PETEK ET AL 2002 - Defect Piles - Ok

Capacity Analysis of Drilled Shafts with Defects
Kathryn Petek* Conrad W. Felice** and R. D. Holtz***
*Graduate Student, University of Washington, Department of Civil & Environmental

Engineering, Box 352700, Seattle, Washington 98195-2700; PH 206 543-7614;
k_~0etek@u.washington.edu
9 . ~ ,
Mmmgmg Principal, C. Fehce & Company, 14150-227th Avenue NE, Woodinville, WA

98072; PH 425-882-2168; cfelice@cfelice.com
***Professor, University of Washington, Department of Civil & Environmental
Engineering, Box 352700, Seattle, Washington 98195-2700; PH 206 543-7614;
holtz@u.washington.edu
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a study to quantify the effect of defects on drilled shafts
under axial loading. These results represent the efforts of the first phase of a multi-phase
project with the goal of delivering a validated computation tool that will permit the direct
assessment of the load carrying capacity and performance of drilled shaiLs that have been
rejected due to the detection of defects by non-destructive evaluation (NDE) methods.
Current and historical industry practices for considering defects have been investigated and
commonly occurring defects have been characterized in terms of shape, size, and location.
A two-dimensional model for assessing drilled shaft behavior has been developed using the
commercial finite element program PLAXIS and verified by reproducing existing axial
load test data of "near perfect" drilled shatts. The validated model was then used to
analyze weak layer and neck-in type defects in three cohesive soil profiles. A parametric
study of the size, strength, and position of the defects was been performed and their effect
on the load carrying capacity of an idealized shaft is presented. The results of this analysis
show that under axial loading, the effect of a defect is highly dependent upon the
geotechnical capacity of a drilled shaft. A shaft in stronger soil will experience greater
loads and will therefore be more affected by presence of a defect than a shaft in weaker
soil. The position of a defect is also critical in determining its effect on shaft capacity.
Under axial loading, the top of the shaft is the critical location. Defects located at the
midpoint and toe of the shaft were found to have a greatly reduced effect on shaft capacity
compared to those located at the top of the shaft.
Introduction
This paper presents the results of a study to quantify the effect of defects on drilled shafts
under axial loading. These results represent the efforts of the first phase of a multi-phase
project with the goal of delivering a validated computation tool that will permit the direct
assessment of the load carrying capacity and performance of drilled shafts that have been
rejected due to the detection of defects by non-destructive evaluation (NDE) methods.
Current and historical industry practices for considering defects have been investigated and
commonly occurring defects have been characterized in terms of shape, size, and location.
1120
Downloaded 21 Apr 2011 to 164.41.100.240. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.or
DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 1121
A two-dimensional model for assessing drilled shaft behavior has been developed using the
commercial finite element program PLAXIS and verified by reproducing existing axial
load test data o f ' n e a r perfect" drilled shafts. The validated model was then been used to
analyze weak layer and neck-in type defects in three cohesive soil profiles. A parametric
study of the size, strength, and position of the defects was been performed and their effect
on the load carrying capacity of an idealized shaft is presented.
Background
Drilled shafts are an increasingly common deep foundation type used in the United States
and around the world. Also known as drilled piers, caissons, and bored piles, they are
constructed by placing fluid concrete in a stabilized or eased drilled hole, with reinforcing
steel placed in the exeavation prior to placement if desired (Reese and O'Neill, 1999).
Drilled shafts are advantageous because of their high load carrying capacity, where a single
drilled shaft may take the place of several driven piles. They are highly cost effective and
design changes can be made easily if soil or loading conditions vary from the original
designs. Additionally, when constructed properly, drilled shafts may have a minimal
impact on existing foundations and produce relatively little noise, which are advantages in
an urban environment (Fisher et al., 1995).
A disadvantage of drilled shafts is that their quality and performance can be
sensitive to construction procedures. When certain construction methods are used, shaft
inspection is difficult or impossible and there is a potential for defects to occur. Defects
that have been observed include neck-ins, voids, weak concrete zones, and sand inclusions.
Defects can result from concreting problems, difficulties in drilling, easing management
problems, slurry problems, or design deficiencies (O'Neill, 1991).
For many years, designers avoided drilled shafts because of their risk factor due to
potential defects and the high cost of load testing for performance verification. "Drilled
shafts were considered to be less reliable than other foundation types because of the
uncertainty of the effects of construction on the actual service behavior, and the limited
knowledge of either reliable quality control tests to locate and evaluate defects or
inexpensive load test procedures (DiMillio, 1999)." Advances in construction techniques
and evaluation methods have improved the economy and viability of drilled shafts. The
occurrence of defects is still an issue however, and their effect on drilled shaft performance
is uncertain. The purpose of this effort is to develop a validated numerical model to
evaluate defects in drilled shafts and to perform a parametric study of various defects to
gain an understanding of their effect on shaft capacity.
Model Development and Validation
Before analyzing specific types of defects and their effect on the load carrying capacity of a
drilled shaft, a model was developed and validated against existing load test data. The
commercially available finite element program PLAXIS was used in this analysis to model
neck-in and weak layer defects within a drilled shaft constructed in cohesive soils.
Although PLAXIS is a validated numerical tool that has been tested through a series of real
and theoretical problems, it was felt that further verification of the program was necessary
for use in this application. This section presents the field tests used for the validation
1122 DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002
calculation and the numerical model. The results of the numerical load tests are presented
and compared to the field recorded load test data. The analysis considered the effects of
diseritization (i.e., mesh development), interface behavior, construction sequencing, and
soil material properties.
Field tests. Results from two field load test programs were used to calibrate the numerical
model. One is a shaft in Texas from a compilation by Reese and O'Neill (1988) of drilled
shaft axial load tests. The other is a sha~ from the National Geoteehnieal Experiment
(NGE) site at Texas A&M University (TAMU), which was load tested as part of the 1993
FHWA Study: Drilled Shafts for Bridge Foundations. Table 1 provides general
information about these tests. Tables 2, 3 and 4 list the layering and material properties that
were used in the analysis. Only minimal soil data was available for Case 11. Extensive
geotechnical testing has been performed on the soils at the Texas A&M NGE site and the
soil properties for TAMU ShaR 7 were well defined in terms of both the total and effective
stress parameters.
Table I: Description of field load tests.

Diameter Len~h Soil Construction
Load Test Conditions Method GivenSoil Properties
(m) (m)
Reese and Undrainedshear
0.76 12.8 Stiff clay Dry/casing strengths
O'Neill Case 11
Undrainedand
TAMU Shaft 7 0.91 9.14 Very stiffto Dry effective strength
Hard Clay parameters, modulus
values
Table 2: Selected Mobs-Coulomb parameters for Case 11.
Layer Depth )'~ 3 ~t E c Ac AE

Range (m) (kN/m) (kN/m3) (kPa) v (kPa) # ~/ (kPa) (kPa)
Clay 1 0 3.05 18.5 18.9 95,800 D.495 300 0~ 0~ 0
Clay 2 3.05 7.01 18.5 18.9 71,700 ~).495 160 0~ 0~ 0
Clay 3 7.01 10.1 18.5 18.9 47,800 ~).495 86 0~ 0~ 0
Clay 4 10.1 15.2 18.5 18.9 47,800 D.495 86 0~ 0~ 20 4200
Clay 5 15.2 Depth 18.5 18.9 119,500 D.495 440 0~ 0~ 0
Table 3: Total stress parameters for TAMU Shaft 7 (Briaud et al., 2000).
Depth Range ~ 7~ 3 c = Su # Eo
Layer (m) (kN/m3) (kN/m) (kPa) (kPa) V
V. Stiff Clay 0 6 19.6 19 110 0 15000 0.495

V. StiffClay 6 12.5 19.5 19 140 0 35000 0.495
Hard Clay 12.5 depth 18.9 18 160 0 230000 0.495
DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002 1123
Table 4: Effective stress parameters for TAMU Shaft 7 (Briaud et al., 2000).
Layer Depth Range Y~ Yd~ 3 C Eo

(m) (kN/m3) (kN/m) (kPa) r (kPa) v
V. StiffClay 0 6 19.6 19 13 20 15000 0.35
V. Stiff`Clay 6 12.5 19.5 19 57 26.5 35000 0.35
Hard Clay 12.5 18 18.9 18 160 0 230000 0.495
Model development. Figure 1 illustrates the general finite element model that was
developed to analyze the behavior and performance of drilled shafts under axial loading.
The model was axisymmetric in order to account for the circular shaft geometry. Shaft
loads were represented as distributed loads applied at the top of the shaft. The mesh
consisted of &node triangular elements and a Mohr-Coulomb model was used to describe
soil behavior. The Mohr-Coulomb model was chosen because of its simplicity and ease of
application, particularly when only limited soil data is available. The Mohr-Coulomb
model can be used with general correlations and limited site data (e.g., SPT N-values or
undrained shear strength), as is often the case in practice. Input parameters include unit
weight, y, Young's Modulus, E, Poisson's ratio, v, cohesion, c, friction angle, r and
dilatancy angle, 9'. Only cohesive soils were considered in this analysis. For the validation
analysis the concrete was modeled as a linear-elastic material with the following properties;
Elastic Modulus, E = 25 GPa and Poisson's Ratio, v = 0.2. This is done for simplicity and
is considered reasonable because the strength of the concrete is so much greater than that of
the soil. In the analysis of defects, the Mohr-Coulomb model is used to describe concrete
behavior.
Figure 1: General drilled shaft model.
1124 DEEPFOUNDATIONS2002
Results of validation analysis. A series of numerical load tests were performed and the
output was analyzed to see if the buildup of stresses was reasonable when compared to
known shaft behavior. Load-displacement curves were generated at the top center point of
the shaft and compared against the field load test curve. Figure 2 shows a simple drilled
shaft model in PLAXIS with the refined mesh. Figures 3 and 4 show the results of the
validation analysis.
During this validation exercise, it was apparent that mesh size, loading sequence,
and interfaces along with soil properties such as Young's Modulus and undrained shear
strength significantly effected the results. The effect of these factors in relation to their
influence on the ability to predict shaft behavior and replicate the field load-displacement
curves resulted in the following observations.
9 It was generally found that a medium global mesh with 2-3 cluster refinements in the
vicinity of the shaft, and 1 line refinement around the shaft produced good results.
9 Interface elements can be applied to reduce the strength of the soil-shaft interface, but
should be used with caution because of the significant increase in elastic displacement
and the change in the load-transfer mechanism from shaft to toe resistance. The use of
a rigid interface is recommended.
9 In using the Mohr-Coulomb model for undrained clays, both effective and undrained
shear strength parameters can be used as input values. The undrained strengths are
more generally available and require a 50% reduction to reproduce the field load-
displacement curve of the shaft. High values of the soils Young's Modulus are
generally required to match field load-displacement curves, suggesting that the tangent
modulus should be used over the secant modulus in the Mohr-Coulomb model.
9 Construction conditions, such as softening of the soil or weakening oftbe soil-concrete
interface due to excavation or use of a casing do not significantly influence the
numerical results and can best be captured using a reduced undrained shear strength.
Figure 2: Axisymmetric PLAXIS model of a 'near-perfect'

drilled shaft.
Case 11
D = 2.5', L = 42', Stiff Clay Profile, Dry/Casing Const., GWT @ 20'
Error bars indicate 20% I Lo~ pep=)

l
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
!
o
0.2
0.4
io.6
~0.8 1 JL C a s e l l h a l f S u I/ II / b
1
1.2 . . . . . .
Figure 3: Results of a 'near-perfect' shaft in cohesive soil.
TABU Shaft 7
D = lm, L = 10.7m, Still ClaySite, De/Consb'.,GWT Q .,.6m
[. . . . . . . ] Load (kN)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
OI
1 ~.~----I '1
i [ --~p
43 ~ ~ F i e l d data I " ~ ~_
5 - ,r TAMU 7 half Su ~-
6- , TAMUShafl7halfSu, hlghl 9| a
7 E, rigid interface ' "-"
8 ----I --T- ..... I I ~=
Figure 4: Results of a 'near-perfect' shaR in cohesive soil.
Description of Drilled Shaft Defects
Two types of defects were considered in this analysis: a partial area neck-in type defect and
a full area weak layer type defect. Properties of the defects used in this analysis are shown
in Table 5. The values chosen represent typical larger size defects based upon
characterization by industry experts (Hertlein, 2000 and Olson, 2000). For the neck-in type
defect, a single height was considered with various area reductions to determine the critical
size for each soil profile. For the weak layer type defect, two layer heights were considered
with two concrete strengths. These defects are modeled as shown in Figure 5.
1126 DEEP F O U N D A T I O N S 2002
I
I
I
I *
I
I
I
I HD= height
nf
I
I
II [-~ Defective
Neck-in Type Weak Layer
Figure 5: Representation of defects in axisymmetric PLAXIS

model.
Table 5: Defects considered in drilled shaft analysis.

De~ct Typical Size Defect Considered
Variable decrease 50 &75% area reductions plus
in diameter further area reduction until
Neck-in
Height ranges from significant effect is observed.
0.3 - 1.2m Heie~ht of defect = lm
Height of defect = 0.6 andlm
Height ranges from
Weak Layer Defective concrete A & B
0 . 6 - lm
Neck-in defect. In drilled shafts, the shape of a neck-in defect may range from a gradual
elliptical shape to a more severe wedge form, but a simple rectangular defect was used in
this analysis as shown in Figure 5. This shape was chosen because it produces the greatest
loss of shaft cross sectional area, which produces the greatest effect on shaft capacity.
Other shapes, such as the wedge shaped neck-in, will produce higher peak stress
concentrations, but will have less effect on the load-carrying capacity. The results of this
analysis of neck-in type defects are expected be conservative or represent the worst-case
scenario.
In this analysis, the soil is assumed to completely fill in the void left by the neck-in
type defect. This implies squeezing or caving of the sides of the borehole. It may be
possible to have this type of defect and not have full contact between the soil and concrete
in the defect zone, however full contact was assumed in this analysis.
For each soil profile, the size of the neck-in was increased until a significant effect
was observed on the shaft load-carrying capacity. This size variation analysis was carried
out at the top of the shaft, where the highest stress concentrations occur in the shaft and the
defect will have the largest effect on capacity. A significant defect was then considered at
the midpoint and at the toe of the shaft to observe the effect of the defect with depth. All
defects were considered in terms of their effect on the load-displacement curve and various
output forms were used to consider the buildup of stresses in the shafts.
Weak layer defect. The weak layer defect was modeled as shown in Figure 5. Two heights
of the weak layer defect were considered such that Ho = 0.6 m and 1.0 m, corresponding to
commonly occurring heights of defective zones located by NDE. Two defective concrete
strengths were considered in this analysis as shown in Table 6 and were based upon a case
history (Branagan et al., 2000) where nondestructive evaluation of a shaft was performed
along with shaft coring and compressive strength testing of the recovered concrete
specimens. The various weak layer defects were considered at the top, midpoint, and base
of the shaft.
Table 6: Material properties of defective concrete.

Assumed Mohr-Coulomb
Velocity Compressive Unit Wt. Modulus r
(km/sec) Strength (MPa) (kN/m3) (kPa)
(kPa) r
Defective Concrete A 1.4" 2.4 22 3.6 x 106 1200 0~
Defective Concrete B 1.8 7.9 22 5.9 x 106 3950 0~
Defect Analysis
A 1 m diameter and 15 m long drilled shaft was modeled to assess the effect of neck-in and
weak layer defects on the load carrying capacity. Three different soil profiles were
considered in the general model in order to observe the effect of a defect with variations in
geotechnical capacity. General properties of the three soil profiles are shown in Table 7. An
undrained condition was considered with the water table located at the ground surface.
Table 7: Material properties of three cohesive sites considered in the analysis.

Young's Cohesion, c Friction
Soil Type S./Pa Modulus, E (kPa) (kPa) Angle, #
Soft Clay ~ 15,000 12.5 0~
Medium Stiff ~ 35,000 50 0~
Very Stiff 1 100,000 100 0~
Pa= atmosphericpressure= 1 atm = 101.3 kPa
The model for analyzing defects in drilled shafts was essentially the same as that for
the drilled shaft model calibration. An axisymmetfic model was again employed to model
the drilled shaft and gravity loading was used to ensure equilibrium in the calculatiofi of the
initial stresses. The model was discritized using a medium global mesh with a single
cluster refinement in the area around the shaft (Petek, 2001). The Mohr-Conlomb material
model was used to describe the concrete behavior for this analysis instead of the linear
elastic model used in the drilled shaft model development. This was done to allow for
failure in the concrete in and around the defect. Mohr-Coulomb concrete material
properties are shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Properties of Mohr-Coulomb concrete.

Unconfined Compressive
24.8 MPa
Strength, f'c
Unit Weight, y 0 kN/m3
Young's Modulus, E 23.5 GPa
Poisson's Ratio, v 0.2
Cohesion, c 4960 kPa
Friction Angle, ib 48 ~
Dilatency Angle, 0o
Tension Cutoff 2490kPa
Results a n d Discussion
The primary means of determining the effect on shaft capacity was by examining the load
displacement curve. The failure load is defined as the point of maximum curvature on the
curve, beyond which the amount of displacement increases rapidly and the shaft "plunges".
This definition of failure was used instead of other failure criteria for ease and simplicity.
Results of a neck-in type defect analysis. Neck-in sizes of 50% and 75% of the shaft cross
sectional area were first considered in this analysis for the various soil profiles. In all cases,
it was found that these sizes of neck-in defects do not adversely effect the shaft capacity.
The neck-in size was then increased incrementally for each of the soil profiles until a
significant effect was observed on the shaft capacity. The results of this analysis are
summarized in Table 9.
Occasionally, a defective shaR will reflect a higher capacity than the perfect shaft
condition. This is not the actual effect of the defect but is possibly attributed to variations
in the meshes for the perfect and defective shaft models. There is also slight error
associated with visually determining the failure load as the point of maximum curvature on
the load-displacement curve. The combined error of these two effects is within 5% though
and is not considered to be significant.
The amount of load that the shaft experiences determines the effect of the defect on
the shaft capacity. In the very stiff soil profile, much higher loads are experienced by the
shaft in comparison to those experienced in the soft soil model. Because a greater amount
of the structural capacity is utilized in the very stiff soil model, the loss of cross-sectional
area with the neck-in defect has a greater effect on the shaft capacity. Higher stresses
develop in the shaft with the higher geotechnical capacity, which leads to greater stress
concentrations in the area around the defect. It is also noted that when comparing the
perfect and defective shaR stress plots, the defect has only a local effect on the stress
distribution and the affected zone extends approximately 1 lid (HD = height of the defect,
see Figure 5) in either direction from the defect. Figure 6 shows the corresponding relative
shear stress plots for the 85% neck-in defect at the top of the shaft for the various soil
profiles. The relative shear stress plots for the perfect shaft are shown for reference at the
same applied load.
Table 9: Results of various size neck-in type defects at 2 m in various soils.

Neck-in Failure Capacity
Soil Type Size Load (kN) Reduction
Perfect 840
50% 877 -4%
75% 860 -2%
85% 875 -4%
Soft
90% 880 -5%
95% 830 1%
97% 820 2%
98% 560 33%
Perfect 3250
50% 3300 -2%
Medium Stiff 75% 3300 -2%
85% 3200 2%
90% 2700 17%
92% 2230 31%
Perfect 6460
50% 6290 3%
Very Stiff 75% 6390 1%
80% 6030 7%
83% 5223 19%
85% 4640 28%
In the soft soil profile of Figure 6, it is the soil that is in failure for both the perfect
and defective shaft cases because very little load is actually experienced by the shaft due to
the limited geotechnical capacity. In this case, there is a minor increase in the relative shear
stresses in the defective zone, but the maximum is still only approximately 0.5 and far from
failure. In the medium stiff and very stiff profiles however, the loads on the shaft are high
enough that failure occurs in the concrete. This is evident in the very stiff soil profile,
where there is a large zone in both the shaft and the soil where the relative shear stresses are
equal to one. Comparing to the perfect shaft case, the defect appears to cause a change in
the failure mechanism such that as failure occurs in the concrete, load is shed to the
adjacent soil and a local soil failure zone results.
The effect of the position of the defect was also considered in this analysis.
Although the critical location under axial loading is the top of the shaft, defects more
commonly occur during construction in the lower portions of the shaft (Olson, 2000 and
Hertlein, 2000). Therefore, defects that were found to strongly affect shaft capacity at the
top of the shaft were considered at the midpoint and base of the shaft. Table 10 shows
results of significant defects at the various positions in the medium and very stiff soil
profiles. Defects in the soft soil profile were not considered here because little effect was
previously observed for a defect near the top of the shaft. It is evident from Table 10 that
the position of the defect is very significant in the effect of a defect on shaft capacity. For
both cases, defects at the midpoint and toe had little or no effect on the shaft capacity. This
is considered to be a function of the distribution of load within the shaft.
1130 DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002
Figure 6: Relative shear stress plots at a failure load for 85%

neck-in defect at 2 m for various soils.
Table 10: Effect of a defect at various positions in medium and very stiff soils.
Neck-in Size and Failure Load Capacity
Soil Type
Position (kN) Reduction
Perfect Shaft 3250
Medium Stiff 92% Defect @ 2m 2230 31%
Soil 92% Defect @ 7.5m 3220 1%
92% Defect @ 13m 3140 3%
Perfect Shatl 6460
Very Stiff Soil 85% Defect @ 2m 4638 28%
85% Defect @ 7.5m 6260 3%
85% Defect @ 13m 6280 3%
Figure 7 shows the relative shear stress plots for the perfect shaft and defect shaft
with an 85% neck-in at the various positions. The dissipation of load with depth is evident
with the decreasing proximity to failure with depth. The defect at 2 m is as shown in Figure
6 and significantly effects shaft capacity. For the defect at 7.5 m, there is some failure
occurring in the concrete around the defect and a failure zone develops in the soil adjacent
to the defect. However compared to the perfect shaft for this case, it is generally the soil
that is in failure because of limited geotechnical capacity. The effect of the defect is
therefore minimal. When the defect is located at 13 m, there is only a minor change in the
D E E P F O U N D A T I O N S 2002 1 ! 31
Figure 7: Relative shear stress plots at failure load for 85% neck-in
defect at various positions in very stiff soil.
relative shear stresses in this zone because little load reaches this depth. The defect at this
location appears to only slightly effect the shaft capacity.
Results of weak layer analysis. The weaker defective concrete A was first considered at
various positions in the three soil profiles and the results for this defect are summarized in
Table 11. Table 11 provides the failure load of the defective shaft and corresponding
capacity reduction for the various cases.
As found with the neck-in type defect, the soil capacity and geotechnical strength
controls the amount of load on the shaft and the resulting effect of the defect on the shaft
capacity. In the soft soil profile, very little load is applied to the shaft because of the low
geotechnical capacity. The strength of the concrete member is so much greater than the
strength of the soil that the weak layer defect has no effect on the shaft capacity. For the
very stiff soil profile however, high loads are applied to the shaft. In this case when the
defect is present, the structural capacity of the drilled shaft is less than the geotechnical
capacity. When the weak layer defects are applied at the top of the shaft, significant
capacity reductions result.
Figure 8 shows the relative shear stress plots for the defect located at 2 m in the
various soil profiles along with the relative shear stresses in the perfect shaft under the
same load. For the weak concrete layer in the soft soil case, there is no structural failure of
the shaft because of the relatively low applied load. However for the two other soil
conditions, the defective concrete material falls and load is transferred to the surround soil,
creating a failure zone in the soil.
The effect of the position of the defect is very evident in the results of the weak
layer defect in the very stiff soil. As noted in Table 11, the defect at the top of the shaft has
a very significant effect on the shaft capacity. The effect of the defect is noticeable but
1132 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002
Figure 8: Relative shear stress plots at failure loads for Ho=l m,

concrete a weak layer defect at 2 m for various soils.
Figure 9: Relative shear stress plots at failure loads for Hv~l m,

concrete a weak layer defect at various positions in very stiff
soil.
significantly reduced when at a position of 7.5 at the midpoint of the shaft, and no apparent
effect is seen when located near the base of the shaft. The relative shear stress plots in
Figure 9 confirm this effect and show the weak layer at 2 in is in total failure, while the
defect at 13 m has only a maximum relative shear stress of approximately 0.7. The load
transfer mechanism is also visualized in this figure, in that as stress builds up in the shall
l o a d i s t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e s u r r o u n d i n g soil. Once the weak layer fails, little load is

transferred to the shaft or soil below this depth.
T a b l e I 1: R e s u l t s o f a w e a k la ,er d e f e c t i n v a r i o u s s o i l s .
Defect Size and Failure Load Capacity

Profile Position (kN) Reduction
H e i g h t = 0.6 m,
900 -5%
Position = 2 m
Height = 1.0 m,
860 - 0%
Position = 2 m
H e i g h t = 0.6 m,
875 -2%
Position = 7.5 m
Soft Soil
Height = 1 m,
864 - 0%
Position = 7.5 m
H e i g h t = 0.6 m,
891 -4%
Position = 13 m
H e i g h t = 1 m,
880 -2%
Position = 13 m
Height -- 0.6 m,
2440 25%
Position = 2 m
H e i g h t = 1 m,
2960 9%
Position = 2 m
H e i g h t = 0.6 m,
3290 -1%
Position = 7.5 m
M e d i u m Stiff Soil
Height = lm,
3230 1%
Position = 7.5 m
H e i g h t = 0.6 m,
3305 -2%
Position = 13 m
Height = lm,
3253 - 0%
Position = 13 m
H e i g h t = 0.6 m,
3930 40%
Position = 2 m
H e i g h t = 1 m,
3030 53%
Position = 2 m
H e i g h t = 0.6 m,
6030 7%
Very Stiff Soil Position = 7.5 m
H e i g h t = 1 m,
5200 20%
Position = 7.5 m
H e i g h t = 0.6 m,
6480 - 0%
position = 13 m
H e i g h t = I m,
6480 - 0%
position = 13 m
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn fTom this analysis on the effect of defects on
drilled shafts under axial loading. These results represent the efforts of the first phase of a
multi-phase project with the goal of delivering a validated computation tool that will permit
the direct assessment of the load carrying capacity and performance of drilled shafts that
have been rejected due to the detection of defects by non-destructive evaluation (NDE)
methods.
1. PLAXIS can effectively be used to model drilled shaft response using undrained
cohesive materials with the Mohr-Coulomb material model. Certain parameter adjustments
were found necessary and these included mesh refinements within 2-3 shaft diameters, use
of a high modulus of elasticity values and reduced undrained shear strength values.
2. Under axial loading, the effect of a defect is highly dependent upon the geotechnical
capacity of a drilled shaft. A shaft in stronger soil will experience greater loads and will
therefore be more influenced by the presence of a defect than a shaft in weaker soil.
3. The position of a defect is critical in determining its effect on shaft capacity. Under
axial loading, the top of the shaR is the critical location. Defects located at the midpoint
and toe of the shaft were found to have a small effect on shaft capacity compared to those
located at the top of the shaft.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this research was provided by the Federal Highway Administration, Tumer-
Fairhank Highway Research Center and the West Coast Chapter of the Association of
Drilled Shaft Contractors. The support from these organizations is gratefully
acknowledged. The authors would also like to acknowledge the support provided by Larry
Olson of Olson Engineering and Bernhardt Hertlein of STS Consultants for their
willingness to share their knowledge and experience on this subject matter.
References
Branagan, P., Vanderpool, W., Murvosh, H. and Klein, M. (2000) "CSL Defines CIDH
Defects; Coring Confirms Results," New Technological and Design Developments in Deep
Foundations, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 100, Proceedings of Sessions of Geo-
Denver 2000, Editors Dennis Jr., N., Castelli, R., and O'Neill, M.W., ASCE, pp.110-124.
Briaud, J-L, Ballouz, M., and Nasr, G. (2000) "Static Capacity Prediciton by Dynamic
Methods for Three Bored Piles," Journal of G-eotechnial and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, July, pp. 640-649.
DiMiUio, A.F. (1999) "Quarter Century of Geotechnical Research", Report No. FHWA-
RD-98-139, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 168p.
DEEPFOUNDATIONS2002 1135
Fisher, D.J., O'Neill, M.W., and Contreras, J.C. (1995). "DS^2: Drilled Shaft Decision
Support System," Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, vol. 121,
no. 1, March, pp. 86-94.
Hertlien, B., STS Consultants, personal communication, October 6, 2000.
Olson, L., Olson Engineering, personal communication, October 2, 2000.
O'Neill, M.W. (1991) "Construction Practices and Defects in Drilled Shafts",

Transportation Research Record No. 1331, TRB, Washington D.C, pp. 6-14.
Petek, K. (2001) Capacity Analysis of Large Diameter Drilled Shafts with Defects. A thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Reese, L.C. and O'Neill, M.W. (1999) "Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and
Design Methods," Report No. FHWA-IF-99-025, Federal Highway Administration,
McLean, VA.
Reese, L.C. and O'Neill, M.W. (1988). "Field Load Tests of Drilled Shafts," Proceedings,
Third International Geotoehnieal Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles,
Ghent, Belgium, October, pp. 145-190.

PETEK ET AL 2002 - Defect Piles - Ok

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

PETEK ET AL 2002 - Defect Piles - Ok

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Capacity Analysis of Drilled Shafts with Defects

Kathryn Petek* Conrad W. Felice** and R. D. Holtz***

*Graduate Student, University of Washington, Department of Civil & Environmental

Mmmgmg Principal, C. Fehce & Company, 14150-227th Avenue NE, Woodinville, WA

Model Development and Validation

Table I: Description of field load tests.

Table 2: Selected Mobs-Coulomb parameters for Case 11.

Layer Depth )'~ 3 ~t E c Ac AE

V. Stiff Clay 0 6 19.6 19 110 0 15000 0.495

Layer Depth Range Y~ Yd~ 3 C Eo

Figure 1: General drilled shaft model.

Figure 2: Axisymmetric PLAXIS model of a 'near-perfect'

Error bars indicate 20% I Lo~ pep=)

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Figure 3: Results of a 'near-perfect' shaft in cohesive soil.

Figure 4: Results of a 'near-perfect' shaR in cohesive soil.

Description of Drilled Shaft Defects

Neck-in Type Weak Layer

Figure 5: Representation of defects in axisymmetric PLAXIS

Table 5: Defects considered in drilled shaft analysis.

Table 6: Material properties of defective concrete.

Table 7: Material properties of three cohesive sites considered in the analysis.

Table 8: Properties of Mohr-Coulomb concrete.

Table 9: Results of various size neck-in type defects at 2 m in various soils.

Figure 6: Relative shear stress plots at a failure load for 85%

Figure 8: Relative shear stress plots at failure loads for Ho=l m,

Figure 9: Relative shear stress plots at failure loads for Hv~l m,

l o a d i s t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e s u r r o u n d i n g soil. Once the weak layer fails, little load is

Defect Size and Failure Load Capacity

Hertlien, B., STS Consultants, personal communication, October 6, 2000.

Olson, L., Olson Engineering, personal communication, October 2, 2000.

O'Neill, M.W. (1991) "Construction Practices and Defects in Drilled Shafts",

Você também pode gostar

Kathryn Petek* Conrad W. Felice and R. D. Holtz*