozuk)

DIMENSIONAL SHRINKAGE CURVES FOR SEVEN SISTERS CLAY
Ii
- 246 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

-1
<t
Z
~ 110r-----r-----~----r_----r_----r_--~._--_,
ii
o
u..
o 108
~
VERTICAL DIMENSION,
z UNDISTURBED SAMPLE - - -,
IJJ
o
a: 106
IJJ
0..
(/)
ex 104
a CEMENTING
l.aJ
(/)
(/)

a: 102
l.aJ
0..
x
l.aJ

(,!)
~
l-
I-

~ UNDISTURBED SAMPLE
a:
l.aJ
~
u.. SAMPLE
ex
(/)
z
o
Ci)
z 94
IJJ
:IE
o
a:: 92~0----~10~--~20-----3~0-----4~0----------~----~70
ex
l.aJ
z
:::i WATER CONTENT TO WHICH SAMPLES WERE DRIED,
PER CENT OF DRY WE~HT OF SOL

FIG 8 .3 .7 (After Warkentin and Bozozuk)

DIMENSIONAL REGAIN OF SEVEN SISTERS CLAY SAMPLES ON
WETTING AFTER DRYING
 - 247 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

24

22 zw o REMOULDED SPECIMENS
U
• UNDISTURBED SPECIMENS
20 0::::
W
0...
NUMBERS = INITIAL WATER
18 CONTENT
I-
Z o
w 16 Z 2
u <i
~ 14 033.0 0 22 . 5 :c
u
; 12 O~7.0~ w
o
Z 0 27 . 2 0 23 . 2
<i 10 \ o -1
>
u:c 34.7. •22.50 27 . 1
8 0_ 38.1 " 0 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8
i 34.0~24.7 " SU RC HA RG E LOA D, TO N/SQ FT
::) 6 00 \ 32.7 0,,--- 0
~> 4
~0\32'9
_\ \.
22.0
123.7 0 26 .8
22.5
~ 032.6 .25.1 ________
2 ~o~.~~253~'7 ________ 027'3
o • 0~·2~0~9 -----------.J
o 0..... 0_
0, 0 36.1 -036.4 031.8
o\
-2
o 1 .0 2.0 3.0 4.0
SURCHARGE LOAD, TON/SO FT

FIGURE 8.3.8 (After Noble)

EFFECTS OF SURCHARGE LOAD ON VOLUME CHANGE
OF REGINA CLAY
 - 248 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

- 2

- 4

- 6

- 8

-10
z

I-
- 12
LL

.. -14 0.335 AT z -91

N
FOR ZONE 9 TO 10FT
.I -16
I-
a...
u.J
0 -18 z = 20 LOG F
z

-20

-22

-24

-26

-28

-30
o.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9

DEPTH-REDUCTION FACTOR, Fz

(After Van der Merwe)

FIG 8 .3 .9
CURVE SHOWING RELATIVE CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HEAVE

WITH DEPTH
 - 249 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

MOISTURE CONTENT, % (DRY WEIGHT BASIS)

o 20 40 60 80
o --~--------------~----~
o

2 0 ~

0
..... 0
0
~4 oc
LL 0

:::r: A
.....
fu6
Cl

10

12 1..-_-""'--''''''-......- ' - - - - - - - - -....

NOTE:

A EXTREMElY DRY CONDITIONS (HYPOTHETICAL;

B EXTREMElY MOIST CONDITIONS (HYPOTHETICAl)
C SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS AFTER 10 YEARS OF DRYING
IN AN UNCOVERED CRAWL SPACE (ACTUAL)
D SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS AFTER 5 YEARS OF HEAVY
LAWN WATERING (ACTUAL)

FIG 8.3.10 (After Hamilton 1969)

PROBABLE EXTREME RANGES OF WATER CONTENT FOR REGINA
CLAY
 - 250 -

Soils containing substantial proportions of swelling clays should not be placed as

compacted backfill against light retaining walls. Unfortunately, the practice of placing
clay soils in large chunks and in an uncompacted state against house basements and other
shallow retaining walls is widespread because of a lack of more desirable backfill soils
in many glacial lake areas. When placed in this manner, the total forces against the
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

backfill soils often exceed the structural strength of lightly reinforced and immature
concrete basement walls. In addition, the probability is great of blocked or overcharged
drainage systems around these walls and, more for this reason than from a knowledge of
actual lateral earth pressures exerted, it is common practice to design for equivalent
fluid pressures of from 60 to 65 Ib/cu ft. The breakdown and settlement of this chunky
backfill is a cause of maintenance problems for many years after construction. The
consolidation and later swelling due to moisture change with time of this material, and
the addition of fill to restore original grade, can ultimately increase pressures against
these walls beyond the 120 lb/cu ft equivalent fluid pressure shown in Figs 5.21 and 5.22.

ASSESSMENTS AND PREDICTIONS OF SWELLING AND SHRINKING POTENTIALS

As a first step, it is useful to the potential volume change of clay and silty
clay deposits through the use of a chart on clay-size and plasticity index (Fig 8.3.4.).
This separates soils into low, medium, high and very high categories of potential expansive-
ness. This classification based on simple well established soil mechanics laboratory tests
is adequate for preliminary assessments of clayey subsoil conditions. It must be recognized
that this classification does not take into account either the conditions of stress or
moisture content of the soil at the time of sampling, nor does it indicate changes which may
take place in engineering properties of these soils in the new environment around a proposed
structure. In some localities, where considerable experience and judgement have resulted in
good long-term performance for certain foundation designs, this simple classification of the
subsoils may be all that is necessary to organize experience and to call up satisfactory
foundations for many small buildings.

Where more refined assessments and predictions are warranted, more detailed geotechnical
investiga:ions are appropriate. Literature on the properties of expansive soils
is extensive and many testing and analytical procedures are available for various soil and
design conditions. Usually the success of these methods is limited more because of incomplete
appreciation of, or ability to predict, the changes in environmental conditions than by any
lack in laboratory methods to model specific conditions.

Although the present state-of-the-art in predicting maximum probable heave or settlement

is satisfactory for most engineering purposes, methods of predicting the rates at which these
volume changes may take place are at a relatively less advanced stage. Laboratory tests can
produce heaving rates which are well related to the permeability of intact soils. Field
heaving rates are greatly affected by macrostructure of the soil which is difficult, if not
impossible, to model in the laboratory, and by the often unpredictable availability of water
from surface and subsurface sources.

Field shrinkage rates are affected by the efficiency with which moisture can be removed
from subsoils. Evapotranspiration proceeds in a predictable manner when soil moisture
contents are very high, (Fig 8.3.11.), but in a much less predictable manner at lower moisture
contents because of plant root extensions, plant wilting, soil cracking, etc. First drying
or wetting episodes for a soil are much more predictable as to rate and magnitude of volume
change than are later cycles because of large hysteresis effects in the volume-moisture
content relationships.

BEARING CAPACITY AND COMPRESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS

If any generalizations are valid on these properties of the expansive clay soils of the
great plains regions, as contrasted with the shrinkable marine clays of coastal lowlands, they
might be stated as follows. Except in ground water discharge areas, most of the expansive
clays have been subjected to overconsolidation by soil moisture suction and depletion to
varying degrees ranging from slight drying to severe desiccation. Preconsolidation pressures
range from one half ton to many tons per square foot, and the net loading effects of small to
intermediate sized structures seldom, if ever, cause significant consolidation settlements
unless serious wetting and softening of the subsoil has taken place during the construction
operation. At their normal moisture contents, these clays are stiff to hard, and their shear
strengths are usually much above the level of concern for bearing capacity, except in extremely
heavily loaded structures. Many of the sensitive marine clays exhibit a drying crust or
 - 251 -

0
Z
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

0
-0.::
I-w 4
~I-
Q..«
w3:
0 8
LI..

~O
::>
I-Z 12
I./')
_

-
0
~
16
0
Z

1./')'

I-
Z
LU

~
LU 2 DEPTH
> 1 FT.
0
~ 4 FT.
3
0
12~ FT.---
Z
::>
0 4
0.::
l? 0
.....I
«
-
I-
Z 1
w
0.::
LU
U.
LI.. 2
-0 1954 1955 1956 1957

(0) SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS COMPUTED FROM WEATHER RECORDS

(b) GROUND MOVEMENTS (5 FT FROM 55 FT HIGH ELM TREES)
(c) GROUND MOVEMENTS (40 FT FROM 55 FT HIGH ELM TREES)

FIG 8.3.11 (After Bozozuk and Burn)

SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN MOISTURE CONDITIONS AND VERTICAL
GROUND MOVEMENTS IN LEDA CLAY
 - 252 -

pseudo-preconsolidation, sometimes attributed to chemical bonding which gives rise to pre-

consolidation pressures and undisturbed shearing strengths above the normal ranges of
concern for classical bearing capacity and consolidation settlement considerations for most
small to intermediate sized structures. Some of these clay deposits are found in normally
consolidated and weak condition for which their bearing capacity and compressibility must
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

be carefully considered as outlined in Chapter 6.

GROUND AND STRUCTURE MOVEMENTS

OPEN FIELD GROUND MOVEMENTS

Deep deposits of expansive clay soils usually undergo sizeable cyclic ground movements
which are often undetected before construction and misinterpreted unless referenced to
reliable deep bench marks. The amplitude and periodicity of these movements of the surface
and at various depths in the subsoils are manifestations of the net effects of vegetation
and climate on subsoil moisture and temperature conditions. In sub-humid to semi-arid
regions of western Canada, the annual amplitude of these movements is typically of the
order of two to three inches for grass covered, undisturbed profiles (Fig 8.3.11.).

THE EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND LANDSCAPING ACTIVITIES

Construction and landscaping activities can have very great impact on the magnitude and
depth of influence of ground movements. The introduction of deep rooted vegetation in areas
where it has not grown previously, or the removal of mature vegetation which has depleted
subsoil moisture, has resulted in surface settlement or heaving of the order of one foot in
magnitude and extending for great depths and horizontal distances (Fig 8.3.12). Heavy
irrigation or changed ground surface covers have had similarly great impact in more arid
areas (Fig 8.3.13). Relatively small reductions in total stresses due to lowered grades
or excavation have also induced large rebound swelling. Rapid heat flow to or from un-
insulated structures has also caused spectacular changes in soil moisture and volume.

TOTAL AND DIFFERENTIAL MOVEMENTS OF FOUNDATIONS

The total movement of a structure is directly related to the effective stress changes
in the bearing substrata which occurs during or after its construction, and to the properties
of the subsoils within the zone of influence activated by the structure (Fig 8.3.14). This
zone of influence will be at least twice as deep as the width of the structure (Chapter 6).
If very active soil types are found throughout this depth, then very large total movements
can be predicted provided the presence of the structure greatly changes the preceding
environmental conditions. For example, if a deep excavation is required for a basement and
the weight and flexibility of the structure are such that there is a significant stress
reduction (unloading) over the whole area, then the predicted ultimate heaving should be
calculated by integrating the heaving for all strata within the zone of influence. In such
Situations, where all foundation units are placed at the same elevation, it is common for
central footings to heave approximately twice as much as perimeter footings because of the
unload influence.

Spread footings immediately below deep basements on very active subsoils are usually
subject to large total, differential and tilt movements. Slab-on-grade constructions also
undergo serious differential movements, often of contrasting appearance to basement move-
ments, with the edges moving more than central areas (Fig 8.3.lS).

Deep foundations may reduce or completely eliminate total, differential and tilt move-
ments within structures, but large differential movements of appendages to the building,
such as door steps, sidewalks, driveways, fences and service pipes, relative to the main
structure should be expected. These may be as large as the predicted heave for the ground
surface, and are usually sharply contrasted against the stationary structure. Both shallow
and deep foundations on highly reactive subsoils may experience severe differential movements
of adjoining constructions. Considerable thought must be given to the difficult problems of
transition or increased flexibility at junctions between structures founded at different
depths or subject to significantly different environmental conditions.
 - 253 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

DISTANCE FROM TREES) FEET

20 30 40

14

FIG 8.3.12 (After Bozozuk)

VARIATION IN MAXIMUM VERTICAL GROUND MOVEMENTS IN
LEDA CLAY NEAR ELM TREES IN 1955
 ----~---------

- 254 -

1962 1963 1964 1965 1966

-IOPTT"flr""T""fLrT'"f'~Tn£T-r~-m-!!!n-Pr-rTt-r-ri4,.-IXr-r-rIr-rT~II4-T-II'n--A-T-T4-,~rI

i-s
~ 0r---+~~--4r-~----+-----~----~

I +~
\
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

~ +10
I-
IIJ
~ +I~
~

I:
OPEN FIELD - GRASS COVER
I
1.0r------.-------r----,--------r-------,

• SURFACE
-1.0 0 4' DEPTH

.8' DEPTH

TREE AND GRASS COVER

4.0
rF j
r
• SURFACE
o 5' DEPTH
3.0 I
• 10' DEPTH
I : 0
2.0
I
I
1"\,000_•.........l' / <f0

1.0

_" .• 'R'!, A
.....
J~.\
I
• ;.,e ••, j, OeP0 (I)
000
0
0'#

T"'j.
'
.....
•&_\,00"""
,
1/ Q &:

,,-/ I
XX. ..., . ~6 _66.6 6 6 66 66

TREE AND FALLOW

O r - . SURFACE
~ 40r- 0 5' DEPTH
~ . '- • 10' DEPTH
...J 3.0 -
«
u -
~ 2.0 -
~ -
1.0 -

0
. o \ ~.5 /0 ""'\ • "1'·" .~66... ..... ...... . .66
r
1.0 r- ./ 1'.,... L F

TREE AND CONCRETE PAVEMENT

2.0
• PAVEMENT SURFACE
o
~o
._
r---;;-.
1.0 o 5' BELOW PAVEMENT
.-:'.;;;-f--;;-"t'"
-~cPoo
o~oooo
o- ,?oo
0
I II III I 111111111 1111111
J A J 0 J A J 0 J A J 0 J A J 0 J A J 0
1962 1963 1964 1965 1966

NOTE: F-F INDICATES INJECTION OF FERTILIZER

IN VICINITY OF TREE TRUNK

FIG 8 .3 .13 (After Hamilton 1969)

CALCULATED SOIL MOISTURE DEPLETION AND VERTICAL GROUND
MOVEMENTS MEASURED AT THREE DEPTHS UNDER VARIOUS GROUND
COVERS AND AT VARIOUS DISTANCES FROM AN ELM TREE IN
WINNIPEG
 - 255 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Of
b

-0

-Ib

-2b

3b

-0.1

FIG 8.3.14 (After Hamilton 1969)

TOTAL STRESS REDISTRIBUTION DUE TO COMBINED EFFECTS OF
EXCAVATION AND HOUSE FOUNDATION LOADS
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

\
,~

/\

N
VI
0"1
I

Floor slab contours on July 19, 1960 Floor slab contours on July 9, 1964
relative to assumed level condition relative to level condition at time of
at time of construction: Oct 28, 1955 construction: July 10, 1960

FIG 8.3.15 (After Hamilton 1965)

CONTOURS OF SLAB-ON-GROUND MOVEMENTS, REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN
 - 257 -

KEYS TO GOOD DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND PERFORMAP':E

The following discussion of this many faceted subject will be divided into two major sub-
headings:
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Foundations designed by geotechnical experts, and

Non-engineered foundations.

FOUNDATIONS DESIGNED BY GEOTECHNICAL EXPERTS

During the past two decades there have been great strides forward in understanding
clays and their effects on structures. In most major cities confronted with these problems,
there are now at least a few specialists in private practice and governmental agencies who
are well equipped with theory and experience to provide designs which will insure satisfactory
performance. Many other engineers and architects not specifically in this field of expertise
now appreciate the nature of the problems and can refer to the local experts for professional
advice. Municipal and provincial building regulations generally permit innovative or non-
traditional design approaches when prepared by recognized specialists.

In areas of potentially active subsoils, it is folly on the part of owners or chief

designers to proceed beyond very early stages of project planning without the participation
of a geotechnical expert. All too often, such expertise is called in long after many
important planning and architectural details have been set. The geotechnical expert is
often connnissioned only to prepare the "soils report" for a specific structure without being
given adequate information on the details of the structure, on plans for the surrounding
property, or without being given sufficient scope to make the best overall contribution to
the success of the project. His report is often obtained and used primarily to satisfy the
minimum requirements of the local building regulations, with little or no assurance that his
reconnnendations will be interpreted correctly or heeded in the final design and construction
stages. In many building projects, the geotechnical consultant should be the first specialist
retained by the owner or his prime consultant. He should be consulted during the assessment
of alternate sites and throughout the detailed design, including:

the selection of depths of excavations,

elevations of main and basement floors and final grading around the structure,

location and details for connecting services and structures below grade,

excavation and shoring procedures,

details and specifications for waterproofing,

drainage systems,

subgrades and

backfills.

His judgement should also be sought by the contractor on design details and scheduling for
construction phases, including excavation, shoring, foundation construction, ground water
control, backfilling and protection during adverse weather conditions. In addition to
including his report, the detailed drawings and specifications submitted for approval to
building authorities should bear the professional seal and signature of the geotechnical
engineer indicating that he has been consulted throughout the final design stages and that
he concurs with the foundation selection. Similarly, authorities having jurisdiction over
planning and approving land development and municipal services should have the benefits of
expert geotechnical advice at very early stages of planning in order to make the best possible
decisions on optimum land use, surface grading, drainage systems, depths and location of
service pipes, and specifications for backfills, subgrades and pavements.

Whenever previous experience or preliminary investigation reveals subsoils of moderate

to high volume change potential, the geotechnical engineer should be commissioned to carry
out the following additional work to supplement as necessary for design purposes the standard
subsurface investigation as outlined in Chapter 4:
 - 258 -

Assess and report on probable changes in volume, strength or stresses in subsoils within
the active zone around the foundation. This will require investigation of preconstruction,
construction, and prediction of post construction, environmental conditions and evaluation
of the engineering properties of the subsoils throughout the range of environmental con-
ditions and the projected service life of the structure.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Provide a selection of foundation design alternatives, together with estimates of their

probable life service costs.

Provide expert guidance during the development of design details and specifications for
the excavation, shoring, foundation units, earth retaining structures, subsurface drainage
systems, subgrade fills, backfills, surface grades, landscaping, service connections, and
bridges or transitions between the main structures and other structures.

Provide inspection for critical aspects of any of the above construction to insure proper
execution and performance, and

Provide the design, supervise the installation, direct measurements, interpret and report
results of any necessary foundation performance monitoring systems.

NON-ENGINEERED FOUNDATIONS

The vast majority of structures built on subsoils of varying swelling or shrinking

potentials fall into this category. Many thousands of residential, light commercial and
industrial buildings are built each year without the benefit of direct involvement of a
geotechnical expert. Many are built in conformance with minimum standards laid down by
building bylaws and others are built outside the direct influence of such standards but
usually to some traditional standards or rules-of-thumb brought from some other area. Few,
if any, structures under $100,000 have the benefit of a comprehensive subsurface investigation
and subsequent foundation design by a specialist.

Apart from those structures built on deposits subject to mass movements, i.e., landslides
or earthquakes, few low buildings become unsafe for human occupancy in their thirty to fifty
year life spans because of inadequate foundations. However, many of these same structures,
placed on shallow foundations in moderately to highly reactive subsoils, yield disappointing
performance, excessive maintenance costs and short service life. Unlike most of the super-
structure, the foundations are nearly impossible for small building owners and operators to
maintain or repair themselves. When carried out by qualified contractors, major repairs or
replacement of foundations usually cost several times the original cost of the foundation and
often ten to twenty times the extra cost of a greatly improved original foundation if designed
and built adequately in the first place.

Much of what now appears in the 1970 edition of the Canadian Code for Residential
Construction, Sections 12, 15, 16 and 18, should be applied only for stable soils of slight
to no potential volume change. For more severe soil conditions, such as described in this
commentary, and when more specific guidelines have not been provided, such as described later
as part of the subdivision planning, the following suggestions are provided for the guidance of
non-specialist designers, builders and building officials, as aids to selecting and
detailing satisfactory foundations for moderate to severe swelling and shrinking subsoil
conditions. It would appear that the vast majority of foundation selections will continue
to be made by non-specialists until such time as technical experts are brought more actively
into the planning and decision making system for residential, light commercial and industrial
buildings. Considered individually, these "non-engineered" buildings are of small total value
but, because of their large number, their aggregate value is probably much in excess of half
the building construction expenditure in Canada.

Of prime importance in selecting a satisfactory foundation for potentially reactive sub-

soils is an understanding of the soil profile and the environmental regime of the site. The
depths and potential reactivity of the subsoils, the natural ranges in soil moisture and
temperature conditions, and the long-term impact of the building and area landscaping must
all be recognized at least qualitatively and the possible consequences provided for in the
design.

In humid climates, such as found in coastal areas and the most populous area of Ontario
and Quebec, or in ground water discharge areas in all climates, water tables are relatively
shallow, soil moisture contents are normally high and natural soils which have not been
previously desiccated tend more to shrinkage than to swelling reactions because of their
 - 259 -

mineralogy, environmental history, and because construction and landscaping usually tend to
reduce rather than increase subsoil moisture contents. Rapidly growing, deep rooted trees
can cause very severe settlement problems for nearby structures.

In semi-arid to arid areas, when ground water tables are deep, such as in the west
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

central prairies and the interior of British Columbia, acute soil moisture deficiencies
and highly reactive soil types usually present very severe swelling problems as a consequence
of construction or irrigation of sites. Even within these climatic regions, localized
initially wet conditions, such as in ground water discharge areas or in the beds of current
lakes or drainage channels, can gi·ve rise to future severe shrinkage problems if drying is
allowed because of new environmental conditions imposed by land use, structures and vegetation.

Because of the complexities of the soil, climate and vegetation interrelationships, it

is difficult if not dangerous to generalize or offer rules-of-thumb to be applied by the non-
specialist across this vast country. There is no substitute for local experience and judge-
ment based on the best available scientific principles. It is to be hoped that Canada's
expertise in geotechnical engineering will increasingly be applied to solving problems such
as those of shallow foundations on swelling and shrinking clays. Until such time as this is
general practice and with the understanding that exceptions to rules-of-thumb must always be
considered, the following are offered as points to be considered during the selection of
foundation types and details for swelling and shrinking soils.

Shallow Spread Footings, Piers and Flexible Slabs on or Near Grade for Heated Buildings

These may be economical and give adequate service for certain structures on sub-
soils of low to moderate volume change potential in humid to sub-humid regions if
reinforced to minimize effects of seasonal edge movements and non-uniform bearing
over service trenches, etc., and if free from deep-seated or long term effects of
major changes in soil moisture and vegetation conditions. Such shallow foundations
will not perform well in more severe environmental conditions. Good practice includes:

providing positive surface drainage away from the structure by carefully selecting
slab surface and outside grade elevations, placing the slab on a thick granular,
free draining fill is usually desirable,

to the extent that is possible, insuring stable uniform soil moisture conditions
under and around the foundation,

exclusion of deep roots and protection against undetected leakage from underground
piping or backup through poorly backfilled trenches,

provision of adequate perimeter insulation to eliminate steep thermal gradients

through reactive subsoils under the foundations.

Other precautions worth consideration in superstructure design include:

utilization of flexible framing, cladding and partitioning construction,

provision of adjustable length interior columns and slip joints in non-load bearing
partitions to accommodate relatively large differential movements; and

wherever possible, free-spanning of floors and roofs between load-bearing exterior

walls and frames.

Crawl Spaces Near or Slightly Below Grade on Shallow Foundations

In addition to the recommendations given above, crawl space designs require special
attention to the following:

provision of adequate slopes for drainage to sumps or drainage tile beds within the
crawl space,

provision of adequate ground cover to control evaporation of moisture from the

subsoil,

provision of adequate heat supply and insulation to prevent frost penetration below
footings and to control thermal gradients in reactive soils below and around foundation
 - 260 -

units, and to prevent excessive accumulation or drying of moisture in reactive

subsoils, and

prov1s10n of adequate ventilation in all seasons to prevent condensation on or within

structural materials within the crawl space.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

The magnitude of total, differential and tilt movements of shallow foundations will
depend on the many factors described earlier relating to the active zone and the re-
activity of the subsoils on the site. Even in soils of low volume change potential,
some differential movement of perimeter shallow foundation units relative to central
units should be expected and provision made for convenient length adjustment of columns
supporting central beams and floors. Central load bearing partitions carried directly
on strip footings are not recommended unless an effective means can be incorporated for
adjusting the elevation of the superstructure below the main floor level.

Deep Basements or Crawl Spaces on Shallow Foundations

The magnitude of total and differential movements experienced by structures on

shallow foundations is greatly influenced by net unloading of subsoils as is typical
with full basement excavations and light weight one and two storey buildings. Althou~h
central footings may be designed to carry equal structural loads and to have similar
dimensions to insure similar stress increases in the subsoils, the net area unloading
effects of the excavation have much deeper influence and, consequently, deep-seated
heaving tends to effect central footings much more than perimeter footings. The pre-
cautions suggested earlier, about providing adjustable central columns, partitions and
pipes, are, if anything, more important here. Serious attention must also be given by
designers to stacks, chimneys, heating ducts, furnaces, and other equipment placed on
or through ground supported basement floors. On moderate to very high volume change
subsoils, differential heaving of basement floors will likely become excessive for many
purposes, and objectionable to many occupants in a period of a few years after cons-
truction. This problem can best be attacked at the design stage by providing structural
basement floor systems spanning between foundation supports (Fig 8.3.16.), or fully
adjustable flooring which can be easily maintained by the occupant or owner. All
shallow foundations may be subject to tilt deformations or localized settlement due to
non-uniform subsoil reaction to moisture changes or localized influences, such as deep
tree roots, leaks, or other localized sources of water.

Grade beams and basement walls which also serve as retaining walls for clay back-
fills of moderate to high swelling potential should be designed to resist horizontal
earth pressures in accordance with the equivalent fluid pressure method, (See the
discussion on LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES in this Commentary). Design loads for medium to
stiff clays and silty clays deposited in chunks, as given in Figs 5.21 and 5.22 should
not be considered too conservative in the light of the limited number of earth pressure
measurements available to date.

Deep Foundations in Swelling and Shrinking Soils

This approach is often selected for assured good long-term performance in situatior.s
where moderate to severe soil volume changes are anticipated. The details and variations
of the methods and materials are many and complex. The approach will likely therefore
remain the proper subject for local specialists. As briefly discussed earlier in TWO
FOUNDATION DESIGN APPROACHES AND KEYS TO GOOD DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND PERFORMANCES in
this Commentary, and further in Chapter 7, there are many design and construction details
which must be carefully executed to insure good performance. Where experience is limited
or lacking with these techniques, specialist professional judgement must be applied and
followed up with detailed performance monitoring in order to prove predictions and to
advance the state-of-the-art.

GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION PLANNING AND APPROVALS

Where expert knowledge is available, it should be engaged in developing the most economic
solutions to problems such as providing suitable foundations for problem subsoil conditions. It
would be unrealistic and probably wasteful in areas of relatively uniform stratigraphy, such as
the major l~custrine deposits of Western Canada, to require detailed design by a specialist for
each and every house foundation. On the other hand, it would be advantageous at the early
 - 261 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

A B

'----- POS T

'w::
ALTERNATIVE
DETAIL

dF
I
SCREW
~~-~ -~"'~~"'I!'!!If .lAC K

MINLMUM
SLOPE CLEARANCE 6" Ml N
TO DRAIN OF ONE FOOT SPACE

A CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION B PILE AND BEAM FOUNDATION

WITH SUSPENDED BASEMENT FLOOR WITH STRUCTURAL BASEMENT FLOOR

FIG 8.3.16 (After Hamilton and Handegord)

TYPICAL FOUNDATION AND BASEMENT FLOOR SYSTEMS WHICH
OFFER IMPROVED LONG TERM PERFORMANCE
 - 262 -

development stage of any subdivision or project of more than a few lots, for a geotechnical
expert to evaluate the various hazards to foundations and other construction which is involved
in urban development. As part of his submission for subdivision approval or development proposal,
a developer should be required by the planning authority to provide a comprehensive geotechnical
report which describes to the satisfaction of the authority-having-jurisdiction:
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

the preconstruction subsurface materials and conditions in sufficient detail for reasonable
interpolations at the proposed subdivision scale,

a comprehensive assessment of potential hazards to good performance of material~ structures

and systems which may arise from the geotechnical features of the site and the natural and
man-made environmental conditions now in effect and predicted for the future at the site, and

workable design concepts for various types of foundations, providing examples when necessary
to illustrate the recommended foundation practices for this specific development,and guidelines
on deciding when foundations for certain structures or ground conditions require individual
specific designs by specialists.

REFERENCES

BARACOS, A., 1969. Design of foundations on Winnipeg clay. Can. Geotech. J. 6: 197-208.

BARACOS, A. and BOZOZUK, M., 1957. Seasonal movements in some Canadian clays. Proc. Int.
Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engg., 4th, London, 1: 264-268.

BOZOZUK, M., 1962. Soil shrinkage damages shallow foundations at Ottawa, Canada. Eng. J.
45: 7, 33-37.

BOZOZUK, M. and BURN, K.N., 1960. Vertical ground movements near elm trees. Geotechnique
10: 19-32.

BURLAND, J.B., 1972. The estimation of field effective stresses and the prediction of total
heave using a revised method of analysing the double oedometer test. The Civil
Engineer in South Africa.

BURN, K.N., 1973. House settlements and trees. Proc. Nat. Conf. on Urban Engineering
Terrain Problems. Div. Bldg. Res., Res. Paper 606, NRCC 13979.

De JONG, E. and WARKENTIN, B.P., 1965. Shrinkage of soil samples with varying clay
concentration. Can. Geotech. J., 2: 1, 16-22.

FREDLUND, D.G., 1967. Comparison of soil suction and one-dimensional consolidation

characteristics of a highly plastic clay. Div. Bldg. Res. Tech. paper No. 245,
NRCC 9684.

GARDINER, R.T., 1965. Mineralogical and chemical composition of some prairie clays. Div.
Bldg. Res. Tech. Paper No. 201, NRCC 8564.

GRIM, R.E., 1953. Clay mineralogy. McGraw-Hill.

HAMILTON, A.B., 1966. Freezing shrinkage in compacted clay. Can. Geotech. J., 3: 1-17.

HAMILTON, J.J., 1963. Volume changes in undisturbed clay profiles of western Canada. Can.
Geotech. J., 1: 27-42.

HAMILTON, J.J., 1966. Soil moisture depletion calculations for Winnipeg, 1950-1963. Div.
Bldg. Res. Tech. Paper No. 229, NRCC 9146.

HAMILTON, J.J., 1965. Shallow foundations on swelling clays in western Canada. Proc. Int.
Res. Eng. Conf. on Expansive Soils, 2: Engineering Effects of MOisture Change in Soils.
Texas A and M University.

HAMILTON, J.J., 1969. Effects of environment on the performance of shallow foundations.

Can. Geotech. J. 6: 65-80.

HAMILTON, J.J., 1970. Les problemes de fondation sur les argiles gonflantes du Canada.
Bat. Int. 3c Annee, 4.
 - 263 -

HAMILTON, J.J. and HANDEGORD, G.O., 1964. House basements on prairie clays. Can. Builder,
14: 9.

HAMILTON, J.J., 1972. House foundations in swelling and shrinking soils. Div. Bldg. Res.
Tecb. Note No. 566, NRCC, Ottawa.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

HAMILTON, J.J. and TAO, S.S., 1973. Performance of the Mark IX steel basement to 31 March
1973. Div. Bldg. Res. Tech. Note No. 579, NRCC, Ottawa, October.

HARDY, R.M., 1965. Identification and performance of swelling soil types. Can. Geotech.
2: 141-153.

JENNINGS, J.E.B. and BURLAND, J.B., 1962. Limitations to the use of effective stresses in
partly saturated soils. Geotechnique, 12: 2, 125-144.

JENNINGS, J.E.B. and KNIGHT, K., 1957. The prediction of total heave from the double
oedometer test. Trans. S. Afr. Inst. Civil Engrs. 7.

LEGGET, R.F. (Ed.) Soils in Canada, 1961. The Roy. Soc. Can. Spec. Pub. 3. U. Toronto Press.

NOBLE, C.A., 1966. Swelling measurements and prediction of heave for a lacustrine clay.
Can. Geotech., 3: 32-41.

PERPICH, W.M., LUCAS, G. and BAKER, C.N. Jr., 1965. Desiccation of soil by trees related
to foundation settlement. Can. Geotech. Jour., 2: 13-39.

PETERSON, R., JASPER, J.L., RIVARD, P.J. and IVERSON, N.L., 1960. Limitations of laboratory
shear strength in evaluating stability of highly plastic clays. Proc. Res. Conf. Shear
Strength Cohesive Soils Boulder, Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civil Engrs.

PETERSON, R. and PETERS, N., 1963. Heave of spillway structures on clay shales. Can.
Geotech. 1: 5-15.

SCHRIEVER, W.R., CRAWFORD, C.B. and LEGGET, R.F., 1961. Performance of concrete foundation
slabs on Canadian clays. Proc. Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. Found. Engg., 1: 803-806,
5th, Paris.

TERZAGHI, K. and PECK, R.B., 1948. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. J. Wiley & Sons.

WARKENTIN, B.P. and BOZOZUK, M., 1961. Shrinking and swelling properties of two Canadian
clays. Proc. Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engg., 1: 851-855, 5th, Paris.

WILLIAMS, A.A.B., 1958. Discussion of J.E.B. Jenning's and K. Knight's paper: The
Prediction of Total Heave from the Double Oedometer Test. Trans. S. Afr. Instn. Civil
Engrs., Vol. 8, No.6.

Van der MERWE, D.H., 1964. The prediction of heave from the plasticity index and percentage
clay fraction of soils. Civil Eng. South Africa.

YONG, R.N. and WARKENTIN, B.P., 1966. Introduction to soil behavior. Macmillan.
 COMMENTARY 8.4

FROST ACTION AND FOUNDATIONS

TAB L E o F CON TEN T S

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

GENERAL 267

EXPANSION OF WATER UPON FREEZING

ICE SEGREGATION AND LENSING

CONTROLLING FACTORS 267

FROST-SUSCEPTIBLE SOIL
AVAILABILITY OF WATER
FREEZING CONDITIONS

DEPTH OF FROST PENETRATION 269

FROST ACTION AND FOUNDATIONS 271

ADFREEZING
DRAINAGE
FREEZING TEMPERATURES AND THE~L INSULATION
HEATED BUILDINGS
Basement Garages
Unheated Ancillary Structures

FROST ACTION DURING CONSTRUCTION IN WINTER 273

SHALLOW FOOTINGS AND CRAWL SPACES

EXCAVATION WALLS AND SUPPORTS
Raker Footings

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 274

REFERENCES

- 265 -
 COMMENTARY 8.4

FROST ACTION AND FOUNDATIONS

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

GENERAL

Everywhere in Canada except in south western British Columbia daily mean air temperatures fall
below freezing for several weeks or months each winter and except where there is sufficient insulating
snow cover .the ground freezes to a few inches or a few feet. Ground freezing frequently leads
to volumetric expansion of the soil and to heaving of structures located above or adjacent to it.
Upon thawing the release of excess water into the soil leads to collapse of the soil structure
with great loss of strength. The forces involved in such movements can be very destructive to
lightly-loaded structures, but may also cause serious problems in major buildings (CRAWFORD 1968).

Brief descriptions of the phenomenon of frost action, its causes, some of the construction
problems it presents and steps that may be taken to prevent it are given in this commentary.
Some of the comments may be pertinent to the active zone in permafrost regions but in general
the solution of construction problems in the north calls for the application of different
techniques (JOHNSTON 1975).

A short glossary of terms frequently encountered in the literature on frost action is given
at the end of this commentary.

EXPANSION OF WATER UPON FREEZING

The change of phase of water to ice results in an increase in volume of about 9%. If
water occupies all of the pore spaces in a cohesionless non frost-susceptible soil the
overall volume increase upon freezing depends upon the relative volumes of water and soil
particles but it will be considerably less than 9%. Frost heave that occurs under these
circumstances may result in minor damage to supported structures but in general the expansion
of water upon freezing is of little importance when considering the overall problems of
frost action.

ICE SEGREGATION AND LENSING

This phenomenon is the basic cause of all problems arlslng from the freezing of fine
grained soils and other materials. When the right conditions exist water is drawn to the
frost front from the unfrozen soil to form distinct layers, lenses or veins of ice which
may add significantly to the original water content of the soil. Fig 8.4.1. Formation of
ice under these conditions causes large increases in volume which is generally manifested
in heaving at the surfaces exposed to cooling. Without physical restraint there is no
theoretical limit to the amount of heaving that may occur. Movements in excess of 4 in. on
basement floors developing in only three weeks have been recorded. Where restraint in the
form of a building load is present heaving pressures develop which mayor may not be able
to overcome the restraint. Heaving pressures however may be very high; values of 30,000 lbs
were measured on a 1 ft diameter plate equivalent to 19 ton/sq ft (PENNER and GOLD 1971)
and a seven-storey reinforced concrete frame building on a raft foundation was heaved more
than 2 in. when frost was inadvertently allowed to penetrate the soil beneath the foundation.

CONTROLLING FACTORS

For frost action to occur it is generally accepted that three basic conditions must exist
which are

the presence of frost-susceptible soil

the availability of water, and

cooling conditions that cause the soil and water to freeze.

- 267 -
 ,
I
I
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

FIG
8.4.1
- 268 -

SAMPLE OF FROZEN CLAY SHOWING ICE SEGREGATION

 - 269 -

FROST-SUSCEPTIBLE SOIL

Frost-susceptible soils are those in which there are sufficiently fine pores to support
the mechanism of ice segregation and the formation of ice lenses. Fine pore spaces are
related to particle size and to density (PENNER 1968). Several criteria have been devised
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

based upon particle size distribution alone by which it is possible to estimate the frost
susceptibility of a soil (TOWNSEND and CSATHY 1963). One of the most widely known of these
is that prqposed by CASAGRANDE 1932 as follows:

"Under natural conditions and with sufficient water supply one should expect
considerable ice segregation in uniform soils containing more than 3 per cent
of grains smaller than 0.02 mm and in very uniform soils containing more than
10 per cent smaller than 0.02 mm. No ice segregation was observed in soils
containing less than 1 per cent of grains smaller than 0.02 mm even if the
groundwater level was as high as the frost line."

The borderline between soils that are frost-susceptible and those that are not is not
distinct and those which appear to fall just clear of these criteria should be treated with
caution.

AVAILABILITY OF WATER

In order for ice lenses to grow water must be available in the unfrozen soil for
movement to the frost front (PENNER 1959). Water may be transported in the liquid state,
by capillary action and by suction developed by super-cooling at the frost front or in
the vapour state. In general, if the groundwater table is high with respect to the surface
from which heat is extracted, conditions will be suitable for ice lensing to occur in
frost-susceptible soils.

FREEZING CONDITIONS

Temperatures near the ground surface are determined by the balance of heat between that
originating in the earth's centre (geothermal heat) and that gained or lost at the earth's
surface. During the winter the net effect is one of extraction of heat which in most of
Canada results in freezing conditions in the subsoil. The quantity of heat extracted
depends upon such climatic factors as air temperatures, solar radiation, snow cover and
exposure to wind. Of these, the most effective and significant is air temperature.

To gauge the severity of winter conditions the combined effects of both the duration
and intensity of freezing conditions can be estimated directly from air temperature measure-
ments. The cumulative total of the difference between daily mean air temperature and the
freezing point is known as the Freezing Index expressed in "oF days" (1°F day = 1 day for
which the mean temperature was 31°F).

Figure 8.4.2. is a map of Canada showing normal values of total Freezing Index for the
winter based upon records of 10 to 30 years between 1931 to 1960 from almost 900 weather
stations across the country (BOYD 1973). Values vary from less than 100°F days in south
western British Columbia, and about 500°F days in Southern Ontario and the south east of
Nova Scotia to 7500 FOdays in Northern Manitoba and Northern Quebec. Maximum values occur
as would be expected in the Arctic archipelago and reach l4,000°F days.

DEPTH OF FROST PENETRATION

The depth to which freezing occurs is related to the rate that heat is extracted which
besides being dependent upon climatic conditions is influenced by the thermal properties of the
soil which in turn are related to such factors as mineralogical composition, grain size, density
and water content.

Elaborate and complex numerical solutions requiring the use of computers are available for
determining the depth of frost penetration, but because they generally require making several
critical assumptions even when soil thermal properties are known they are of limited practical use.

For most purposes, it has been found that depth of frost penetration can be estimated fairly
closely by using one of the correlations between air Freezing Index and field observations which
for the most part have been made beneath highways and airport runways where the ground surface
 - 270 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

500

NORMAL FREEZING INDEX FOR CANADA

IN DEGREE DAYS FAHRENHEIT 200 400 600
BASED ON THE PERIOD 1931 TO 1960 I I I I
MI L ES

FIG 8.4.2 (After Boyd)

FREEZING INDEX FOR CANADA
 - 271 -

was kept clear of snow (U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGRS., 1949, ARGUE 1968). It is known that for the
same conditions frost penetration in well-drained cohesionless materials is greater than in fine
grained soils of higher water content, but these correlations are based upon all available data
and do not make any distinction between soil types or drainage conditions.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

The correlation shown in Fig 8.4.3. is that by BROWN 1964 based upon both field measurements
and theoretical considerations.

FROST ACTION AND FOUNDATIONS

The design of foundations against frost action rarely implies incorporating additional
structural strength to withstand the stresses that can be generated in frost-susceptible soils,
but rather the use of techniques to avoid the problem which can be accomplished by eliminating
one or more of the factors that together result in ice segregation and frost heaving.

The conventional approach is that of placing the foundation beyond the depth of expected
maximum frost penetration so that the soil beneath the bearing surface will not freeze. This
measure alone, however, does not ensure that frost damage will not occur; backfilling the
excavation with spoil that is frost susceptible may lead to damage resulting from adfreezing.
Depths at which foundations should be placed are normally determined by local experience as
incorporated in building by-laws, but in the absence of such information the data from BOYD (1973)
may be used in the correlation by BROWN (1964) to give a safe depth for the foundation.

ADFREEZING

Adfreezing occurs when soil in contact with a foundation wall adheres to the wall
surface as it freezes. The soil water changes to ice and a strong bond is formed at the
interface. If the soil is frost-susceptible, heaving pressures developed at the frost front
are transmitted through the adfreezing bond to the foundation wall resulting in uplift
forces that are capable of producing appreciable vertical displacements. Unless the walls
are anchored to the footings they may lift from foundation level, or if constructed of
concrete block may fail under tension and part near the depth of frost penetration.
Relatively little is known of the magnitude of the forces that may be generated, but limited
field experiments have shown the bond strength of adfreezing about 15 Ib/sq in. for
steel surfaces, and about 10 lb/sq in. for wood and concrete. bond strengths reached
the 20 to 35 lb/sq in. range (PENNER and GOLD 1971, PENNER 1974).

DRAINAGE

By their very nature frost-susceptible soils do not drain well and even though inflow
of groundwater may be prevented the quantity of water held in the unfrozen soil is often
sufficient to produce significant heaving when drawn upward to the frost front by the
mechanism of ice lensing. Where possible it is good practice to remove frost-susceptible
soil and replace it with coarse granular material that is easy to drain, and to provide
drainage tile around the perimeter of the building which must be connected to some other
system for disposal. Such procedures also include the use of less permeable soil near the
soil surface and sloping the grade to shed rain. Together the replacement of frost-
susceptible soil with granular material and proper drainage prevent adfreezing from occurring
(PENNER and BURN 1970 and 1973).

FREEZING TEMPERATURES AND THERMAL INSULATION

In recent years, with the advent of lightweight plastic insulation, it has become
possible to greatly reduce the loss of geothermal heat that normally leads to frost penetra-
tion. With the selection of the right thicknesses and its application to the appropriate
surfaces of the foundation and soil, temperatures can be kept above the freezing point. The
design of such measures around foundations has advanced rapidly in the last few years, but
the use of insulation for this purpose should only be undertaken after careful examination
of the pertinent conditions and a thorough understanding of the effect it will have on heat
flow at the soil-foundation interface (ROBINSKY and BESPFLUG 1973). Insulation is of
particular advantage in the design of unheated buildings such as warehouses and garages, and
in special facilities for food storage and the maintaining of ice surfaces for winter sports
where it is necessary that temperatures inside the building be kept several degrees below
freezing.
 - 272 -

V')
100
LL.I
::t: 80
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

(..)
z 60
..
z
0 40
I-
«
e::::
I-
LL.I
Z
LL.I
20
0...
l-
V')
0
e:::: 10
u.. 200 300 500 700 1000 2000 3000 4000
100
FREEZING INDEX, DEGR EE DA YS

FIG 8.4.3 (After Brown)

RELATIONSHIP OF FREEZING INDEX AND DEPTH OF FROST
PEN ET RA T ION
 - 273 -

Insulation can be manufactured that has relatively high compressive strengths so that it
is possible to place slabs of these materials directly below the bearing surfaces of
foundations. Substantial economic advantages accrue where such designs are used because it
is possible to place foundations closer to the ground surface thus reducing the costs of
excavation and transportation of granular fill to replace frost-susceptible soil (ROBINSKY
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

and BESPFLUG 1973).

HEATED BUILDINGS

Loss of heat from basement spaces through the supporting soil reduces the depth to
which frost penetrates in the immediate vicinity of foundations and foundation walls.
Relatively simple analytical methods are available for calculation of such heat losses
(LATTA and BOILEAU 1968) but the problem of determining the precise effects these have on
frost penetration is more complex. The expense of such calculations is seldom warranted
and the usual practice is to ignore the effects of heat losses. With the increased use of
insulation to conserve energy the conditions begin to approach those prevailing in unheated
buildings. Safe depths for footings on the perimeter of a building therefore are determined
from the maximum depth of frost penetration. Interior footings are generally placed at
shallower depths.

Basement Garages

Garage spaces are frequently provided in the basement of residences and other
buildings. In heated buildings interior footings placed at shallow depths may be
included within the garage space or beneath partitions separating the garage from the
rest of the basement. Because corrosion of vehicle bodies is accelerated at higher
temperatures such spaces are often maintained just above the freezing point. Frost
heaving occurs when inadequate heat is supplied during cold snaps or the garage doors
are left open. Concrete floors may be lifted and the shallow foundations heaved
causing damage to the structure and interior finish of the building (PENNER and BURN
1970). Where such conditions are anticipated it is recommended that foundations
beneath all the walls of basement garages be placed at depths beyond maximum frost
penetration, properly backfilled and drained or that they be protected from freezing
by the use of insulation.

Unheated Ancillary Structures

Small unheated structures such as garages and storage facilities which may be
expected to heave when erected on frost-susceptible soil should not be attached to
other structures which are designed not to heave. The resulting differential movements
will rack or destroy connecting walls and roofs and present continual maintenance
problems.

FROST ACTION DURING CONSTRUCTION IN WINTER

Construction in winter is now considered routine in Canada (CROCKER 1971) and the handling
materials in below freezing temperatures is generally well understood by contractors,
care must be taken to prevent frost action affecting foundations before the permanent
facilities are installed. Fr.ost heaving and damage frequently occur on construction sites
winter before temporary heating begins.

SHALLOW FOOTINGS AND CRAWL SPACES

Interior footings, which are often placed only a few inches below basement floors are
particularly vulnerable to frost action. The partially completed structure acts like a
series of cooling fins accelerating the extraction of heat from immediately beneath the
footings even when straw is used as temporary insulation over the floor surface (CROCKER 1965).
Under the same circumstances basement floors of concrete may heave causing either crushing
of lightweight partitions between floor and frame or further lifting of the frame and
distortions which may lead to permanent structural damage. It is important therefore that
foundations at shallow depths in buildings designed to be heated be adequately protected
during the construction period either by temporary heating or adequate insulation.
 - 274 -

Buildings in which crawl spaces are provided between the foundations and the first
floor level are also vuln~rable to frost action. Temporary heating is often only installed
above the first floor for the sake of progress of the work and the crawl space is forgotten.
Temperatures drop to those prevailing outside and frost heaving occurs. The sample of
frozen soil shown in Fig 8.4.1. was obtained from beneath the concrete raft of a seven-
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

storey building with crawl space which was heaved more than 2 in. during construction.

EXCAVATION WALLS AND SUPPORTS

Dangerous conditions may develop in the walls of excavations supported by sheet piling
or soldier pile and lagging systems if they remain open without heating during winter
construction. Cold air is more dense than warmer air and 'flows' into the spaces below
grolind level thus accelerating the extraction of heat from the soil behind the retaining
structures. The direction of heat flow under these conditions is primarily horizontal and
ice lensing occurs parallel to the walls. This results in large outward pressures against
the wall increasing the loads on the supporting members which may lead to overstressing and
to inward movement of the walls. The horizontal components of loads on anchors and rakers
may increase considerably, but horizontal struts spanning from wall to wall will be
subjected to stress increases with contributions from both walls. Additional loads may
develop when struts are hit by sunlight and heat absorbed by radiation causes the struts
to expand.

The development of potentially dangerous conditions must be avoided and it is therefore

necessary to monitor the walls and supporting systems to detect movements and stress increases
associated with frost action. (This should be done even where increased factors of safety
have been used in the design to accommodate the expected stress increases). Where observations
indicate that excessive heaving pressures are developing against the walls appropriate steps
must be taken to prevent overstressing of the support systems. For anchored flexible walls,
where inward movements of one or two inches may be tolerable, stresses on the individual
tie-backs may be reduced by 'slacking off' on the locking system. Other support systems,
such as rakers and horizontal struts, are more difficult to adjust and avoidance of excessive
stresses may require a supply of heat to the walls to thaw the frost. Where subsurface
conditions are such that excessive frost action may be expected and where significant wall
movements cannot be tolerated heating systems should be installed to prevent frost action
from occurring.

Raker Footings

Soil beneath raker footings must not be permitted to freeze. Besides producing
increased stresses on the supporting member an unstable condition can develop if the
soil is rapidly thawed with subsequent loss of shear strength upon which stability
depends. The result may be complete failure of the footing and loss of support of
the wall.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

The following are terms frequently encountered in the literature on frost action.

Adfreezing The adhesion of frost-susceptible soil in contact with foundation walls due to
freezing resulting in sufficient bond to transfer heaving pressures from the soil to
the structure. It is also sometimes referred to as frost grip.

Frost action A general term for the damage caused by freezing and thawing of moisture in
materials and on structures of which they are a part or with which they are in contact.

Frost front The position in the ground at which freezing is taking place at any particular
time. It is usually a line roughly parallel to the ground surface or any other surface
from which heat is being extracted.

Frost heave The raising of a surface due to the formation of ice in the underlying soil.

Frost-susceptible soil Soil in which significant ice segregation will occur resulting in
frost heave or heaving pressures when the requisite moisture and freezing conditions
exist.
 - 275 -

Heaving pressures The stresses acting against a structure that result from ice formation in
frost-susceptible soil.

Ice lenses Ice formations in soil occurring essentially parallel to each other, generally
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

normal to the direction of heat loss and commonly in repeated layers. (See Fig 8.4.1.).

Ice segregation The growth of ice lenses, layers, veins and masses in soils, commonly, but
not always, oriented normal to the direction of heat loss. (See Fig 8.4.1.).

Non frost-susceptible materials Cohesionless materials such as crushed rock, gravel, sand,
slag and cinders or soil in which significant detrimental ice segregation does not
occur under normal freezing conditions.

REFERENCES

ARGUE, G.H., 1968. Frost and thaw penetration of soils at Canadian airports. Can. Dept.
Trans., Air Services, Constr. Engg., Arch. Branch, Rep. CED-6-l63.

BOYD, D.W., 1973. Normal freezing and thawing degree-days for Canada 1931-1960. Environment
Canada, Atmos. Environ., Rep. CLI4-73.

BROWN, W.G., 1964. Difficulties associated with predicting depth of freeze or thaw. Can.
Geotech. J. 1: 215-226. Also NRC 8276, Div. Bldg. Res., Nat. Res. Council, Ottawa.

CASAGRANDE, A., 1932. Discussion on frost heaving. HWy. Res. Board, Proc., 11:1, 168-172.

CRAWFORD, C.B., 1968. Frost action - construction hazard. Engg. Contract Rec. 81:1, 51-57.
Also Tech. Paper 270, NRC 10016, Div. Bldg. Res., Nat. Res. Council, Ottawa.

CROCKER, C.R., 1966. Moisture problems during winter construction operations. RILEM/CIB
Symp., "Moisture Problems in Buildings", Helsinki 1965. Also Tech. Paper 224,
NRC 9128, Div. Bldg. Res., Nat. Res. Council, Ottawa.

CROCKER, C.R., 1971. Winter construction in Canada. Build. Internat. 4:6, 326-330. Also
Tech. Paper 362, NRCC 12505, Div. Bldg. Res., Nat. Res. Council, Ottawa.

JOHNSTON, G.H., 1975. (Ed.) Permafrost Engineering Manual. (In preparation).

LATTA, J.K. and BOILEAU, G.G., 1969. Heat losses from house basements. Can. Bldr., 19:10,
39-42. Also Housing Note 31, Div. Bldg. Res., Nat. Res. Council, Ottawa.

PENNER, E., 1968. Particle size as a basis for predicting frost action in soils. Soils
and Founds. 8:4, 21-29. Also NRC 10848, Div. Bldg. Res., Nat. Res. Council, Ottawa.

PENNER, E. and BURN, K.N., 1970. Adfreezing and frost heaving of foundations. Can. Bldg.
Digest 128, Div. Bldg. Res., Nat. Res. Council, Ottawa.

PENNER, E. and GOLD, L.W., 1971. Transfer of heaving forces by adfreezing to columns and
foundation walls in frost-susceptible soils. Can. Geotech. J. 8: 514-526. Also
NRCC 12177, Div. Bldg. Res., Nat. Res. Council, Ottawa.

PENNER, E., 1974. Uplift forces on foundations in frost heaving soils. Can. Geotech. J.
11: 323-338. Also NRCC 14001, Div. Bldg. Res., Nat. Res. Council, Ottawa.

ROBINSKY, I. and BESPFLUG, K.E., 1973. Design of insulated foundations. J. Soil Mech. Found.
Div., Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., 99: SM9, 649-667.

TOWNSEND, D.L. and CSATHY, T.I., 1963. Compilation of frost susceptibility criteria up to
1961. Rep. 28, Dept. Civil Engg., Queen's u., Kingston. Also Onto Joint Hwy. Res.
Prog. Rep. 14, 27 pp.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 1947. Report on frost investigations, 1944-1945. Corps
Engrs., New England Division, Boston.
 - 276 -

McROSTIE, C.C. and SCHRIEVER, W.R., 1967. Frost pressures in the tieback system at the
National Arts Centre excavation. Engg. J., 50:3, 17-21.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays
 COMMENTARY 8.5

THE USE OF PILE DRIVING FORMULAS

TAB LEO F CON TEN T S

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

HISTORICAL REVIEW OF PILE DRIVING FORMULAS 279

DEFICIENCIES OF PILE DRIVING FORMULAS 280

VALIDITY OF THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
QUALITY OF INPUT DATA

CONSEQUENCES OF THE USE OF PILE DRIVING FORMULAS 280

PILE DRIVING FORMULAS FOR EVALUATING Qf

PILE DRIVING RECORDS FOR COMPARING PILES
PILE DRIVING RECORDS FOR EVALUATING INDIVIDUAL PILES
REFERENCES

- 277 -
 COMMENTARY 8.5

THE USE OF PILE DRIVING FORMULAS

In the 1975 edition of the National Building Code of Canada, section 4.2, Foundations, and
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

in this Manual, any reference to the use of pile driving formulas for assessing the bearing
capacity of driven piles has been avoided. This commentary explains the reasons for this
departure from common practice.

HISTORICAL REVIEW OF PILE DRIVING FORMULAS

In the early stages of development of piling practice, only driven piles were used. Since
the science of geotechnique was non-existent, the obvious method of "designing" pile foundations
was to observe the resistance of the soil to the penetration of the pile during the driving
process. This "design method" was officially introduced by WELLINGTON (1893) who proposed the
well known Engineering News Formula which is still widely used.

WH
S + C

where ultimate bearing capacity of the pile, ton

W weight of the driving hammer, ton
H drop height of the hammer, in.
S the pile set per blow, in.
C a constant representing energy losses in the driving system at impact,
in.

Since then, more than 100 additional formulas have been suggested. They all have the same
form but include a variable quantity of empirical constants intended to produce a better simulation
of the driving system and to yield more reliable results in terms of bearing capacity.

The Hiley formula widely used in Canada, and typical of these modifications has the following
form:

e x E
n
W + n 2W
p
+ W+W
P

where E rated energy of the driving hammer, in.-ton

n
e the efficiency of the hammer
n an empirical factor normally equal to 0.25
W the weight of the pile, ton
p
W the weight of the hammer, ton
C1
constants representing energy losses at impact due respectively to
C2 elastic compression of the pile cap, of the pile and of the soil,
in.
C3 1=
S the pile set per blow, in.

The lack of confidence that soil mechanics engineers have in such design formulas is
demonstrated by the fact that the safety factors applied to Qf to determine the allowable
loads are always very large; a value of F.S. = 6 is typical.

- 279 -
 - 280 -

DEFICIENCIES OF PILE DRIVING FORMULAS

VALIDITY OF THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Pile driving formulas are based on the assumption that the bearing capacity of a driven
pile is a direct function of the energy delivered to it during the last blows of the driving
process, and that the energy transmission from the hammer to the pile and the soil is instan-
taneous on impact.

These two assumptions have been proved wrong by many investigators.

It has been clearly demonstrated that the bearing capacity of a pile is related,
not so much to the total energy per blow of the driving system, but more importantly
to the distribution of this energy with time at and after impact and by the magnitude
and duration of the peak impact force. From the many investigations of pile driving
by means of the wave propagation theory, it has been made clear that time effects as
related to the propagation of impact forces in the pile have a governing influence on
the behaviour of piles during driving.

Under such circumstances, all existing pile driving formulas patterned on the
Engineering News Formula must be considered as being inherently incorrect.

QUALITY OF INPUT DATA

All existing pile driving formulas are based on two fundamental parameters: the energy
delivered by the driving hammer at each blow, and the set of the pile under each blow. While
the set can be measured fairly accurately during the driving process, the energy has to be
assumed equal to W x H for a free-fall hammer or to the so-called rated energy as specified
by the manufacturers for steam or diesel hammers. This assumption implies that all blows of
a given hammer deliver the same energy, •.. and is the origin of the poor reliability of pile
driving formulas.

The lack of reliability of pile driving formulas was recognized a long time ago, for
example by PECK (1942) who stated:

"It can be derronstrated by a purely statistical approach that the chances

of guessing the bearing capacity of a pile are better than that of computing
it by pile-driving formula ..• To determine the ultimate bearing capacity
of a pile, the following procedure then would be justified: take 100 poker
chips and label them with numbers so as to form a geometrically normal array
having a mean value of 91 tons and a standard deviation of 1.55. Mix the
poker chips and select one. The value written on the chip will be the
bearing capacity of the pile. The value from the chip will be nearer to the true
bearing capacity rrore frequently than a value obtained by use of any of the pile
driving formulas".

However, the reasons for this situation were established only more recently by HOUSEL
(1965) for driving by steam and diesel hammers and by TAVENAS and AUDY (1972) for driving by
free-fall hammers. These investigations showed that the energy per blow delivered to a pile
by the same driving equipment varies by as much as ± 70% of the average energy, and, that for
steam or diesel hammers, the average energy is generally 30 to 60% lower than the rated
energy. Therefore, since it is impossible to assume that the energy delivered is constant
from blow to blow and is equal to the rated energy of the driving equipment, it is also
impossible to assign a reliable value to the energy delivered in any pile driving analysis.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE USE OF PILE DRIVING FORMULAS

PILE DRIVING FORMULAS FOR EVALUATING Qf

Since it has been demonstrated that pile driving formulas are inherently incorrect in
their assumptions and that the energy delivered to a pile by a given hammer is highly
variable and generally entirely different from its rated or assumed energy, it is obvious
 - 281 -

that pile driving formulas which refer to this rated or assumed energy cannot lead to an
acceptable evaluation of the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile. The use of pile driving
formulas for designing pile capacities therefore are not recommended.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

PILE DRIVING RECORDS FOR COMPARING PILES

It has been demonstrated that the energy actually delivered to piles by a given hammer
is highly variable from blow to blow and from pile to pile. These variations are due to
energy losses and varying hammer operation, pile cap condition, cushion properties, etc ••.
and are not necessarily related to variation in the resistance of the soil.

For these reasons the observed driving energy cannot be used as a basis for comparing
the bearing capacity of adjacent piles, and more specifically for ensuring that non-10ad-
tested piles are of quality identical to that of load-tested piles.

PILE DRIVING RECORDS FOR EVALUATING INDIVIDUAL PILES

The only acceptable application of driving energy records is in the evaluation of the
quality of each pile taken individually. More particularly the pile driving record will
normally indicate if a pile has been broken during the driving process. It will also show
the changes in soil strata and will therefore permit assessment of the length of pile in the
different strata constituting the soil deposit. It will also make it possible to establish
if an end bearing pile to rock has actually been driven to refusal.

REFERENCES

WELLINGTON, A.M., 1893. Piles and pile driving. Engineering News Publications, New York.

PECK, R.B., 1942. Discussion to "Pile Driving Formulas: Progress Report of the Committee
on the Bearing Value of Pile Foundations". Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., 68: 322-324.

HOUSEL, W.S., 1965. Michigan study of pile driving hammers. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div.,
Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., 92: SM4, 37-64.

TAVENAS, F.A. and AUDY, R., 1972. Limitations of the driving formulas for predicting the
bearing capacities of piles in sand. Can. Geotech. J., 9: 47-62.
 COMMENTARY 8.6

THE DESIGN OF PILES SUBJECTED TO HORIZONTAL LOADS

TAB LEO F CON TEN T S

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

GENERAL 285

HORIZONTAL LOAD CAPACITY OF A VERTICAL PILE 285

SEMI-THEORETICAL METHOD
EMPIRICAL METHOD

DEFLECTIONS AND MOMENTS IN A PILE 286

COEFFICIENT OF SUBGRADE REACTION

Typical Values
Pressuremeter Method
DETERMINATION OF MOMENTS AND DEFLECTIONS
GROUP EFFECTS
REFERENCES

- 283 -
 COMMENTARY 8.6

THE DESIGN OF PILES SUBJECTED TO HORIZONTAL LOADS

Design methods or features applicable to simple cases of piled foundations

subjected to limited horizontal loads have been described in Chapter 7 of this Manual.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

With the development of tall, slender structures such as high-rise buildings, towers
etc., the designer is increasingly confronted with cases where greater horizontal
loads transmitted by these structures must be resisted by vertical piles. The purpose
of this commentary is to present to the designer information on more detailed methods
of analysis than those given in Chapter 7 so that he may have some guidance in
providing foundation systems for such structures.

GENERAL

Vertical piles resist horizontal loads or moments by deflecting until the necessary reaction
in the surrounding soil is mobilized. The behaviour of the foundation under such loading
conditions depends essentially on the relative stiffnesses of the pile and the soil.

The horizontal load capacity of vertical piles may be limited in three different ways; the
ultimate capacity of the soil may be exceeded resulting in very large horizontal movements of
the piles and failure of the foundation, the bending moments may generate excessive bending
stresses in the pile material resulting in structural failure of the piles, or the deflections
of the pile heads may be too large to be compatible with the superstructure. All three modes of
failure must be considered in design.

The methods presently available for design of piled foundations subjected to horizontal loads
must be regarded as highly empirical. The input soil data are associated with a high degree of
uncertainty. Therefore these methods must be used with great caution and with due consideration
of their limitations. They have been summarized in this commentary to help the designer in using
references which in many cases contain inaccuracies or contradictory statements.

There is much room for improvement of these design methods and, at present, the best method
is still that based on a well-planned and well-executed in situ load test, as presented in
Chapter 7 of this Manual.

HORIZONTAL LOAD CAPACITY OF A VERTICAL PILE

The maximum horizontal load that can be applied to a pile is limited by the maximum horizon-
tal reaction that can be mobilized in the soil in front of the pile. This limitation generally
governs in the case of short rigid piles. The following methods may be used:

SEMI-THEORETICAL METHOD

According to BROMS (1964a&b) the horizontal load capacity of a pile varies with
the length of the pile and conditions of restraint at the pile head.

1) In cohesionless soil
2.
1.5 y' L D K
p p

2) In cohesive soil

1.5 D)

where = ultimate horizontal load, lb

y' effective unit weight of soil, lb/cu ft
L length of pile, ft
p
D = diameter of pile, ft
Kp passive earth pressure coefficient of soil (Appendix 5A. Chapter 5)
and Cu = undrained shear strength of clay, lb/sq ft

- 285 -
 - 286 -

For other cases, such as long restrained piles, see BROMS (1964 a &b)
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

EMPIRICAL METHOD

Considering the very close analogy between the behaviour of soils around a horizontally
loaded pile and around a pressuremeter probe, an empirical method for determining Pul t
from pressuremeter test results has been proposed by MENARD (1962). According to this
method, which has been checked by means of full scale tests~ the horizontal load capacity
of a short restrained pile may be expressed by

where limit pressure from pressuremeter tests, lb/sq ft

REFERENCES

BROMS, B., 1964.a. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils. J. Soil Mech. Found.
Div., Proc. Am. Soc. civil Engrs. 90: SM2, 27-63.

BROMS, B., 1964.b. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils. J. Soil Mech. Found.
Div.,Proc. Am. Soc. civil Engrs. 90: SM3, 123-156.

MENARD, L., 1962. Comportement d'une fondation profonde soumise a des efforts de renversement.
Sols Soils, 3:4, 9-23.

DEFLECTIONS M~D MOMENTS IN A PILE

In most cases other than short rigid piles, the maximum horizontal loads that may be safely
applied to a vertical pile is limited, not by the load capacity of the surrounding soil, but
by the magnitude of the deflection of the pile and of the resulting bending moments in the pile.

The analysis of the behaviour of horizontally loaded piles is based on the concept
of elastic reaction. In this concept it is assumed that the soil around a pile can be
simulated by a series of horizontal springs, each spring representing the behaviour of a layer
of soil of unit height. When the pile is forced against the soil under the action of horizontal
loads, the soil deforms and generates an elastic reaction assumed to be identical to the force
that would be generated by the simulating spring subjected to the same deformation. With the
further assumption that the soil is homogeneous, or that all simulating springs are identical,
the soil's behaviour can be determined if the equivalent spring constant is known. This spring
constant is called the coefficient of subgrade reaction Ks •

COEFFICIENT OF SUB GRADE REACTION

Though simple in its definition, the coefficient of subgrade reaction has proved to
be a very difficult parameter to evaluate. This is due to the fact that it cannot be
measured in laboratory cests, but must be backcalculated from full scale field tests.
Investigations have shown it to be variable not only with soil type and mechanical
properties, but also with stress level and the geometry of the pile.

In the absence of better information, the coefficient of subgrade reaction may be

estimated by the following method.
 - 287 -

Typical Values

TERZAGHI (1955) has proposed the following formulas and reference constants to
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

assess the value of K

s

1) In cohesionless soil

z
Ks = nh D

where K - coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction, ton/cu ft at depth z

s
z depth, ft
D - pile diameter, ft
and nh - constant related to soil density as given in table 8.6.A

TABLE 8.6.A

Values of nh for cohesionless soils

nh in ton/cu ft
above below
Soil Density groundwater groundwater

loose 7 4
medium 21 14
dense 56 34

2) In cohesive soil

K
s
= 67 Cu
D

where K
s
= coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction, ton/cu ft
Cu = undrained shear strength of the soil, ton/sq ft
and D = pile diameter, ft
Because of the influence of stress level and geometry of the pile on the value of
~ and the empirical nature of these expressions, the coefficients of subgrade reaction
determined in this way include a high degree of uncertainty and must be used with
caution.

For a discussion of factors influencing the coefficient of sub grade reaction, see
ROWE (1956b).

Pressuremeter Method

According to recent investigations a better method of evaluating the actual field

values of Kg is by means of in situ pressuremeter tests. As shown by MENARD (1962) and
later confirmed by tests on instrumented piles by BAGUELIN & JEZEQUEL (1972), the
coefficient of horizontal sub grade reaction may be directly related to the pressuremeter
modulus Ep or indirectly to the limit pressure PL"
 - 288 -

1) In cohesionless soil

E PL
K = 3.3.:P..
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

s 25
D· D

2) In cohesi ve soil
E PL
K
s 1.6 T 16 1)

where K coefficient of horizontal sub grade reaction, ton/cu ft

s
Ep = pressuremeter modulus, ton/sq ft
PL = limit pressure, ton/sq ft
and D - pile diameter, ft

REFERENCES

TERZAGH1, K., 1955. Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction. Geotechnique, 5:4,

297-326.

ROWE, P., 1956.a. The single pile subject to horizontal force. Geotechnique, 6:2, 70-85.

ROWE, P., 1956.b. Discussion of "Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction".

Geotechnique, 6:2, 94-98.

MENARD, L., 1962. Comportement d'une fondation profonde soumise a des efforts de renversement.
Sols Soils, 3:4, 9-23.

BAGUEL1N, F. & JEZEQUEL, J.F., 1972. Etude experimentale du comportement de pieux sollicites
horizontalement. Ann. Inst. Tech. Bat. Travx. Pubs., 297, 153-204.

DETERMINATION OF MOMENTS AND DEFLECTIONS

Only the common case of piles with a rigid cap at ground surface will be considered
here. For other cases refer to MATLOCK and REESE (1960).

The distributions and magnitudes of moments and deflections in a pile subjected to

horizontal forces are essentially a function of the relative stiffness T of the pile-soil
system. T is given by:

T c [~s 1 1/5
J
where E elastic modulus of pile material,ton/sq ft
I = moment of inertia of pile cross section, ft 4
Ks = coefficient of subgrade reaction, ton/cu ft
and T = relative stiffness, ft

From the values of T the moments ~ and the deflections 0p may be computed at any depth
using the following formulas:

(PT)

op - Fo P T13]
[E

where = moment at depth z, ton ft

 - 289 -

op - deflection at depth z, ft
Fm = moment coefficient at depth z, as given in
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Fo deflection coefficient at depth z, as given in

P = horizontal load, ton
T relative stiffness, ft
E - modulus of elasticity of pile material, ton/sq ft
and I moment of inertia of pile cross section, ft 4
Values of M and 0 are shown graphically in Fig 8.6.1.
p p
REFERENCE

MATLOCK, H., REESE, L.C., 1960. Generalized solutions for laterally loaded piles. J. Soil
Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., 86: SM5, 63-91.

GROUP EFFECTS

The above considerations apply to individual piles. Little information is available

on the behaviour of pile groups but it is recognized that group action produces a reduction
of the coefficient of sub grade reaction. The reduction of Ks is a function of pile spacing
in the direction of loading, as indicated in Table 8.6.B.

TABLE 8.6.B
Sub grade reaction of pile groups related to pile spacing.

Spacing Kgroup
8 D 1.00

6 D 0.70 Ks

4 D 0.40

3 D 0.25 K
s

Pile spacing normal to the direction of loading has no influence provided it is

greater than 2.5 D.
 T
- 290 -

o
DEFLECTION COEFFICIENT, F8
FOR APPLIED LATERAL LOAD, P
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

0::
o
2 Lp = 2 .. '

I- T
U
«u..
:c 3
I-
0...
UJ
o

4
5
-0.2 o 0.2 0.4 0,6 0.8 1 .0
DEFLECTION COEFFICIENT, F8

I- r - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ = . , . ............
........
N
MOMENT COEFFICIENT, Fm " " .... .... ,
0::
FOR APPLIED LATERAL FORCE P
o L" \
I- 2 ~ = 2 )
u T I
«u.. I
z I
I
:c /
~ 3 3
UJ
o

-1 ,0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 o 0.2

MOMENT COEFFICIENT J Fm

FIG 8.6.1
DEFLECTION AND MOMENT COEFFICIENTS FOR LATERALLY LOADED
PILES
 COMMENTARY 8.7

EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS

TAB LEO F CON TEN T S

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

GENERAL 293

ZONES OF SEISMIC ACTIVITY 293

EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTIONS 296

SOIL BEHAVIOUR 296

COHESION LESS SOILS

Settlement of Cohesionless Soils
Soil Liquefaction
Level ground
Sloping ground
Backfill liquefaction
Liquefaction of thin layers
COHESIVE SOILS
SLOPING COMPACTED FILLS
Firm Foundations
Weak Foundations

FOUNDATION STRUCTURES 297

RETAINING WALLS
PILES AND DEEP FOUNDATIONS

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF BUILDINGS 299

REFERENCES

- 291 -
 COMMENTARY 8.7

EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

GENERAL

The earthquake resistant design of a building involves the consideration of a number of

factors including:

the magnitude of the forces transmitted to the structure as a result of the earthquake
accelerations;

the ground velocity and displacement;

the duration of strong ground motion;

the behaviour of the subsoils.

The earthquake motion at any particular site is a function of:

the distance of that site from the earthquake's causative fault, or the earthquake's
epicentre;

the earthquake's magnitude, duration, mechanism, and depth;

the depth and engineering characteristics of the soils overlying bedrock.

In the past, a main consideration relating to the structural design has been the magnitude
of the forces transmitted to the structure by the earthquake. For the comprehensive earthquake
resistant design of a structure it is necessary, however, to consider the ground velocity, the
ground displacement and the behaviour of the subsoils.

Studies of the damage caused by severe earthquakes in Alaska (1964), Niigata (1964),
Chile and San Fernando (197l) show that although in many cases the actual structure was left
intact, the building failed due to inadequate connection between the structure and foundation,
and/or failure of the subsoil. (Fig 8.7.l.).

Whilst analytical procedures are available, it is extremely difficult to produce quantitative

solutions for the complete earthquake resistant design of a structure. Considerable judgement is
required to evaluate the behaviour of a building and its subsoils during an earthquake. The purpose
of this Commentary is to indicate the range of problems associated with earthquake resistant
design. It must be noted by the designer that it is virtually impossible to make a structure
entirely earthquake resistant. The degree of a seismic design will depend upon the type of
structure, its use, the foundation conditions and costs of making the structure and foundation
better resistant to an earthquake.

For additional discussions on a seismic design of buildings see Commentary K, "Dynamic analysis
for the seismic response of buildings", Supplement No 4, N.B.C. 1975.

ZONES OF SEISMIC ACTIVITY

Major earthquakes are believed to originate when movement occurs within the earth along major
tectonic faults or fracture planes. The fault motion associated with earthquakes may be primarily
horizontal (strike-slip faulting) or vertical (normal or thrust faulting).

For the purposes of conventional building structures, Canada is divided into four zones of
seismic activity. (Fig 8.7.2.). These seismic zones have been established from an analysis of
data obtained from seismograph stations. Where available, historical information (prior to 1900)
confirms the solutions obtained from current data.

The available seismic data for the past seventy years has been statistically analyzed by
MILNE & DAVENPORT (1969) to produce geographical contours of peak firm ground acceleration for a
one hundred year return period. This predicted acceleration is subject to confidence limits in
the order of 100%.

- 293 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

FIG
8.7.1
- 294 -

TILTING OF BUILDINGS
(Courtesy of H.B.
SEED)
 Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

N
I.C
\J1

BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONE INDICATING GROUND ACCELERATION:'

AS A FRACTION OF GRAVITATIONAL ACCElERATION
SHOWN THUS -c::r

FIG 8.7.2
SEISMIC ZONES IN CANADA

•
 T
- 296 -

EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTIONS

The basic input data for seismic analysis are obtained from recordings of ground accelera-
tion during earthquakes. Strong motion accelographs are able to record three orthogonal
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

components of acceleration generated by an earthquake. Although available data of recorded

ground accelerations are limited, it is possible to indicate the general trends of this parameter
in relation to the earthquake magnitude, distance from causative fault or epicentre, duration of
shaking, type of soil deposit, and depth of focus.

For more detailed discussion on earthquake ground motions see Commentary J "Effects of
earthquakes", Supplement No 4, N.B.C. 1975.

Factors which affect surface ground motions are (HOUSNER 1970):

(a) nature of the source mechanism

dimensions and orientation of the causative fault

depth of focus

stress drop

amplitude, direction, time and history of the fault movement.

(b) travel path of the seismic waves

physical properties of the rock

geological structure of the region

(c) local geology

physical properties of soil

size of soil mass

orientation of bedding planes.

Depending upon the above factors, there can be an amplification or an attenuation of the
bedrock motions at the ground surface. Analytical procedures are available to estimate the ground
surface motions. The procedure consists of selecting design bedrock motions and determining the
dynamic response of the overlying soil. These analytical procedures are costly to perform for an
average building structure. WIEGEL (1970).

SOIL BEHAVIOUR

COHESIONLESS SOILS t

Settlement of Cohesionless Soils

Vibration is recognized as an effective means of densifying cohesionless soils.

Vibrations caused by earthquakes can lead to densification of loose cohesionless soil
deposits and associated settlements of the ground surface. Settlements of the ground
due to densification can lead to differential settlements in a structure. If one part
of a building is seated upon firm materials or a pile foundation and another part founded
on a backfill or looser materials, differential settlements caused by earthquake vibra-
tions may seriously affect the continuity of the structure.

Soil Liquefaction

If saturated cohesionless soils are subjected to earthquake ground vibrations, the

tendency to densify the sand is accompanied by an increase in the pore water pressure.
This build up in pore water pressure reduces the shear strength of the soil to a minimum
value. This phenomenon is known as liquefaction. In general, liquefaction occurs pri-
marily in saturated uniform sand deposits of loose to medium density.
 - 297 -

Level ground

In the case of level ground, the build up in pore water pressure causes water
to flow upward to the ground surface, emerging as mud spouts or sand boils.
The sand may be turned into a quick or liquefied condition. The resulting reduction
in shear strength of the sand can cause bearing capacity failures and settling of
structures into the quicksand. Submerged structures, being of a lower density than
the liquefied soil, may float to the surface.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Sloping ground

If liquefaction occurs in or under a slope, the slope will slide towards the
unsupported side. This is called a flow slide and occurs in loose saturated
cohesionless materials. Flow slides were observed in the earthquakes occuring in
Chile (1960), Alaska (1964) and Niigata (1964).

Backfill liquefaction

Waterfront bulkhead structures are often backfilled with sand. It being

difficult to compact the backfill below the water level, the sand is frequently
in a loose condition. If the backfill is liquefied during an earthquake, the
resulting pressure against the bulkhead can be considerably higher than the design
pressure resulting in damage to the bulkhead.

Liquefaction of thin layers

Thin layers or lenses of sand often occur within clay deposits. Liquefaction
of this sand layer could cause the overlying non-liquefied sloping soil to slide
along the liquefied layer. In addition, a zone of soil can collapse or sink into
the back end of the sliding mass. This depressed zone is referred to as a graben
(Fig 8.7.3.). Buildings located in an area in which a graben might form would be
subjected to large differential settlements and pulled apart. In addition, buildings
located near the toe of a slide can be heaved upwards or pushed over by the lateral
thrust. Many slides of this type were observed in the 1964 Alaskan earthquake.

COHESIVE SOILS t

Slides can occur during earthquakes in clay deposits. As clay deposits often include
sand layers, liquefaction of these layers may contribute significantly to such slides. Many
sensitive clay deposits are particularly vulnerable to sliding due to earthquake vibrations,
but evidence to date indicates that stiff sensitive clays found in Canada are not vulnerable
to sliding due to earthquakes.

SLOPING COMPACTED FILLS t

Firm Foundations

Where earthquake vibrations do not set up large pore water pressures in wel1-
compacted fills on firm foundations, the result is generally a slumping of the fill.
The slumping can vary from a fraction of an inch to several feet, depending upon the
height of the fill.

Weak Foundations

The behaviour of fills upon weak foundations during an earthquake is almost

entirely dependent upon the behaviour of the foundation material. Failures seem to
occur as a lateral spreading of the base and extensive longitudinal cracking.

t Photographs illustrating soil behaviour related to earthquake activity are

given in SEED (1970).
 - 298 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

~ CWEAK HORIZONTAL LAYER

(0) BEFORE THE EARTHQUAKE

(b) FORWARD MOTION OF MASS OF EARTH

(c) SLIPPING OF BLOCK OF EARTH TO FORM GRABEN

FIGURE 8.7.3
FORMATION OF A GRABEN
 - 299 -

FOUNDATION STRUCTURES

RETAINING WALLS

The natural tendency for an earthfill is to slide downhill during an earthquake. This
results in an increased pressure on retaining walls which can cause displacements and/or
cracking of the wall. This phenomenon was frequently observed in the 1964 Alaskan earthquake.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

PILES AND DEEP FOUNDATIONS

The main factors to be considered in the earthquake resistant design of pile foundations
are:
connection of the pile to the structure;

soil-pile foundation interaction;

loss of soil support to the pile.

The pile should be tied to the building by adequate structural connections both
vertically and horizontally.

Determination of soil-pile interaction can be estimated for deep pile foundations with
digital computer programs (PENZIEN 1970). The procedure requires a detailed knowledge of
the engineering characteristics of the subsoils, which include creep, damping, and dynamic
stress-strain properties. Deformations of the soil-pile mass can be estimated; stresses
developed in the piles are controlled by the pile curvature. The analytical procedure is
complex and not widely used.

Loss of soil support around piles can be caused by sand liquefaction. In the case of
friction piles, this results in a transfer of the load to the lower portion of the pile,
which may cause settlement. The unsupported length should also be investigated for buckling.
For end bearing piles, the main consideration is the buckling of the piles. Piles embedded
in soft loose fill tend to follow the movements of the fill during an earthquake and
buildings tend to come off the piles.

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF BUILDINGS

Examination of the behaviour of buildings during earthquakes indicates two main problems;

ground motions caused by the earthquake which will affect the structure and connection
of the structure to its foundation;

behaviour of the soil which can cause loss of support to the foundation.

The majority of soil behaviour problems are associated with loose deposits of granular soils
and the liquefaction of those soils. Considerable research has been carried out in the last few
years and is continuing on the liquefaction of granular soils. At present the phenomenon of
liquefaction is not fully understood. It is generally agreed, however, that the susceptibility
of a granular soil to liquefy is a function of its

density

shape of soil particles

grading characteristics (Uniformity of particle size)

amount and intensity of shaking.

In situ densities, and that at which a soil is susceptible to liquefaction, are extremely
difficult to determine with any meaningful degree of accuracy, and attempts to simulate field
conditions in the laboratory have met with very limited success. Therefore, where granular soils
are believed subject to liquefaction the engineering solution usually consists of densifying the
soil by the use of compaction piles, for example, or by removing the questionable soil and
replacing it with a better graded and more easily compacted soil.

A review of data on recent earthquakes shows that liquefaction generally occurs in deltaic
fine grained granular deposits and man made sand fills with little or no compaction. These
deposits have a low density and uniformity coefficients generally less than 5.

Site investigations and geotechnical studies for earthquake areas should only be undertaken
by specialists in this field.
 - 300 -

REFERENCES

Effects of earthquakes. Commentary J. Supplement No.4, N.B.C. 1975.

Dynamic analysis for the seismic response of buildings. Commentary K. Supplement No.4.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

N.B.C. 1975.

MILNE, W.G. and DAVENPORT, A.G., 1969. Earthquake Probability. Seismological Series of
the Dominion Observatory, Ottawa.

PENZIEN, J., 1970. Soil-pile foundation interaction. In. R.L. Wiegel (Ed.) Earthquake
Engineering, Chapter 14, pp. 349-381.

SEED, H.B., 1970. Soil problems and soil behavior. In. R.L. Wiegel (Ed.) Earthquake
Engineering, Chapter 10, pp. 227-251.

WIEGEL, R.L., 1970. (Ed.) Earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall Inc., N.J.
 •
T COMMENTARY 8.8

THE PRESSUREMETER TEST

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

TAB L E o F CON TEN T S

GENERAL 303

THE PRESSUREMETER EQUIPMENT 303

THE PROBE
THE PRESSURE AND VOLUME CONTROL UNIT (C.P.V.)
C.P.V. for Probes with Gas Inflated Guard Cells
C.P.V. for Probes with Liquid Inflated Guard Cells
TUBING

RECOMMENDED TEST PROCEDURE 305

PREPARATION OF THE PROBE

INSTALLATION OF THE PROBE IN THE GROUND
Installation in the Borehole
Installation by Direct Jacking into the Ground
TESTING

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEST RES1~TS 307

PRESSUREMETER CURVE
CREEP CURVE
CHARACTERISTIC PRESSURES
Correction of the Test Results
Limi t Pressure PL
Pressuremeter Modulus Ep
Presentation of the Results
TYPICAL VALUES OF Ep AND PL IN DIFFERENT SOILS

DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 310

BEARING CAPACITY
Equivalent Limit Pressure
Depth of the Foundation
Bearing Capacity Factor
SETTLEMENTS
Pressuremeter Modulus in Heterogeneous Deposits
Note

DESIGN OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS 315

DEEP FOUNDATIONS ON ROCK

DEEP FOUNDATIONS IN SOILS
Point Bearing Capacity
Skin Friction
Settlements
DEEP FOUNDATIONS SUBJECTED TO HORIZONTAL LOADS

REMARKS 318

REFERENCES
- 301 -
 r I
COMMENTARY 8.8

THE PRESSUREMETER TEST

GENERAL

The pressuremeter test developed by MENARD (1956) is an in situ loading test carried out in
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

a borehole by means of a cylindrical probe. This test allows the determination of the complete
load-deformation characteristics of the tested soil in plane strain conditions. In particular
the following ~arameters are determined:

the pressuremeter deformation modulus, representative of the elasticity of the soil,

which permits the evaluation of settlements,

the limit pressure, related to the shear strength of the soil, from which the bearing
capacity of foundations can be computed.

The pressuremeter test has been very widely used in Europe in the last 15 years and it was
introduced in Canada around 1965. The use of the pressuremeter in foundation design is based on
a number of empirical correlations which were established from a large number of tests and
observations on actual structures. Consequently, the quality of foundation designs based on
pressuremeter tests is very good, provided the tests are carried out according to the standard
method and in soils similar to those which have been studied in the development of the empirical
methods. This means that this test can be used in all soils with the exception of the soft
sensitive clays of eastern Canada for which experience is still limited.

The purpose of this commentary is to describe the equipment and the standard testing
technique, and to review the methods available for the design of foundations based upon the
test results.

NOTE: All pressures and stresses associated with the pressuremeter test are expressed in bars.
The following equivalents should be kept in mind:

1 bar 10 KN/m2 ~ 1 Kg/cm 2 ~ 1 ton/sq ft

In addition, the symbols used in the literature dealing with the pressuremeter are
not consistent with those adopted for use in this Manual. Therefore, those symbols which
might otherwise lead to confusion have been altered to conform with the Manual.

THE PRESSUREMETER EQUIPMENT

The various apparatus, which are presently in use, all function on the same principle and
consist of three components as shown in Fig 8.8.1.; a probe, a pressure and volume control unit
referred to as the C.P.V., and connecting tubes. The differences between the various apparatus
occur in the details of the probe design.

THE PROBE

The probe consists of a metal cylinder covered with an inflatable rubber membrane under
which three independent cells are located. The three cell system has been adopted so as to
ensure uniformity of stress and deformation conditions around the central cell which is used
for the test measurements.

The results from tests using monocellular probes are strongly influenced by uncontrolled
deformations at the ends making it difficult to obtain meaningful and consistent design
parameters. Use of such a probe is not recommended, nor should attempts be made to apply
the test results using such a probe to the design methods outlined here.

The probe is dilated by injecting a gas or a liquid into the three cells, which are
separated by tight inflatable membranes. In the apparatus most commonly used the central
cell is inflated with water or a liquid antifreeze, while the guard cells may be inflated
with either a gas or a liquid. The volume changes of the central cell during the test are
measured by reading the volume of water expelled from the C.P.V. In some experimental
probes, the deformations are measured by means of a displacement transducer but such a
system may lead to erroneous results in heterogeneous materials.
- 303 -

J I
 - 304 -
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

PRESSURE-VOLUME
CONTROL UNIT
(C. P. V.)

1-tItf-- G U A R D C ELL

........- - MEA SUR I N G C ELL

PRO BE

I-It-I----GUARD CELL

FIG 8.8.1
SKETCH OF PRESSUREMETER SHOWING C.P.V. AND PROBE
 - 305 -

THE PRESSURE AND VOLUME CONTROL UN IT (C. P • V. )

The C.P.V. consists essentially of a cylindrical reservoir with a graduated transparent

tube which is connected to the central measuring cell of the probe. This reservoir can be
pressurized using a pressure-reducing valve connected to a compressed gas tank. The pressure
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

applied to the reservoir can be controlled as required by the test procedure and is read on
Bourdon pressure gauges of suitable sensitivity.

Two types of C.P.V. are used which are related to the design of the probe.

C.P.V. for Probes with Gas Inflated Guard Cells

In this case the central cell is isolated by a special membrane. To overcome the
stiffness of this membrane, it is necessary to apply in the guard cells a gas pressure
which is lower than the liquid pressure acting in the central cell. This is accomplished
by having a separate circuit for the guard cells, which is connected to the main pressure
circuit through a reducer valve. This reducer valve can be adjusted, according to the
depth at which the test is carried out, to maintain a given pressure differential between
the central and guard cells.

C.P.V. for Probes with Liquid Inflated Guard Cells

In this case the same pressure is applied to the three cells. The C.P.V. includes
a second reservoir for the filling of the guard cells but only a single pressure control
is needed.

For both types of C.P.V. a gas circuit is provided which is used at the end of the
test to apply pressure on the outside of the central cell so as to force the cell fluid
back into the reservoir and to facilitate the retrieval of the probe from the borehole.

TUBING

Two or three flexihle tubes are connected to the probe and the C.P.V.

In order to reduce the errors in volume readings which would result from the dilatation
of the tubing connected to the central measuring cell, this tubing is run co-axially through
the tubing connected to the guard cells. Even so, it is necessary to measure the compliance
of the system when tests are carried out in very stiff materials, to ensure that representa-
tive moduli are measured.

RECOMMENDED TEST PROCEDURE

Investigations by Menard and the Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees, Paris, have led
to the development of a standard procedure for pressuremeter tests. A complete description of
this procedure is given in LCPC (1971) and a summary is presented here.

PREPARATION OF THE PROBE

Prior to the installation of the probe at the test location, the following operations
must be carried out:

the probe and the connecting tubes must be saturated, with water by flushing out all
air bubbles,
the probe must be predilated to ensure a constant stiffness of the membranes,

stiffness of the membranes must be calibrated. (This is done by conducting a

standard test with the probe in the air and the guard cells open to atmospheric
pressure. The measured volume versus pressure relationship represents the stiffness
of the probe) and,

the volume of liquid in the C.P.V. must be adjusted to its theoretical initial
value, Vo'
 i
- 306 -

INSTALLATION OF THE PROBE IN THE GROUND

There are three different ways of installing the pressuremeter probe in the ground at
the test elevation; by lowering in a borehole, by direct jacking into the ground or by
self-boring procedures. The latter requires special equipment which is not presently in
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

common use'.

Installation in the Borehole

This is the most common method. In order to obtain satisfactory test results, a
technique should be used which creates a minimum of disturbance in the walls of the
borehole. The boring method must be selected according to the type of soil and the
following are recommended;

In rock Standard core drilling with good quality equipment.

In soft, weathered rock Core drilling with bentonite mud as drilling fluid.

In till Drilling with a bull-nose, tricone or fishtail with

bentonite mud as drilling fluid.

In sand Drilling with a fishtail and bentonite mud.

In s tiff clay Drilling with a fishtail and bentonite mud; however

the hole left after taking a sample with a shelby
tube or a piston sampler is acceptable.

In soft clays Drilling with a fishtail or preferably with a special

auger and bentonite mud. (Sample holes are not
acceptable because of remolding of the clay resulting
from the suction developed during the retrieval of the
sampling tube.)

Use of bentonite mud is recommended in all cases; in soft or loose soils it is

recommended that a hollow pressuremeter probe be used to avoid a piston effect and
related soil disturbance while lowering the probe in the hole.

Installation by Direct Jacking into the Ground

In coarse granular soils such as gravels and gravely sands it is impossible to

obtain suitable conditions in a borehole and better results are obtained by driving
the probe into the ground. In this case the probe is normally protected with a slotted
steel tube attached at the bottom of the casing which is first driven to the desired
depth. The test is carried out inside the slotted tube, the stiffness of which is
measured prior to its installation.

Small diameter pressuremeter probes have also been developed which can be driven
directly into the ground. They are used for the control of compaction to depths of
less than 25 ft.

Investigations by the Laboratoire Centrale des Ponts et Chaussees have shown that
soil disturbance caused by the driving of the tubing, or that caused during boring, has
little influence on the measured limit pressure, so that bearing capacity evaluations
are possible in all cases. However, the pressuremeter moduli can be reduced significantly
by soil disturbance so that settlement predictions are possible only with tests carried
out in good boreholes.

TESTING

With all valves closed to isolate the measuring cell, the probe is lowered into pOSition
in the ground and fixed at the test elevation. The circuit is then opened and the initial
volume read on the C.P.V.

The test itself is carried out by applying pressure in increasing steps of equal
magnitude and duration. The pressure increase for each step should be selected so that the
limit pressure is achieved after about 10 steps (Tests with 7 to 14 steps are considered
acceptable.) The pressure is maintained constant for the duration of each step, i.e. for 1 min.
T
!

- 307 -

The variations of the volume are read on the C.P.V. at 15 sec, 30 sec, and 1 min after the
application of the pressure. The test is considered completed when the total volume
injected into the measuring cell is 700 cm 3 , or when the pressure capacity of the apparatus
is reached.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Once the test is completed, the pressure is released and the cell is deflated. If
necessary a gas pressure is applied in the guard cells to force the water out of the
measuring cell and back into the C.P.V.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEST RESULTS

PRESSUREMETER CURVE

The rough results of a pressuremeter test are presented in the form of a volume versus
pressure diagram as shown in Fig 8.8.2. The pressure is indicated in bars on the abscissa,
and the volume in cm 3 on the ordinate. The volume read at the end of each step i.e. after
each min is used. The pressuremeter curve obtained during the calibration of the probe is
generally shown on the same diagram so that the necessary corrections are easy to make.

CREEP CURVE

For each pressure step, the volume change observed between the volume readings at 30 sec
and 1 min is calculated. Variations of this volume change with pressure are presented on a
graph with the pressure in the abscissa and the volume change in the ordinate. This can be
done on the same diagram as the pressuremeter curve. The shape of the creep curve gives an
indication of the quality of the test; i.e. the central portion of this curve should be
nearly horizontal indicating little volume change, and nearly elastic behaviour of the soil.

CHARACTERISTIC PRESSURES

From the shape of the pressuremeter and creep curves shown in Fig 8.8.2., three
characteristic pressures can be defined:

In the first stage of the test, the volume increases rapidly with pressure and the
creep volume decreases, until a pressure, p~ is reached which should normally correspond
to the in situ total horizontal stress in the ground.

At pressures higher than Pi' the volume increases slowly and linearly with pressure,
and the creep volume remains constant and small, indicating elastic behaviour of the
soil around the probe. This elastic stage ends when the pressure equals the yield
pressure, Pf'

Beyond the yield pressure, Pf, the volume increases rapidly and the creep volume
increases with the applied pressure, indicating the development of soil failure
around the probe. With increasing pressures, the volume versus pressure curve tends
to an asymptotic limit for a pressure PL called the limit pressure.

Correction of the Test Results

Since all test results must be expressed in terms of the total pressure applied on
the walls of the borehole around the pressuremeter probe, the pressures read on the
Bourdon gauge must be corrected as follows:

The hydrostatic pressure equal to the difference in elevation between the middle
of the probe and the manometer multiplied by the unit weight of the fluid in the
apparatus must be added; and the pressure corresponding to the stiffness of the
cell at the volume at which the pressure is to be determined must be subtracted.
For tests in stiff soils, it may be necessary also to adjust the observed volume
to account for the compliance of the C.P.V. and the tubing.

These adjustments can be made on the full test curve to obtain a corrected test
curve. However it is more practical to correct only the relevant pressures
forming the results of the test; Pi' Pf' and PL'
 - 308-

700 __--__--_T----__ --~--_T----r_--~--~----r_--O

Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

(V) 600 PRO BE

~ CALIBRATION
u CURVE
Z 500
0 0
I-
4:
~
e:::: 400 0/
0
u...
w
0

u
300
PRE 5 5 U REM E TE R
CURVE
/0/ 30
(V)

~O/O ~

./
e::::
U
I-
w
~
::::>
200
: ~O
~O 20 -....
....J
:/0 >
0 <:]
> 100 <;>
I
10
0-
w
w
e--e-e-. 0
e::::
0 U
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
p. Pf PL
I

PRESSURE, bar

FIG 8 .8 .2
TYPICAL PRESSUREMETER AND CREEP CURVES
 - 309 -

Limit Pressure P
L
The limit pressure PL is generally determined simply as that pressure to which the
volume-pressure curve becomes asymtotic or that pressure at which the total producing
volume change reaches 700 cm 3 •
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

In some cases, if the strength of the soil is high, the limit pressure cannot be
obtained directly because the maximum pressure that may be used in the equipment is
limited. In this case, the limit pressure PL can be deduced from the yield pressure Pf.
The yield pressure is determined at the end of the horizontal section of the creep
curve or, if this pressure cannot be measured which may happen only for tests in rock,
the maximum test pressure is taken as Pf. The limit pressure PL is then estimated from
Pf by applying the following empirical correlation:

0.5 < < 0.75

(For a given soil this ratio is a constant)

Pressuremeter Modulus

The pressuremeter modulus is determined from the pseudo-elastic part of the test
corresponding to the linear section of the pressuremeter curve.

The pressuremeter modulus is expressed as

E
P

where vo initial volume of the central measuring cell of the+probe,

Pi Pf
V volume of water injected under the pressure p = ~--2--~
m
\I Poisson's ratio of the soil, generally taken equal to 0.33,
~ slope of the pressuremeter curve between Pi and Pf'
!J.V

The pressuremeter modulus is a shear modulus corresponding to a deviatoric stress field.

It should not be compared to the oedometer modulus.

Presentation of the Results

The results of pressuremeter tests are presented in the form of diagrams showing
the variations with depth of the pressuremeter modulus Ep ' the yield pressure Pf' and
the limit pressure PL.

To permit proper evaluation of a deposit, it is recommended that a series of tests

at a vertical spacing of 5 ft be carried out.

TYPICAL VALUES OF E AND P IN DIFFERENT SOILS

P L

From the very wide experience accumulated in France as well as in Canada the following
typical values of Ep and PL may be used for guidance:

J
 - 310 -

Type of Soil E , bar

p PL' bar

Peat and very soft clays 2 to 15 0.2 to 1.5

Soft clays 5 to 30 0.5 to 3
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

Firm clays 30 to 80 3 to 8
Stiff clays 80 to 400 6 to 25
Loose silty sands 5 to 20 1 to 5
Silts 20 to 100 2 to 15
Sands and gravels 80 to 400 12 to 50
Till 75 to 400 10 to 50
Recent f i l l 5 to 50 0.5 to 3
Ancient f i l l 40 to 150 4 to 10

DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

As mentioned in Chapter 6 the pressuremeter can be used to determine the bearing capacity
and the settlements of shallow foundations on soils or rocks. The design methods have been
established on the basis of full scale tests, MENARD (1965).

BEARING CAPACITY

The ultimate bearing capacity of a shallow foundation is proportional to the limit

pressure PL and it is given by:

where ultimate bearing pressure, bar,

overburden pressure, bar,
limit pressure, bar, (within a zone extending the width of the
foundation below the foundation level),
horizontal pressure measured at the foundation level,
bearing capacity factor which is a function of the geometry of the
foundation and the type of soil.

It is common practice to apply a factor of safety of 3 to the term Kg (PL - Pi)'

to obtain the allowable bearing pressure.

Equi valent Limi t Pressure

If a foundation sits on a deposit of varying strength, an equivalent limit pressure

PLe is used in the bearing capacity formula. PLe is defined as

where PL1' PL2' PL3 are the limit pressures measured one foundation width above
the foundation level, at the foundation level, and one foundation width
below the foundation level respectively.
 1
- 311 -

Depth of the Foundation

The depth of the foundation is generally taken directly from the geometry of the
foundation. However, if the strength of the soil is variable and an equivalent limit
pressure is used, an equivalent depth of foundation D defined as
fe
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

D
Of PL (z) dz
J
should also be used.

Bearing Capacity Factor

The bearing capacity factor K is given as a function of the geometry of the

foundation (width B, length L, de~th D ) and of the type of soil.
f
Four soil classes are defined as shown in the following table.

Limit pressure
Class Type of soil (PL bar)

soft to firm clays o- 12

1
silts o- 7

stiff clays 18 - 40

2 dense silts 12 - 30
loose sands 4 - 8
very low strength rock 10 - 30

sands and gravels 10 - 20

3
low strength rock 30 - 60

very dense sands & gravels 30 - 60

3a
rocks of medium to high strength 60 - 100 +
-I

Selection of the appropriate soil class should be made by an experienced soils

engineer on the basis of information obtained, not only from the pressuremeter tests,
but from all methods of investigation used on the given project.

The values of Kg are given in Fig 8.8.3. for the four categories and two limiting
values of the LIB ratio. To determine the value of Kg applicable to a rectangular
footing, the log scale on the left side of the figure may be used as explained.

SETTLEMENTS

The pressuremeter test gives a shear modulus in the horizontal plane. From classical
soil mechanics principles one would assume that this modulus has little relevance to the
problem of vertical settlements of footings. However, theoretical as well as full scale
experimental studies have shown that this test permits a much better evaluation of foundation
settlements. Settlement predictions based on pressuremeter test results are presently the
most reliable particularly for granular materials.

The settlement of a footing is given by:

s + E
P
 - 312 -

4~------~------~------~--------~------~------~------~~----~
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

1.1
co
"-
...I 1 .25
SQUARE
~
FOOTINGS
Z C<!

Q 1 .5
o
I-
LIB = 1
I- U
4: 4:
0 1 .75 ~

Z Mo
:::;) 2
0
~
2.5

0 3
w
~ 4 <..:>
4:
:t: 6 z
C<!
10 4:
w
20
co
Ao

o~------~------~------~--------~------~------~------~------~
o 2 3 4

D E P T H FA C TOR I Dfe I B

NOTE:

IN ORDER TO DETERMINE VALUES OF K FOR RECTANGULAR FOOTINGS THE SCALE

9
ON THE LEFT MAY BE USED TO AID IN INTERPOLATING BETWEEN THE CURVES GIVEN
FOR SQUARE AND STRIP FOOTINGS. THE EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATED IS FOR A FOOTING
WHERE LIB 2, A DEPTH FACTOR 2Dfe/B 1.5 AND A SOIL OF CLASS 3.

THE CONSTRUCTION IS AS FOLLOWS: POINT Bo (AT WHICH LIB'" I) IS CONNECTED

TO B ON THE CLASS 3 CURVE FOR SQUARE FOOTINGS WHERE 2Dfe/B = 1.5. POINT
A (AT WHICH LIB"" co) IS CONNECTED TO A ON THE CLASS 3 CURVE FOR STRIP
o
FOOTINGS WHERE 2Dfe/B = 1.5. LINES BoB AND AoA ARE EXTENDED UNTIL THEY
INTERSECT AT SOME POINT C. A LINE IS THEN DRAWN FROM C TO THE REQUIRED
RAT 10 0 F LI BON THE S CAL EON THE LEFT I W H I CHI NTH IS EX AMP LEI S 2 I AT Mo'
THE RE QUI RED V A L U E 0 F K I S REA D 0 F FAT M W HER E THE LINE M C I N T E R SEC T S THE
g 0
LINE AB REPRESENTING THE DEPTH FACTOR 2Dfe/B 1.5. THE VALUE a= Kg OBTAINED
IN THIS WAY IS 1.75.

FIG 8.8.3
BEARING CAPACITY FACTOR K FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
9
 - 313 -

where s settlement, cm
E pressuremeter modulus, bar
p
qa allowable bearing pressure, bar
R reference half-width equal to 30 cm
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

0
B width of the foundation
A2 , A3 shape factors as given in Fig 8.8.4. and
(l structure factor depending on the type of soil as given in the
P following table.

Sand and
Peat Clay Silt Sand Gravel Rock
Type Type
(l
E/PL (l
E/PL (l
E/PL (l
E/PL (l (l

P P P P P P

Overconsolidated - >16 1 >14 2/3 >12 1/2 >10 1/3 Wide spacing
of discon-
2/3
or very dense
tinuities

Normally consolidated 1 9.16 2/3 8.14 1/2 7.12 1/3 6.10 1/4 Moderately 1/2
or dense close spacing
of discon-
tinuities

Under consolidated - 7.9 1/2 5.8 1/2 5.7 1/3 - Close spacing 1/3
or loose of discon-
tinuities

Very close 2/3

spacing of
discontinuities,
very low
strength.

The first term of the equation represents the settlement caused by shear stresses, the
second term, the settlement caused by the increase in confining pressures.

Pressuremeter MOdulus in Heterogeneous Deposits

If the measured pressuremeter moduli under a foundation vary by more than 30% it
is recommended that an average moduli be used that is determined as follows:

The modulus used in the first term of the settlement equation should be taken
equal to Eb where Eb is defined as

4
~ 1/Ep1 + 1/0.85 EP2 + lIE P 3 , '+ , 5 + 1/2.5 Ep6,7,8 + 1/2.5 Ep9 to 16

where Ep1 ' Ep2 Ep16 are the pressuremeter moduli measured at depths of
1, 2, ••• 16 foundation widths below the foundation level.

The modulus used in the second term of the settlement equation should be taken as the
arithmetic mean of the moduli between the foundation level and a depth of B/2 below
this level.
 - 314-
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

2.5

("")

..<
0
z
« 2.0
N
..<

VI
.
0:::

0
l-
V
«u..
w 1 .5
Cl..
«
I
VI

1.0
o 1•0 2.0 3 .0 4.0 5 .0 6.0 7 .0 8.0 9.0 10.0

SHAPE OF FOUNDATION, LIB

FIG 8.8.4
SHAPE FACTORS FOR SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS
, - 315 -

Note

The above method of predicting settlements is applicable to all non-sensitive soils

supporting foundations with a width limited as compared to the depth of the soil deposit.
For soft sensitive clays and in general for soils with a pressuremeter modulus of less
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

than 30 bar, as well as for rafts, it is recommended that the predicted settlements be
checked by the classical method based on oedometer test results.

The method described in Chapter 6 of this Manual is a further simplification of

the method described above. It should be used only in the preliminary design of
shallow foundations.

DESIGN OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS

DEEP FOUNDATIONS ON ROCK

The pressuremeter is an ideal tool for the design of deep foundations on rock, in
particular for large diameter bored piles. The applicable design methods have been given
in Chapter 7 and do not need to be repeated here. It should be noted however that the
concepts of equivalent limit pressure PLe' equivalent depth of embedment Dfe , and average
moduli Eb' should be applied to the design of deep foundations in layered rocks.

DEEP FOUNDATIONS IN SOILS

Pressuremeter test results can be used to design deep foundations in soils, particularly
in granular soils.

Point Bearing Capacity

The point bearing capacity of a pile can be estimated from the limit pressure
by means of the formula

The value of Kq applicable here is given in Fig 8.8.5. The soil classes are the
same as defined earlier. A factor of safety of 3 should be applied to the term
K (PL - p.).
q 1.

Skin Friction

The skin friction acting at any depth on the surface of a deep foundation
unit can be estimated from the limit pressure PL at that depth.

The ultimate skin friction L is given in Fig 8.8.6. as a function of PL'

f
For deep foundations in cohesive soils, curve A should be used directly
for concrete and timber piles; a 25% reduction should be applied for
steel piles.

For deep foundations in granular materials, curve A should be used for

non-displacement, concrete piles and for displacement steel piles; a
50% reduction should be applied for non-displacement steel piles. Curve B
should be used for displacement concrete piles. In no case should the
skin friction be in excess of 1..2 bar.

It is recommended practice to apply a factor of safety of 2 to the skin

friction determined in this way.

I
~
 - 316 -

8
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

- -- ~ C l~SS
5

0-
~

3
.- ... ........... 3
. .. .. . .. .
.. - .

.. .. .. ...
2

_ _ BORED PILES

---DRIVEN PILES
0.8 ·······SLURRY WALLS

o
o 4 8 12 16 20 24

FIG 8.8.5
BEARING CAPACITY FACTOR K FOR DEEP FOUNDATIONS
q
 ,
- 317-

I-
1 .5
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

0
-'l

B
.....
....
Z 1 .0
0
~
A
u
0:::
u..

Z
~
Vl
0.5 /
/
w
~
/
/,," "
« AI'
~ /
/
~
....J
/
/
::>
0
0 5 10 15
LIM IT PRESSURE, P , bar
L

FIG 8.8.6
ULTIMATE SKIN FRICTION T ON PILES
f
 - 318 -

Settlements

While the settlements of deep foundations in soils can normally be predicted on

the basis of pressuremeter test results, it is recommended that the methods described
in Chapter 7 of this Manual be applied.
Copyright © NRC 1941 - 2019 World Rights Reserved © CNRC 1941-2019 Droits réservés pour tous pays

DEEP FOUNDATIONS SUBJECTED TO HORIZONTAL LOADS

The results of pressuremeter tests represent the best possible information for the
design of piles subjected to horizontal loads since the stress and deformation conditions
around the pressuremeter probe and the pile are nearly identical. The methods for designing
deep foundations subjected to horizontal loads are given in Commentary 8.6 of this Manual.

REMARKS

The pressuremeter test is an extremely powerful tool for the investigation and design of
foundations. Its use however requires a sound understanding of the standard techniques and
equipment and conformity to the empirical methods already described. In particular the soil
characteristics such as the undrained shear strength of clays and the modulus of deformation E
will generally differ significantly from the values obtained by conventional tests and, if p
used in classical design methods would produce erroneous results.

The pressuremeter test is particularly valuable for the design of foundations on soils which
are difficult to investigate by means of the conventional geotechnical methods such as dense
granular soils, tills, soft rocks and frozen soils. It is particularly well suited for the
design of deep foundations in such soils.

The pressuremeter appears very difficult to use in soft sensitive clays where disturbance
of the soil during the opening of the borehole results in erroneous evaluation of the clay
properties. As a consequence, sufficient reliable data is not yet available upon which to base
the specific factors for sensitive clays that are required in these empirical design methods.

REFERENCES

MENARD, L., 1956. An Apparatus for measuring the strength of soils in place. M.Sc. Thesis.
U. Illinois, Urbana.

L.C.P.C., 1971. Essai Pressiometrique Normal. Modes operatoires du Laboratoire central des
Ponts et Chaussees. Durod, Editeur, Paris.

MENARD, L., 1965. Regles pour Ie calcul de la Force portante et du Tassement des Fondations
en Fonction des Resultats Pressiometriques. Proc. Internat. ConE. Soil Mech. Found.
Eng., 6th, Paris. 2: 285-299.

MENARD, L., 1972. Rules for the calculation of bearing capacity and foundation settlement
based on pressuremeter tests. Draft Translation 159 & Cold Regions Res. Engg. Lab.
U.S. Corps of Engrs., Hanover, N.H.