Citation
Evaluating of 14H-piles' load capacity in cohesionless soils for Edward's project using β-method and finite element method

Material Information

Title:
Evaluating of 14H-piles' load capacity in cohesionless soils for Edward's project using β-method and finite element method
Creator:
Binmahfouz, Yahya
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of science)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
Department of Civil Engineering, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Civil engineering

Notes

Abstract:
Impediments to the progress of civil engineering projects could have adverse consequences on the economy and reputation of the builders. Many peer-reviewed papers supported the main objective of this paper which is Evaluating two 14H-Piles in cohesionless soil for Edward’s project by using finite element method and 𝛽-method. However, comparing the methods is the best technique to prevent the failure in foundation and soil. Also, field investigation with many in-situ tests can indicate the great picture of what the soil properties are. The main objective of this paper is to find out how much the soil can resist the loads with different location of Edward (Northern portion and Southern portion) by using different methods. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has prepared the soil profiles for Edward’ project by using standard penetration test (SPT).

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright Yahya Binmahfouz. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
EVALUATING OF 14H-PILES’ LOAD CAPACITY IN COHESIONLESS SOILS FOR
EDWARD’S PROJECT USING P-METHOD AND FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
By
YAHYA BINMAHF OUZ
B.S. in Civil Engineering, Umm-Al-Quraa University, 2012
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of requirements for the master’s degree Civil Engineering
2019


Table of Content
Table of Contents................................................................................i
List of Figures.................................................................................iv
List of Tables................................................................................viii
Abstract.........................................................................................x
Acknowl edgem ent...............................................................................xi
Chapter
I. Introduction.............................................................................1
Problem Statements.....................................................................1
Research Goals and objectives..........................................................1
Research Tasks.........................................................................1
II. Literature Review on Driven H-Pile Capacity..............................................3
Historical Perspective of Geotechnical Engineering.....................................3
Soil formations........................................................................4
Mechanical Weathering Presses......................................................4
Chemical Weathering Presses........................................................4
Types of Soils.........................................................................4
Soil Classification Systems............................................................4
AASHTO Classification System.......................................................5
Unified Classification System......................................................6
Bearing Capacity of Driven Pile.......................................................12
Type of Driven Pile Foundations...................................................12
Pile Foundations..................................................................12
H-Pile Foundations................................................................13
i


Axial Load Transfer Through H-Pile...............................................14
Shaft Resistance.................................................................16
Tip resistance...................................................................22
Ultimate Resistance..............................................................23
Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Method....................................................24
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Method................................................25
Calibrated friction angle of Sandy soil by SPT...................................26
III. Theoretical Background of Load and Resistance Factor Design of Driven Piles........29
Introduction..........................................................................29
Types of Highway Bridge’s Loads.......................................................30
Estimate Total Dead Loads.............................................................32
Estimate Total Live Loads.............................................................34
IV. Plan for Static Load Test at Edwards, Colorado.....................................35
Introduction..........................................................................35
Plan and Implement a Static Load Testing Program......................................35
Axial Compression Load Test...........................................................35
Equipment of Compressional Test.......................................................36
Interpretation of Compression Test Result........................................40
Evaluation of Load Transformation................................................40
Telltales........................................................................41
Strain Gages.....................................................................42
V Subsurface Exploration for the Planned Bridge Site at Edward, Colorado................46
Introduction........................................................................46
Bedrock in Edward’s Project.........................................................46
ii


Standard Penetration Test (SPT)..................................................47
Correction to The Test Data...................................................49
Log Boring From B-l to B12 for Edward’s Ground...............................52
Estimate of Soil Parameters Using SPT Blow Counts............................72
Estimate of Soil Parameter for Analysis.......................................72
Development of Soil Parameters for I-70G Edward’s Project....................75
VI. Nominal Capacity of Driven Piles at Edwards, Colorado.............................87
Introduction.....................................................................87
Computing The Nominal Capacity for 14 H-Pile in Cohesionless Soil...............89
VII. Finite Element Analysis of H Pile performance.....................................93
Introduction.....................................................................93
Finite Element Analysis by (SSI3D Software) Method...............................93
The Presses of Finite Element Method.............................................94
Analysis of 14/102 H-Pile.....................................................96
Modeling ofHP14/102 in SSI3D..................................................96
Modeling of the soil profile..................................................99
Side Shear, Displacement, and Load Displacement Curves.......................102
VIII. Biased Factors for steel HP14*102 for Resistance Factor Calibration.................108
IX. PILE Driving Analyzer (PDA).........................................................109
PDA Components..................................................................109
PDA Procedure...................................................................110
Test Result.....................................................................Ill
X. Comparison of The Results............................................................114
XI. Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendation for Future Study.............................118
References................................................................................119


List of Figures
Figure 1.1: The location of Edward’s Bridges...............................................2
Figure 2.1: Karl Terzaghi (1883 - 1963) (Das & Sobhan, 2013)...............................3
Figure 2.2: Plasticity Chart (Das & Sobhan, 2013)..........................................7
Figure 2.3: Flowchart For coarse-grained(Das, 2015)........................................9
Figure 2.4: Flowchart For fine-grained(Das & Sobhan,
2013).....................................................................................10
Figure 2.5: Flowchart For Classifying coarse-grained(Das & Sobhan,
2013).....................................................................................11
Figure 2.6: Types of Deep Foundation(Coduto, 2001)........................................12
Figure 2.7: Classification of Pile Systems (Coduto, 2001).................................13
Figure 2.8: Hardened Steel Point Attached to The Toe of a Steel H-Pile to Protect Hard Driving.
(Coduto, 2001)............................................................................14
Figure 2.9: Transfer of Structural Loads from a Pile Foundation into the Ground: (a) Axial Downward ( Compressive) Loads, (b) Axial Upwards (Tensile) Loads, and (c) Lateral Loads.
(Coduto, 2001)............................................................................15
Figure 2.10 Transfer of load to a pile and from a pile to the soil. (Cai, Liu, Tong, & Du,
2009).....................................................................................17
Figure 2.11 Beta-coefficient for piles in sand versus embedment length. (Data from Rollins et al. 2005 with ranges suggested by CFEM 1992, Gregersen et al. 1973, and Hong Kong Geo
2006).....................................................................................19
Fig. 2.12 Beta-coefficient in sand versus average effective stress. (Data from Clausen et al. 2005) ..........................................................................................20
IV


Fig. 2.13 Beta-coefficient for piles in clay versus plasticity index, IP. (Data from Clausen et al.
2005 with results from five cases added; Fellenius 2006).................................21
Figure 2.14: Apparent preconsolidation stress vs. N60 for soils. (Mayne,
2006)....................................................................................27
Figure 2.15: Combinative in-situ test interpretations of stress history at College Station sand site,
Texas. (Mayne, 2006).....................................................................28
Figure 3.1: Bell Curves Illustrating Distribution of Load and Resistance (FHWA, July 2015)... 30
Figure 3.2: Steel Girder and Tributary Area (FHWA, July 2015)............................32
Figure 3.3: Design Truck (FHWA, July 2015)...............................................34
Figure 3.4: Design Lane Load (FHWA, July 2015)...........................................34
Figure 3.5: Effect of Design Truck Plus Design Lane Load (FHWA, July 2015)...............34
Figure 4.1: Axial compression static load test (FHWA, 2016)..............................36
Figure 4.2: Static load test setup diagram (FHWA, 2016)..................................37
Figure 4.3: Load test application and monitoring system (FHWA, 2016).....................38
Figure 4.4: Load test movement monitoring components (FHWA, 2016)........................39
Figure 4.5: Typical load-movement curve for axial compression load test (FHWA, 2016)....40
Figure 4.6: Diagram of telltale rods installed on the pile (modified from Kyfor et al. 1992)
(FHWA, 2016).............................................................................42
Figure 4.7: Vibrating wire strain gage sister bars for concrete embedment (FHWA, 2016)...43
Figure 4.8: Vibrating wire strain gage with welded anchor blocks and protective channel
(FHWA, 2016).............................................................................44
Figure 4.9: Electrical resistance strain gage on sister bars in concrete pile casting bed (FHWA, 2016)....................................................................................44
v


Figure 4.10: Multiple externally mounted strain gages (2 on each web face) located in soil
resistance free area during static load test (courtesy WKG2) (FHWA, 2016)...........45
Figure 5.1: The SPT Sampler in Place in The Boring with Hammer, Rope, and Cathead (Adapted
from Kovacs et al., al) (Coduto, 2001)..............................................48
Figure 5.2: The SPT Sampler (Adapted from ASTM D1586; Copyright, used with
Permission)(Coduto, 2001)...........................................................48
Figure: 5.3: Types of SPT Hammers. (Coduto, 2001)...................................51
Boring Log Nol.......................................................................52
Boring Log No2.......................................................................54
Boring Log No3.......................................................................57
Boring Log No4.......................................................................58
Boring Log No5.......................................................................60
Boring Log No6.......................................................................62
Boring Log No7.......................................................................63
Boring Log No8.......................................................................64
Boring Log No9.......................................................................66
Boring Log No 10.....................................................................68
Boring Log Nol 1.....................................................................69
Boring Log Nol2......................................................................70
Figure 6.1: Bearing Capacity Factor Ny (Coduto, 2001)................................88
Figure 6.2: Bearing Capacity Factor Nq (Coduto, 2001)................................88
Figure 6.3: Load-Displacement Curve for H-Pilel4/102.............................90
Figure 6.4: Load-Displacement Curve for H-Pilel4/102 for B-3.........................92
VI


Figure 7.1 (Hien, 2019)..............................................................94
Figure 7.2: A Geometry of 14 H-Pile in SSI3D (3D)....................................97
Figure 7.4: A Cross Section of 14 H-Pile in SSI3D (2D)...............................98
Figure 7.3: N60 Vs. Depth forB-9.....................................................101
Figure 7.5: Side Shear Distribution Along H-Pile 14/102.............................102
Figure 7.6: Depth V.s. Displacement Curve for H-Pilel4/102..........................104
Figure 7.7: Load-Displacement Curve for H-Pile 14/102................................105
Figure 7.8: Side Shear Distribution Along H-Pile 14/102 forB-3......................106
Figure 7.9: Depth V.s. Displacement Curve for H-Pilel4/102 for B-3..................107
Figure 7.10: Load-Displacement Curve for H-Pile 14/102 forB-3........................108
Figure 9.1: cap beam testing schemes: Optionl presents the initial scheme, Option 2 presents
modified scheme.....................................................................110
Figure 9.2: A-A Section Connection Detail Between Cap Beam and Pile Head.............Ill
Figure 9.3: Time history of SLT of initial scheme....................................112
Figure 9.4: Comparison between applied and measured load...........................113
Figure 9.5: Load settlement curve of pile group.................................113
Figure 10.1: Comparison of Different Bearing Capacity Methods for Southern Portion (B-9)
(Chang, 2018).......................................................................114
Figure 10.2: Comparison of Different Bearing Capacity Methods for Northern Portion (B-3) (Chang, 2018).......................................................................115
vii


List of Tables
Table 2.1: AASHTO Soil Classification System (Das & Sobhan, 2013).......................5
Table 2.2: Description of Soil in Plasticity Chart......................................6
Table 2.3: Unified Classification Chart (Das & Sobhan,
2013).....................................................................................8
Table 2.4: Approximate Ranges of Beta-coefficients (Randolph, 2003)......................18
Table 2.5: Approximate Values of X (Randolph, 2003)......................................22
Table 2.6: presents a range of values for clay, silt, sand, and gravel. (Randolph, 2003).23
Table 2.7: Summary of direct CPT-based pile design methods. (Cai et al., 2009)...........24
Table 2.8: Comments on direct CPT-based methods. (Cai et al., 2009)......................25
Table 2.9: SPT direct methods for prediction of pile bearing capacity (Cubrinovski et al.,
1999)....................................................................................25
Table 5.1: Evaluating Engineering Properties of Shale Rock (M.Santi, 1996)..............47
Table 5.2 SPT Hammer Efficiency. (Coduto, 2001).........................................50
Table 5.3: Borehole, Sampler, and Rod Correction Factors. (Coduto, 2001)................51
Table 5.4 the unit weight of most of the soil in situ. (Coduto, 2001)...................74
Table 5.5: Correlation(Transportation, 1996).............................................75
Table 5.6: Soil Parameters for B-l.......................................................76
Table 5.7: Soil Parameters for B-2......................................................77
Table 5.8: Soil Parameters for B-3.......................................................78
Table 5.9: Soil Parameters for B-4.......................................................79
Table 5.10: Soil Parameters for B-5......................................................80
Table 5.11: Soil Parameters for B-6......................................................81
viii


Table 5.12: Soil Parameters for B-7.......................................................82
Table 5.13: Soil Parameters for B-8.......................................................83
Table 5.14: Soil Parameters for B-9.......................................................84
Table 5.15: Soil Parameters for B-10......................................................85
Table 5.16: Soil Parameters for B-ll......................................................86
Table 5.17: Soil Parameters for B-12......................................................87
Table 5.1: The Nominal Side Friction Capacity............................................88
Table 5.2: The Nominal Side Friction Capacity for B-3....................................89
Table 6.1: The Nominal Side Friction Capacity for B-9....................................90
Table 6.2: The Nominal Side Friction Capacity for B-3....................................91
Table 7.1: the geometry of HP14/102......................................................96
Table 7.2: Correlation(Transportation, 1996).............................................99
Table 7.3: The Estimated Soil Parameters by SPT for B-9..................................100
Table 10.1: Total Side Friction Capacity for 14H-Pile (Boring 3 and Boring 9)............119
IX


EVALUATING OF 14H-PILES’ LOAD CAPACITY IN COHESIONLESS SOILS FOR
EDWARD’S PROJECT USING P-METHOD AND FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
Abstract
Impediments to the progress of civil engineering projects could have adverse consequences on the economy and reputation of the builders. Many peer-reviewed papers supported the main objective of this paper which is Evaluating two 14H-Piles in cohesionless soil for Edward’s project by using finite element method and /?-method. However, comparing the methods is the best technique to prevent the failure in foundation and soil. Also, field investigation with many in-situ tests can indicate the great picture of what the soil properties are. The main objective of this paper is to find out how much the soil can resist the loads with different location of Edward (Northern portion and Southern portion) by using different methods. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has prepared the soil profiles for Edward’ project by using standard penetration test (SPT).
Keywords: geotechnical engineering, bearing capacity, deep foundations, FEM, strength, /?-method


Acknowledgment
Beneficial strategies prevent many issues before they escalate and become complicated problems. Therefore, investment in basis is a brilliant strategy. In the meantime, the development of the basis is needed by investors because they found that weak basis might be awful. Thus, a meager bases affect structure awkwardly. In other words, if students had been taught with weak education, they would be with struggles in their knowledge which might cause them a weakness in their education systems.
In the same way, geotechnical engineering is the basis of all buildings because the first step to build structures is geotechnical analysis, so subsurface of the buildings must be treated sufficiently to avoid sustainability issues in the future. Structures without treated soil and strong foundations might cause many issues, and this issue may not be seen immediately because soils’ botheration would take a long time to appear. In the present, strong soil that can resist loads of the buildings have been used since people moved to cities, and the other soil that has not used is weak. Improving soil is not effortless because the soil has a lot of uncertainty that could be affected by any external impact, such as weathering, leaching, and cracking. Eradication of soil issues can be solved by improving engineering properties of soils and modeling the soil-interaction by the worthy methods, such as the finite element method. Subsequently, soil can receive loads’ buildings without increasing the stress of the soil when soil properties have been Oimproved.
Furthermore, a well-designed foundation prevents the soil from getting stressed dramatically. There are two principal kinds of the foundation that should be assigned regarding the soil profile, and they are shallow foundations and deep foundations. Shallow foundations usually resist the load by end bearing, and its depth is short comparing to deep foundations. On the other hand, deep foundations usually resist the load by end bearing and friction bearing, and these particular foundations can resist mega-loads, such as bridges, high rise buildings, and airports. In the past ten years, deep foundations have established to play a more significant role in foundation engineering development, with an escalation in the urban renaissance, and events to address issues related to foundations engineers’ concerns in the foundation’s design.
XI


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Problem Statements
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has a plan to improve the interstate highway by building several bridges in many states and develop the roadway from north to south of the states, so this research determines the highway improvement for Edward’s, Colorado. This research considers the foundation improvement for two bridges that are located in Edwards, Co. The first bridge is located over the Eagle River (South Portion), and the second bridge is located over an inactive Union Pacific Railroad (Figure 1.1). In other words, each bridge should be replaced with a new bridge that has two lanes in each direction.
Research Goals and objectives
The Colorado Department of Transportation recommends that the type of foundation should be driven pile foundation to support the abutments of the bridge, and the driven pile should be tipped into the bedrock to meet both axial capacity and lateral resistance. In the same way, the size of the driven pile is 14 H-pile according to professor Chang. This study aims to evaluate the total bearing capacity for Edward's project for the twol4-H-pile foundation that should be driven into two different locations (North & South Portion). According to the Colorado Department of Transportation, most of the field test indicates that the site has sandy soil. Moreover, this study determines the total bearing capacity from different methods: Finite Element Analysis and P-method.
Research Tasks
Field exploration is the most important task in geotechnical engineering because it describes a perfect picture of what the soil parameters are for each layer in the ground.
According to The Colorado Department of Transportation, the soil profiles of Edward’s project were explored by standard penetration test (SPT), and the number of boreholes is twelve boreholes. Therefore, the number of blow count should be calibrated with many equations to find out the soil strength parameters of each layer, such as the friction angle, the cohesion, the unit weight, and module of elasticity.
1


Determination of the total bearing capacity for two 14H-piles that should be driven into different locations and different soil properties (Northern Portion, and South Portion). After soil parameters were determined by field exploration, the two driven piles should be modeled by using finite element method, and the affordable program for this task is soil structure interaction 3-D program (SSI3D). Then, the total bearing capacity should be compared with the nominal bearing capacity that should be calculated by P-method.
The calibrations of load resistance and factor design should be collected from all states that are in the improvement plan and determination the best factor design to avoid the fail for both bridges of Edward, Colorado.
Axial load test should be applied for both bridges on instrumented full-scale piles to determine the load-settlement and the load- transfer relationships. Then, the measured data should be compared with corresponding values predicted by FEM and P-method.
Figure 1.1: The location of Edward’s Bridges: The White Market Presents The Location of The Eagle River Bridge, The Yellow Market Presents The Location of The Union Pacific Railroad.
2


CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW ON DRIVEN H-PILE CAPACITY Historical Perspective of Geotechnical Engineering
Geotechnical engineering concepts started early in the 18th century, and most of these concepts were depended on experimental practices. In 1908, Albert Mauritz Atterberg stated that the size of clay’s particle is less than 2 microns, so he found the critical concept of the plasticity. Moreover, he expanded his research in the consistency of cohesive soil by defining a liquid limit, plastic limit, and shrinkage limit (Das & Sobhan, 2013).
In October 1909, earth dam at Charmers, France failed with 56 ft high; therefore, Jean Fontrad investigated the reason for failure. Thus, he did an undrained double-shear test on the taken sample. As a result, his investigation admitted that the time of failure was between 10 to 20 minutes. Arthur Langley found the relationship between lateral pressure and resistance that was for the bearing capacity of shallow foundation in clay soil. The stability analysis of saturated clay slope with an internal friction angle equals zero was developed by Wolmar Fellenius in 1918. Karl Terzaghi developed the theory of consolidation while he was teaching at the American Robert College in Istanbul, Turkey (Das & Sobhan, 2013).
3


Soil Formation
A natural aggregate of mineral grains is the best description of soil. In the same way, the rocks are the natural aggregate of mineral grains with strong cohesive force. The weathering process can segregate mineral grains by reducing the cohesive force. Thus, the particle of rocks would be a smaller and smaller particle, and this process might be from mechanical or chemical weathering process (Das & Sobhan, 2013).
Mechanical Weathering Prosses
Change in temperature could influence the volume of rocks in term of expansion and contraction. Also, rain and wind can cause erosion for the rocks and isolate them from being smaller. Cracking in rock let the plant to grow up in voids between the cracks, so growing the plant might break down the rock (Das & Sobhan, 2013).
Chemical Weathering Prosses
This kind of prosses is called decomposition which moves from hard rock mineral to soft rock mineral, and it includes hydration, oxidation, carbonation, desalination, and leaching (Das & Sobhan, 2013).
Types of Soils
Soils can be used for many purposes, such as agriculturist, and construction. The process of weathering can format the soil. For example, because of the weather, the rock can be ranged from colloidal to boulders, but soils can be ranged according to their grain size under categories, cobbles, gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The soils that have a graining size between 4.75 to 76.2 mm are gravel soils. The grains that can be seen without a telescope are sandy soil, and their diameter is less than 4.75mm (Das & Sobhan, 2013).
Soil Classification Systems
In geotechnical engineering, two systems classify the soil regarding their engineering properties, such as grain-size distribution, liquid limit, and plastic limit. They are the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) system, and the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM) system (Das & Sobhan, 2013).
4


AASHTO Classification System
In this system, the soil is classified into eight groups depending on their grain-size distribution, liquid limit, and plastic limit. Coarse-grained materials are recorded in group A-l, A-2, and A-3. Fine-grained materials are recorded in group A-4, A-5, A-6, and A-7. The organic materials are recorded in the group A-8 (Das & Sobhan, 2013).
Table 2.1: AASHTO Soil Classification System (Das & Sobhan, 2013).
Granular materials
General classification (35% or less of total sample passing No. 200 sieve)
A-l A-2
Group classilication A-l-a A-l-b A-3 A-2-4 A-2-5 A-2-6 A-2-7
Sieve analysis (rf passing)
No. 10 sieve 50 max
No. 40 sieve 30 max 50 max 51 min
No. 200 sieve 15 max 25 max 10 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 35 max
for fraction passing No. 40 sieve
1 .iqiiid limit (LL) 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min
Plasticity index (PI) 6 max Nonplastic 10 max lOmax 11 min 11 min
Usual type of material Slone fragments. Line sand Silty or clayey gravel and sand
gravel, and sand
Subgradc rating Lxccllcnt to good
Silt-clay materials
Goneral classification (More than 35% of total samplo passing No. 200 sievo)
Group classification A-4 A-5 A-0 A-7
A-7-5" A-7-611
Sieve analysis (r4 passing)
No. 10 sieve No. 40 sieve No. 2(H) sieve .V) min 36 min 36 min 36 min
Tor fraction passing No. 40 sieve
l.it|iiid limit (I.L) 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min
Plasticity index (I’ll 10 max 10 mux 11 min 11 min
Usual types of material Mostly silly soils Mostly clayey soils
Suhgradc rating Pair to poor
'll 1*1 «£ LL 30, the classification is A-7-5.
Il I’l > I.L 30. (he classification is A-7-6.
5


Where:
/200 =Presesnt Passing No200 Seives LL= Liqued Limit PI= Plasticty Index
Unified Classification System
The first person who used the unified classification system is A. Casagrande in 1942. Then, the United States Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers edited this system later. In this system, most of the geotechnical engineers the following table for identifying the type of soil in the plasticity chart (Das & Sobhan, 2013).
Table 2.2: Description of Soil in Plasticity Chart (Das & Sobhan, 2013).
6


Figure 2.2: Plasticity Chart (Das & Sobhan, 2013).
7


Table 2.3: Unified Classification Chart (Das & Sobhan, 2013).
I
!
Q
CO
1 1,1 5 1
ll SSllSel
* & * is z z n c
v
VI

11
5 c
5 5: v,
s 0 ^
8 S| VI - -
II ]
5
5
5i - *
tj
115 ill
t -1 i At *
lliilllh
7 c t 3: 5 5:
£
©•
I
Ji
J ll
•v _ ri
5 K

« =!-i * ■- -
| ! 11 |l 11 1
J j Ills j JI !
â– 8 g
li i
li
i
** c I
I!
ft
f u
£ 9 ?
£
d
j "3
S' I I
111 IJ111
I 1 I
i!
«i
i
1
i-
£
. c5 1 1
.r.j X Cl
i i i
5 i | i i
&
â– s
j*
1
I
>.
1
I
.5
t
I if. lit!

s d
I ?s ill
III
1! 1
ip
111 ?r I
I
^2
19 -5- S
I o I a*
II oj;
1111
s 1 S! 3
stM
sun
&• > 9 25“
£ if *5 a
el > O iS el*
I S
151!
Hi
t - “
, iS
I 1
^1 Ji.
f IlSs
# _ 5 i-*
H
5?
J t i/: C B •£ £ -‘ *2 •£ ^ ^ w. it
(.After ASTM, 2011) Based on ASTM D2487-10 Standard Practice Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification) (Das & Sobhan, 2013).
8


3
a
â– r.
3L
3
5
1 =1
^ si
>1 f
3 2
ir]|
iF
u
V w
* * * *
li "w "5 *C
2 •* «
i 'K zJ -J
â– g 3 3
2 2 5 2
•<* •<» o *-t
3 -J r:
2 r
.*« >. % fJ *,<
b / 2 "b "w u >
3C s. i ± S
r p il
tt t
111
ft tt
111]
& '& * * v. >/i r; r
i £•
— z *
S’ = J -
d — •= n — O <-u ->■ > a
1«I i ^ " & * JE4 — •aj ~ g 3
IIS •"? ^ ■?' JS, -= x; T3 e B v: 1 ^ 1 5 _C ■g 1 s >-» JS ^ 3 i! r. » v j -Its* yi wt v 'j -■=-£*£= V ^ a
i i ^ ^ 1 s =[ if X ^ ^ as cf if ff « 2 ^
s ^ J jj Cl V T5 ” »- c c r •* rs T9 T9 *T3 TS C -TT «“ IT = c c e rt g ^ £ -a “55
t4 _( <-» 5 #53 ij jr . " •- r - J n v> *r * • j -j a -
-j . j _ 3 5 £; «s» I. . ' 1 -4 a S 4”-? •J jl ; i 3 . z? ^ v • v sJ - 3 11 3 *W> 1 *i ? n a 9 •» *— w . ;». :-. > :-. 8 % 1 - £ ■a - 3 - A' i* 5 y >» * • <-» -J
- S ? £‘C- "♦I ’ # : £ £ ” ” “ “ # # i i i £ £ i ~f* *c‘ H oi ir L w c7s io
t * 11 •y ty> Ci l^ y /i ttt*tt t \ t t ttt t b V u u tr 11 O U V L ttt li v b u u
1111 •g-2 -3 ^ -2 3 a i 3 i a jl |1 • p U. a u 5. See 2 H H «u S. 5, fi s. ill. 1, II
iMf# r r t. v, r. *n *r. r <■ in •r. *n *r. *r\ # v # y n n ir. us «r. t. (r.
V ft V 2. V ft - V ft V ft V ■** V •> V .v V ft V /V V ft
V V 4. V 5 2 nr \| V f V */K /• y if m 2 ^ •e w cr. / fir
=- s. -e w w 3 5 is A. A. w w
t t | A A 4 a' A A A A t f |
> — * 5 X > _ — * U _;
5% v-t 15 7 ^ O v> t fc J5 5
» O 7. 35 L> > C S K w S 5r U C
1 1 j E £ u - w A r- • i j «A » •1 V* ^
£ 2 y C «S w c = X CCS Figure 2.3: Flowchart For Classifying coarse-grained! more than 50% retained on No 200 sieve) (After ASTM, 2011) Based on ASTM D2487-10 Standard Practice Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification) (Das, 2015)
9


=
*
s
-*¥ f * = j 5 ». ». 3 & ' j» j»
j: S' S'71 c
f f'8'3 a s till
J3 .2 IT-!! j# Jfr.fr
ssi if a X
x* v v 7 ,5-
_1 J . J ✓ ■✓. O w

t» w
( St
â–²
- — r - *2 *2
• ^ * -t r r
AV&hII ?
11????
;r 5* v’ A V A
5 â– ?
* r
1 §
« * is. *<■?
Sf — £•£•
T AAlFl J-I-
iiiffl!
J / / ^
* * - ‘ ‘
“ ~
6 «
^ s g «
* v a act
11????
1
T 1
a 1
j 5 i
J? a * as J* "5 &„ « * * 5 £ s s frfr
5 s «-4-; s
JJIJ
« a
tru??
11**** r # V A V A
1 1
T5
*9 #
5 2 * 5* S'
* >.^3 73
aS-S-2 4 -i ? I; 43 3
lllijff "• '• ”;; i f
A A A
â– C-ft ft
S'?-?
11????
T> » S
W JfrJfr
5 *
a &m * ^ 55:^i
Alii1*
* V ¥.
A 'A M _ _
5 3 3 s 1 e 2
â–²
t# v
St 5
trim
II****
^ V A V A
vv V —, s 2 r« 77 JVV T fi n 77 r s* FF
w w u a* # # n rl « to l £ r # S. 1 ^a r 4 * * 1 1 * r r» li £ \ # r
A V 1 1 IT. r« A V 1 1 i- » v * S 1 -g 2 - 3 S ■ I «r. r» V ^ A V 1 1 i# ft i i rff i«
V */ # # V V £ # # F V 7" IP W V 7 V
_5
*c
✓
If
E
s
a
a?
v
mi
t
V*
~
f

« X
7? —
i. t
5 •<
w :
?! |
X.
a
VAJi VA VA ^
V I V V I
I
I
Jr * * s
i
g
i
•a
E
Figure 2.4: Flowchart For Classifying fine-grained( more than 50% retained on No 200 sieve) (After ASTM. 2011) Based on ASTM D2487-10 Standard Practice Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification) (Das & Sobhan. 2013)
10


Figure 2.5: Flowchart For Classifying coarse-grained( more than 50% retained on No 200 sieve) (After ASTM. 201 f) Based on ASTM D2487-10 Standard Practice Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification) (Das & Sobhan, 2013)
11


Bearing Capacity of Driven Pile
Type of Deep Foundations
Most of the engineers do not prefer to use deep foundations in their projects because they are expensive and difficult to build, but many situations impose engineers for using deep foundations in the field such as, high-rise buildings which cause a huge lateral load capacity. Depending on site insulation methods, many kinds of foundations have been developed, so those kinds are caisson, piles, and pile-supported and pile-enhanced mats (Coduto, 2001).
Driven ode type*
HHite 03r (.'T'"** <_' Concf*
0 0#
H
I A
â– 
Drilled pdc type*
Oil
Figure 2.6: Types of Deep Foundation (Coduto, 2001). Pile Foundations
p." Pile / Reml Concrete C Belled 0 1 p Sleel Cote C Reinl Cone rale
• • 0 ( H
â–  â–  1 1
1 1 1 i
1 1 1 i
1 1 1 1 1 1 n rr U4 ”i F
1 I 1 k 1 1 i 1 f
â–  1 1 Tf ll ll i 1 t
Pile is foundation wildly used in the fields, and it is penetrated deep into the soil. Also, this kind of foundation divided into three types regarding the field’s demands.
1- Driven piles are manufactured elements that should be driven deep into the ground.
2- Drilled shafts should be cast in the field by digging a hole. After that, the reinforcing steel should be placed into the excavated hole, and it should be filled with concrete.
3- Auger Piles is similar to the drilled shaft, but this kind uses a hollow stem auger (Coduto, 2001).
12


Dttpiaccmtflti High Otpittxrocfit Non hvpLkfment Non* 1 Medium DitpUcment Diiplaccnient
T* -Timber L I Inwpppned Auger Cat! m Drilled
Open liiiJcd Prcciu F.icasaunti Plate (ACIPi Divplatcmc
PipePilw Concrete Pile L (DO) file*
Pile* Driven in (lined End Open Hole Partial Dbpiaccmo
—Pttdnliol of Pipe Pvlct SKin«cd
Jetted Motet Mandrel â– 1 Etta taboo
Driven SMIt
Teroponr)
Ciwnjt
Permanent
Gating
-Sun) filled
Figure 2.7: Classification of Pile Systems (Coduto, 2001).
H-Pile Foundations
The length of the H-piles usually is from 15 to 50m (50 to 150 ft), and they can resist axial loads from 350 to 1800 kN (80 to 400 k). When H-piles are driven, they cause small displacement for soil, and they can be driven to bedrock by using a hardened steel point. Subsequently, they have a perfect performance in foundation design (Coduto, 2001).


Figure 2.8: Hardened Steel Point Attached to The Toe of a Steel H-Pile to Protect Hard Driving (Coduto, 2001).
Axial Load Transfer Through H-Pile
The main applied loads to H-piles are axial loads and lateral loads. Axial loads are forces conducted along the vertical axis of H-piles, so the axial load causes compressive stress and sometimes tension stress. However, the lateral loads create shear and moment. Different methods should analyze those loads because their movements through the H-pile into the ground are different (Coduto, 2001).
14


P r\k!
ttt
r,
(a) (b) (o
Figure 2.9: Transfer of Structural Loads from a Pile Foundation into the Ground: (a) Axial Downward ( Compressive) Loads, (b) Axial Upwards (Tensile) Loads, and (c) Lateral Loads (Coduto, 2001).
H-pile can transfer the loads from the structure into the ground by toe bearing and side friction. The toe bearing resists the load that is between the bottom of the pile, and it is similar to transferring load of the shallow foundations. In the other hand, the friction along the pile’s side and adhesion between the soil and pile produce the side friction capacity (Coduto, 2001).
Where:
q= Gross Toe Bearing Resistance
Pt= Axial Load Mobilizaed Between the Pile Toe and The Underlying Soil At= Pile Toe Contact Area
15


Eq.1.2
Where:
/ = Side Friction Resistance
Ps= The Side Force Transferred from The Pile to the ground.
As= Pile Side Contact Area.
Analysis of how the loads transfer through driven piles under axial loads is the first step that has been taken before designing them, and this analysis focuses on the bearing capacity of driven piles. Therefore, the bearing capacities of driven piles are toe bearing capacity and side shear capacity. The load-transfer analysis is often called static analysis or capacity analysis. In this analysis, the settlement must be involved because settlement analysis of piles cannot be separated from load-transfer. There are two crucial primaries that can assign the driven pile capacities, and they depend on the kind of soil (Randolph, 2003).
Firstly, the analysis that uses undrained shear strength is called a-method, or stress-independent method, and this analysis is for sandy soil because the pile resistance is proportional to the effective overburden stress in sandy soil. Also, the function of this analysis is the shaft shear because a cohesive material, such as sandy soil does not usually deal with overburden stress, but it deals with surrounding effective stress (Randolph, 2003).
Secondly, the analysis that uses effective stress is called /?-method or an adhesion method, so this analysis is for the clay soil. Finally, the a-and (3 -methods, usually refer to shaft resistance. Most of the foundation design methods use empirical correlations whether by use of a -method or 13-method (Randolph, 2003).
Shaft Resistance
Dead load and live load are considered in the static analysis of axial pile, and they transfer from the top of piles to the toe of pills trough soil layers, so the loads can be refused by the toe and shaft resistance as indicated in Fig. 2.1 (Cai et al., 2009).
16


Q = Load
Figure 2.10 Transfer of load to a pile and from
Qd = Dead load. Sustained load Q; = Live load, Transient load r, = Unit shaft resistance Rs = Total shaft resistance ct, = Unit negative skin friction Q., = Drag force rt = Unit toe resistance R, = Total toe resistance L = Pile length D = Embedment depth
pile to the soil (Cai et al., 2009).
The general numerical relation for the unit shaft resistance, rs, of a short pile element is
rs = c'' + /? Where:
c '• = effective cohesion intercept (or, simply: shear strength—undrained or otherwise) usually, c' is not included in the analysis
/3 = Bjerrum-Burland coefficient (or "effective-stress proportionality-coefficient")
<7Z'= effective overburden stress
17


Note:
Usually, the shaft resistance of soil increases through the movement because of strain-softening response. Also, the cohesion factor should be zero because unit shaft resistance mostly deals with the effective overburden stress as indicated in Eq 2.1 a. In other words, shear resistance applies when there is movement. Usually, there is friction between pile surface and soil surface along with the pile, so that friction might produce shear forces develop along with compression. The load-movement for the shaft resistance and shear stress should not be disturbed by the direction of the movement (Cai et al., 2009).
The accumulated shaft resistance from Depth 0 through Depth z is
Rs = / Asrsdz = / As(c'' + (3az )dz Eq.2.2
Where:
Rs = accumulated shaft resistance
As the = circumferential area of the pile at Depth z (i.e., surface area over a unit length of the pile)
Note:
Many aspects might affect the beta-coefficient, such as soil gradation, mineralogical composition, density, depositional history (Genesis), grain angularity, pile construction method, etc. The beta-coefficient should be assigned with table 2.1 (Cai et al., 2009).
Table 2.4: Approximate Ranges of Beta-coefficients (Randolph, 2003)
Soil Phi Beta
Clay 25-30 0.15-0.35
Silt 28-34 0.25-0.50
Sand 32-40 0.30-0.90
Grave 35-45 0.35-0.80
18


5
♦ ♦ ♦
X u \
Trend line / ♦
Gregersen et al. 1973 / ♦ CFEM (1992) HKGEO (2005)
> ■ ■» _ r.'.T.jf.:
1 1 '♦ 1 ¥ f. ~ Wii 5TX." -
♦
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
LENGTH (m)
Figure 2.11 Beta-coefficient for piles in sand versus embedment length (Randolph, 2003).
19


(i-COEFFICIENT
2.50
2.00 â– 
1.50 â– 
1.00
0.50 •
0.00 ---------•--------■------------------•------------------i--------
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
AVERAGE EFFECTIVE STRESS, a'z ( kPa)
Figure 2.12: Beta-coefficient in sand versus average effective stress (Randolph, 2003).
O
■ Concrete piles • Open-toe pipe piles O Closed-toe pipe piles
o
O
Gregersen etal. 1973
20


0.70
c
a)
â– â– â– â– 
a
e
a>
0
a
1
c£
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
O) X Quebec Alberta
ffl X Thailand Vancouver

♦
♦ ♦♦ ♦ -♦ 7 ♦ ♦ l" ▼
♦
♦ 1 1 I 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 i i
0 20 40 60 80
PLASTICITY INDEX, lP
Figure 2.13: Beta-coefficient for piles in clay versus plasticity index, IP (Randolph, 2003).
Note:
All the above figures show that the depth can affect the coefficient that is called beta-coefficient, 13 applied to the effective stress
Using lambda method is exclusive in the analysis, and it is usually applied to the Gulf of Mexico soils to find the shaft resistance for heavily loaded pipe piles in uniform soils (Randolph, 2003).
Tm A ( Ojjx F 2Cm) Eq.2.3
Where:
rm = mean shaft resistance along the pile A = the ‘lambda’ correlation coefficient
21


dm = mean overburden effective stress Cm = mean undrained shear strength
Lambda is a function of pile embedment depth, and it reduces with increasing depth, as shown in Table 2.2
Table 2.5: Approximate Values of A (Randolph, 2003)
Tip resistance
The unit toe resistance is:
n = Ntaz=D Eq.2.4
Where:
rt = unit toe resistance
Nt= toe bearing "capacity" coefficient
D = embedment depth
°z=d = effective overburden stress at the pile toe
Rt = Atrt= AtNtaz=D Eq.2.5
Where:
Rt= total toe resistance
22


At= toe area (normally, the cross-sectional area of the pile)
Table 2.6: presents a range of values for clay, silt, sand, and gravel (Randolph, 2003).
Soil Phi Nt
Clay 25-30 3-30
Silt 28-34 20-40
Sand 32-40 30-150
Gravel 35-45 60-300
Ultimate Resistance
Ultimate resistance means the sum of the shaft and the toe resistances, so this summation is the capacity of the pile.
Quit = Rt + Rs Eq2.6
Where
Quit= ultimate resistance ("capacity")
Rt= total toe resistance Rs= total shaft resistance
In equation 2.5, when the side shear resistance is assumed mobilized, the relation for the load in a pile was presented at assumed depth.
Qz ~ Quit / As(3 oz dz — Qutt — (Rs)z Eq.2.7
Where
Qz= axial load at depth z
Quit= ultimate resistance ("capacity")
As= cross sectional area of pile
/?= beta coefficient
oz = effective overburden stress
23


(Rs)z= total shaft resistance to Depth z
Note:
The movement of the pile that results from down drag increase the reticence of shaft and toe resistances (Randolph, 2003).
Cone Penetration Test (CPT) method
Cone penetration might be used for predicting the axial pile capacity, and this method can be divided into two approaches:
1. Direct approach: the cone tip resistance should estimate the end bearing. In the same way, the shaft resistance should be determined by the sleeve friction.
2. Indirect approach: CPT could be used in estimating of soil strength parameters such as the undrained shear strength and the angle of internal friction, so this approach uses the strength parameters to evaluate the unit end bearing capacity of the pile and the unit skin friction of the pile.
Note:
The horizontal stress, soil compressibility, and strain softening are neglected in indirect methods; engineers do not prefer this method. Titi and AbuFarsakh (1999) presented these methods in table 2.5 (Cai et al., 2009).
24


Table 2.7: Comments on direct CPT-based methods. (Cai et al., 2009)
CPT methods Comments Difficulties
Schmertmann (1978) The upper limit of 15 MPa is imposed on the unit toe resistance. In very dense sand, the values of pile unit toe resistance are higher than 15 MPa frequently
Nottingham (1975) The OCR is used to relate qc to tjp. The OCR is not easily determined for sand
De Ruiter and Beringen (1979) The upper limit of 15 MPa is imposed on the unit toe resistance. The Su value is used to estimate the pile toe capacity. In very dense sand, the values of pile unit toe resistance are higher than 15 MPa frequently The S„ is not a unique parameter and depends significantly on the type of test used, strain rate, etc.
LCPC The 1.5b length of the influence zone below the pile toe is too short Meyerhof (1956,1976) indicated that the length of the influence zone below the pile toe may extend to 10b. Altaee et al. (1992a,b) reported a case where the depth was found to be 5b.
Meyerhof method Two modification factors are used in determining the unit toe resistance, The modification factors for scale effect depend on soil type
Aoki and De Alencar (1975), The upper limit of 15 MPa is imposed on the unit toe resistance; In dense sand, the qp values are higher than 15 MPa frequently.
Tumay and Fakhroo (1982) impose an upper limit to the unit shaft resistance. The unit shaft resistance cannot be justified because /p values higher than the recommended limits occur frequently.
Philipponnat (1980) The method makes no use of sleeve friction. An important component of the CPT results is disregarded
Price and Wardle (1982); Penpile Selecting the coefficient to apply to the average cone resistance used in determining the unit toe resistance. The coefficient depends on soil and pile type
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Method
Most of the geotechnical engineers use the standard penetration test for predicting the axial load capacities of the pile, and it has been using for a while. The first use of SPT was in the United States in 1902. SPT estimates the soil parameters by direct methods apply N values with calibration factors that assist in calculating them. Table 2.5 shows how SPT can be employed for the prediction of pile bearing capacity (Cubrinovski, Ishihara, & Foundations, 1999).
Table 2.8: SPT direct methods for prediction of pile bearing capacity (Cubrinovski et al., 1999)
Method Unit Base (Qb) and Unit Shaft (Qs) resistance
Meyerhof (1976) MNb < Qb (MPa) = kNb Qs = (KPa)=nsNs
Bazaraa & Kurkur (1986) Qb(MPa)=nbNb Qs(KPa)= nsNs
Decourt (1995) Qb (MPa)= KbNb Qs(KPa) = a(2.8Ns + 10)
Shariatmadari et al. (2008) Qb (MPa)=0.385Ngb
25


Note:
Qs(KPa)=3.65Ngs
It is important to note that heterogeneity of soil layers should be considered in estimating of pile bearing capacity, so the capacity should be related to the average value of N. There are two averaging methods, arithmetical and geometrical. The arithmetical average is calculated as follows (Cubrinovski et al., 1999):
_ W1W2--W3 n
1. The geometrical average (geo mean) is calculated as follows: Ng = ( NlXN2Nn)n
Eq.2.8
Eq.2.9
Calibrated friction angle of Sandy soil by SPT
SPT can be used for estimating the friction angle of sandy soil with energy-corrected and stress normalized N-value (Hatanaka & Uchida 1996; Mayne et al. 2002):
0 =20° + yj 15.4x(jV1)60 Eq.2.10
Where:
=JL" Eq.2.11
26


Preconsolidation ap‘ (bars)
27


Preconsolidation Stress, op' (kPa) Overconsolidation Ratio, OCR
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 2.15: Combinative in-situ test interpretations of stress history at College Station sand site,
Texas. (Mayne, 2006)
28


CHAPTER III
Theoretical Background of Load and Resistance Factor Design of Driven Piles Introduction
Structural foundations must be safe structures and should resist the external loads without failure. For achieving that statement, the performance requirements of the structural foundation are recommended in most of the geotechnical projects. In the same way, two types of ultimate state design should apply in structural foundations for preventing structural failures before they happen, and they are allowable stress design (ASD), and load and resistance factor design (LRFD). Briefly, the allowable stress design has three main steps should be proposed. Firstly, the nominal capacity of structure compares to expected working loads on the structure. Because of that, the ASD is named the working stress design method. Secondly, ASD uses just a factor of safety for finding the ability design load. Design Load should be less than
Nominal capasity pjnajj the fact0r of safety depends on the behavior of structure. On the other
Factor of Safety j r
hand, the load and factor resistan design use many ways that compare the high loads to ultimate strength, and this method is more accurate than the ADS because it can find the source of uncertainty from many approaches. The following equation should be applied to find out the factored load, and it must be less than the nominal load capacity (Coduto, 2001).
U = YiD + Y2L + Y3E + "• Eq.3.1
Where:
U = Factored Load Y = Load Factor D = Dead Load L = Live Load E = Earthquake Load
Live loads are more uncertain than the dead load. The load factor of live loads is greater than the load factor of the dead load. The other part of LRFD is the resistance factors or strength factors.
29


U < 0JV Eq.3.2
Where
0 = Resistance Factor N = Nominal Load Capacity
LRFD is a reliability analysis that depends on the experience and empiricism used.
f(R,
Figure 3.1: Bell Curves Illustrating Distribution of Load and Resistance (FHWA, July 2015 ). Types of Highway Bridge’s Loads
According to The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) LRFD specifications, bridges expose to many types of loads, such as dead loads, live loads, construction loads, wind loads, friction forces, and blast loading. This chapter presents most of the load sources that are specified by The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to evaluate Edward’s bridge factored load (Coduto, 2001).
30


* Permanent Loads:
- Creep effects (CR)
- Downdrag Loads (DD)
- Structural Dead Load (DC)
- Wearing Surface Dead Load (DW)
- Horizontal Earth Pressure (EH)
- Locked in Loads (DC)
- Earth Surcharge Loads (EC)
- Vertical Earth Pressure (EV)
- Post-tensioning Loads (PS)
- Shrinkage Loads (SH)
* Transit Loads:
- Breaking Loads (BR)
- Centrifugal Loads (CE)
- Vehicle Collision Loads (CT)
- Vessel Collision Loads (PS)
- Earthquake Loads (EQ)
- Friction Loads (FR)
- Ice Loads (IC)
- Vehicle Dynamic Loads (IM)
- Live Surcharge Loads (LS)
- Pedestrian Live Loads (PL)
- Settlement Loads (SE)
31


- Temperature Gradient Loads (TG)
- Uniform Temperature Loads (TU)
- Water and Stream Loads (WA)
- Wind Loads on Live Loads (WL)
- Wind Loads on Structure (PS)
Estimate Total Dead Loads
The dead loads contain of the self-weight of the superstructure and finishing weight. In bridge design, the dead loads are divided into two main categories, and they are listed under component dead loads one, and component dead loads two. Component dead loads one includes the self-weight of girders, deck sections, and cross-frames. Component dead loads two is constructed later, and they have raised sidewalks, roadway barriers, and lighting structures. Most of the bridge design should be constructed with prestressed concrete girders and steel girders (Figure 6.2) (FHWA, July 2015).
9*-0"
32


Deck width = 9’-0” = 108”
Deck thickness = 9”
Haunch width = 18”
Haunch thickness = 2”
Deck and haunch area (concrete) = (108” x 9”) + (18” x 2”) = 1008 in2 The area of the girder is calculated as follows:
Flange width = 14.585”
Top flange thickness = 0.505”
Bottom flange thickness = 0.505”
Web thickness = 0.505”
Web depth = 40”
Girder area (steel) = (14.585” x 0.505”) + (14.585” x 0.505”) + (40” x 0.505”) = 34.93 in2
• (1008 in2 / 144 in2/ft2) x 0.145 kef = 1.015 kips/ft
• (34.93 in2 / 144 in2/ft2) x 0.490 kef = 0.12 kips/ft
2 DC1= 1.015 + 0.12 = 1.13 kips/ft
33


Estimate Total Live Loads
In bridge loads design, the weight of the truck should be added to the live loads' list, so the first axle has a loading of 8 kips, and the second and third axles have loadings of 32 kips each.
^ 8 Kips
^ 32 Kips
^ 32 Kips
1 4' O”
Varies (1 4' O" to 30-0")
Figure 3.3: Design Truck (FHWA, July 2015 )
The design lane load has a uniform load of 0.64 kips per linear foot and is distributed in the longitudinal direction (FHWA, July 2015 ).
0.6-4 Kips/foot
Figure 3.4: Design Lane Load (FHWA, July 2015 )
Plus
0.64 Kips/foot
4. i i i 4. 4 4. i 4. i i i
34


Figure 3.5: Effect of Design Truck Plus Design Lane Load (FHWA, July 2015 ).
CHAPTER IV
Plan for Static Load Test at Edwards, Colorado
Introduction
Static load tests are the most accurate method to find out the actual load capacity of the driven pile. This test should be implemented during the construction stage or design stage. Static load test presents the load-displacement curve for the driven pile where should install in the field. Also, it should be operated by a professional geotechnical engineer because it has complicated procedures that should be taken carefully. SLT is the reference for design, testing, and construction techniques (FHWA, 2016).
Plan and Implement a Static Load Testing Program
This test is an effort test that requires different instrumentation, so it should follow the sensitive steps for preventing the false result.:
The capacity loading of equipment should be assigned before applying them to find geotechnical failure. If they involved with the nominal geotechnical resistance, the goal of SLT is not precise. As a result, 120 % to 150 % of the jack’s anticipated maximum load should be applied. Evaluation of load and movement at the pile head must be measured by sensitive apparatus, such as linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT’s) and dial gauges SLT should be monitored by professional geotechnical engineers. All details should be recorded in appropriate document. SLT can be applied either in the design phase or construction phase to determine the geotechnical resistance of a specified field (FHWA, 2016).
Axial Compression Load Test
Usually, the pile experiences an axial compression load in the actual condition. Therefore, the pile should be tested for compression load to find out if it can resist the compression load or not. The following steps should be performed: •
• The top of the pile should be loaded by using a continuous constant rate of the load.
• Movement at the head pile, load, and time should be recorded.
• Load-Movement Curve should be plotted to assign the nominal geotechnical resistance and the movement at the nominal resistance.
• Telltales, which is solid rods protected by tubes, can measure movement along with the pile. They are shown in figure 6.1. Also, they can find the strains that are located between their locations. Therefore, the measured strains evaluate the load transfer along the pile shaft (FHWA, 2016).
35


+ Q2 + Qjt otc.
1
Q, + Q2 + Qs
Figure 4.1: Axial compression static load test (FHWA, 2016).
Equipment of Compressional Test
Hydraulic jacks against a weighted platform should be applied to a compression test, and the pressure gage should be calibrated to measure the jack pressure. For preventing eccentricities in the applied loads, spherical bearing plates should be used in the load application arrangement. LVDT’s and dial gages can estimate the axial pile head movements, so a minimum of 2 inches of travel and precision of at least 0.01 inches is required. The pile head should have at least two dial gauges or LVDT's, and they should be at the center of the pile. According to ASTM D1143, the distance between a test pile and reaction piles should be five times the maximum diameter of the reaction pile, but it should not be less than 8 feet (FHWA, 2016).
Figure 4.2 shows a typical compression load test setup. Figures 4.3, and 4.4 are the typical load application and movement monitoring components. Figure 4.5 presents the loading arrangement for improving the accuracy of the load cell readings (FHWA, 2016).
36


Reaction Beam
Stiffeners
Figure 4.2: Static load test setup diagram (FHWA, 2016).
37


Strain Gage Readout Unit
Jack Pressure Gage
Jack Pump
Reaction Beam
Spherical Bearing Plates
Load Cell
Hydraulic Jack
Figure 4.3: Load test application and monitoring system (FHWA, 2016).
38


Figure 4.4: Load test movement monitoring components (FHWA, 2016).
39


Interpretation of Compression Test Result
In the compression test, the main objective is to obtain a load-movement curve. The following equation computes the elastic deformation, A, for a pile of the uniform cross-section (FHWA, 2016):
A=QL/AE Eq.4.1
Where:
A = elastic deformation of pile (inches).
Q = test load (kips).
L = pile length below dial gauge or LVDT measurement location (inches).
A = pile cross sectional area (in2).
E = elastic modulus of pile material (ksi).
Load Cell Pile Head Load (kips)
O 1OO 200 300 400 500
Figure 4.5: Typical load-movement curve for axial compression load test (FHWA, 2016). Evaluation of Load Transformation
Instrumented static load tests can find out the values of shaft and toe resistances, and load transfer evaluation along the pile shaft can be determined by using telltale rods (extensometers) or strain gages (FHWA, 2016).
40


Telltales
Telltales are made of thin steel rods, and it should be extended from the pile head to a selected point in the pile with slightly larger tube figure 4.6. LVDT’s or dial gauges should be connected with the top of the telltale rod to measure the relative movement between the rod attachment locations on the pile and other points. The average load in a pile, Qavg, between two measured points can be evaluated by the following equation (FHWA, 2016):
Q_avg=AE (R_l-R_2)/L Eq.4.2
Where:
Qavg = average load in a pile between two points (kips).
A = pile cross sectional area (in2).
E = elastic modulus of pile material (ksi).
R1 = deflection reading at upper measurement location (inches).
R2 = deflection reading at lower measurement location (inches).
L = length of the pile between two measuring points under no load condition.
41


Mi
vV\
Telltales in Sleeves
Avg. Load Assumed to Act Midway Between Telltale Locations
Ri
Dial Gages Resting on Top of Telltale Rods
yywv\
r2
Figure 4.6: Diagram of telltale rods installed on the pile (modified from Kyfor et al. 1992)
(FHWA, 2016)
Strain Gages
Telltales are not enough for an accurate result, so strain gauges should be applied besides telltales. According to Dunnicliff (1988), weldable vibrating wire strain gages should be used on steel piles, and sister bars with vibrating wire strain gages should be embedded in concrete piles to evaluate the complete load transfer (Figure 4.7 & 4.9). Because of the variation of a strain gauge, geotechnical engineers should know the type of strain gauge, and its purpose in measurement. Usually, the Sister bar gages are cast into prestressed concrete piles or embedded in concrete during concrete placement. For prestressed concrete piles, the sister bars should be tied to the longitudinal rebar. For protection, A bolt-on, waterproof, foil resistance strain gage should be attached to the side of a pile (Figure 4.8). Resistance strain gauges should be on sister bars; it is shown in figure 4.9. Center of sister bar has an accelerometer for dynamic load test (FHWA, 2016).
42


Figure 4.7: Vibrating wire strain gage sister bars for concrete embedment (FHWA, 2016).
43


Figure 4.8: Vibrating wire strain gage with welded anchor blocks and protective channel
(FHWA, 2016).
Figure 4.9: Electrical resistance strain gauge on sister bars in concrete pile casting bed (FHWA,
2016).
44


Therefore, strain gauge should be dry because the corrosion might fail the resistance of strain gauge. The location of strain gauge should be below the pile head where shaft resistance does not act on the pile.
Figure 4.10: Multiple externally mounted strain gages (2 on each web face) located in soil resistance free area during static load test (courtesy WKG2) (FHWA, 2016).
The axial force in the plane of the gauge:
F=sEA Eq.4.3
Where:
F = axial force in the plane of gage (kips), s = strain measured in gage.
E = elastic modulus of pile material (ksi).
A = pile cross sectional area (in2).
45


CHAPTER V
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION USING STANDARD PENETRATION TEST FOR
EDWARDS PROJECT
Introduction
The subsurface of proposed bridges has been characterized by standard penetration test with twelve boring holes. B-l to B-7 characterize the subsurface of the northern portion, and B-8 to B-12 characterize the subsurface of the southern portion. The distance between each boring hole approximately is one foot with different depth.
Furthermore, B-l, B-6, and B-7 were expedited by hollow stem auger drilling techniques. After the depth of refusal, a CME 75 truck-mounted drill rig and a CME 750 ATV mounted drill rig were used to deliver them (RUSSELL, 2017)
Moreover, borings B-2 and B-5 were expedited by selecting somnambulantly hollow stem auger and NQ wireline coring techniques selecting a CME 75 truck mounted drill rig. Borings B-3 and B-4 were expedited by HQ wireline coring techniques with a CME 550 ATV mounted drill rig. Borings B-8 through B-12 were expedited by a down-hole air hammer and casing advance system with a CME 750 ATV mounted drill rig (RUSSELL, 2017).
Bedrock in Edward’s Project
Bedrock is observed in many boreholes, and the formation that caused by wells of oil and gas has many thick salt deposits. This formation consists of gray and red-gray siltstone, sandstone, shale, and carbonate rocks with lenses of gypsum. Table 3.1 presents the engineering properties of shale rock (RUSSELL, 2017).
46


Table 5.1: Evaluating Engineering Properties of Shale Rock (M.Santi, 1996).
Physical Properties Probable In Situ Behavior *
Laboratory Tests and In Situ Observations Unfavorable Range of Values Favorable Range of Values High PORE Pressure Low Bearing Capacity Tendency to Rebound Slope Stability Problems Rapid Slaking Rapid Erosion Tunnel Support Problems
Compressive strength (psi) 50 to 300 (0.3 to 2 MPa) 300 to 5.000 (2 to 34 MPa) X X
Modulus of elasticity (psi) 20,000 to 200,000 (140 to 1400 MPa) 200,000 to 2 x lO"6 (1400 to 14.000 MPa) X X
Cohesive strength (psi) 5 to 10O (0.03 to 0.7 MPa) 100 to > 1.500 (0.7 to > 10 MPa) X X X
Angle of internal friction (degrees) 10 to 20 20 to 65 X X X
Dry density (pcf) 70 to 110(1.1 to 1.8 g/cm') 1 lO to 160 (1.8 to 2.6 g/cm') X X(?)
Potential swell (%) 3 to 15 1 to 3 X X X X
Natural moisture content (%) 20 to 35 5 to 15 X X
Coefficient of permeability (cm/sec) 10-’ to 10-'° <3 x 10-’ to 3 x 10-'2 ft/scc) >io-» <>3 x10~7 ft/scc) X X X
Predominant clay minerals Montmorillonite or illite Kaolinite or chlorite X X
Activity ratio — (plasticity index/ clay content) 0.75 to >2.0 0.35 to 0.75 X
Wetting and drying cycles Reduces to grain sizes Reduces to flakes X X
Spacing of rock defects Closely spaced Widely spaced X X X(?) X
Orientation of rock defects Adversely oriented Favorably oriented X X X
State of stress > Existing overburden load â–  Overburden load X X X
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Standard penetration test has a perfect performance in the geotechnical field because it finds out what the soil parameter for each layer is. Besides personal experience, SPT can indicate accurate results for soil’s parameters. This kind of exploration gives a perfect indication of the subsurface statues through auguring the boring by using a hammer that weighs 140 lb (63.5kg). Before starting the test procedure, the operator should drill a preparatory boring to the depth of the first test with 60 to 200 mm diameter. A spilled-spoon sampler that is displayed in figure 5.1 should be embedded into the boring. After that, the operator should use either rope and cathead arrangement or an automatic tripping mechanism for raising the hammer (figure 5.2) to a depth of 30 in (760 mm), so this movement of the hammer produces energy which brings forward the simpler to the base of the boring. The operator should stop the previous step when the sampler reaches a depth of 18 in (450 mm) with listing the number of hammer blows for each 6 in (150 mm). When the hammer reaches the refusal case which the is fifty hammer blows, the operator should stop the test of that interval, and it should be written in the boring log. Finally, N value
47


should be computed by summing the blow counts for the last 12 in (300 mm) of penetration, and the first layer should be written in the boring log, but it should be used to compute N value because the first layer might be disturbed by the drilling process. (Coduto, 2001)
Figure 5.1: The SPT Sampler in Place in The Boring with Hammer, Rope, and Cathead (Adapted from Kovacs et al., al) (Coduto, 2001)
0.1 in. (2,5mm)
Open Shoe
/
Tube
/
Head
j i
t6*U>2r
_ 1.375 in. "(349mm) 1-5* 1 2k
(38,1mm) T (51mm)
#>»; x\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | wwv \\\\\\\\\\v,™
n 1 w r
1 to 2 in. 18 u> 30 in.
\ â– /
Rotlpin
{25 to 50 nun)
{457(o 762 mm)
Figure 5.2: The SPT Sampler (Adapted from ASTM D1586; Copyright, used with Permission)
(Coduto, 2001)
48


Correction to The Test Data
The purpose of the correction is to improve the SPT data that should be corrected by the correction factor, so N value should be N60 as follows (Coduto, 2001):
^60
Em ErEs CfN 0.60
Eq.5.1
Where:
JV60=SPT N Value Corrected for Field Procedure.
Em= Hammer Efficiency (Table 3.1)
CB= Borehole Diameter Correction (Table 3.2)
Cs= Sampler Correction (Table 3.3)
Cr= Rod Length Correction (Table 3.4)
JV= Measured by SPT N Value
Most of the hammer is not 100 percent efficient, so it should be corrected by using a hammer with an efficiency of 60 percent. The result of the above (Eq. 3.1) equation determines the 60 percent efficiency of hammer use. Figure 5.3 presents the form of SPT hammers, and table 5.1 shows the hammer efficiency (Coduto, 2001).
49


Table 5.2 SPT Hammer Efficiency (Coduto, 2001).
Country Hammer Type Hammer Release Mechanism Hammer Efficiency, E L rn
Argentina Donut Cathead 0.45
Brazil Pin Weight Hand Dropped 0.72
China Automatic Trip 0.60
Donut Hand Dropped 0.55
Donut Cathead 0.50
Colombia Donut Cathead 0.50
Japan Donut Tombi Trigger 0.78-0.85
Donut Cathead 2 Tums+Special Release 0.65-0.67
UK Automatic Trip 0.73
USA Safety 2 Turn on cathead 0.55-0.60
Donut 2 Turn on cathead 0.45
Venezuela Donut Cathead 0.43
50


Safety Hammer
Figure: 5.3: Types of SPT Hammers (Coduto, 2001). Table 5.3: Borehole, Sampler, and Rod Correction Factors (Coduto, 2001).
Factor Equipment Variables Value
Borehole Diameter 65-115mm (2.5-4.5in) 1.00
factor, CB 150mm (6 in) 1.05
200mm (8 in) 1.15
Sampling Method Standard Sampler 1.00
Factor, Cs Standard Simpler without Liner (Not Recommended) 1.20
Rod Length Factor, Cr 3-4m (10-13 ft) 0.75
4-6m (13-20 ft) 0.85
6-10 m(20-3Oft) 0.95
>10m (>30 ft) 1.00
51


Log Boring From B-l to B12 for Edward’s Ground (RUSSELL, 2017)
TOP HOLE E_EV TOTAL DEPTH SURVEV INFO GEOLOGIST DRH EH
7.265.6ft 58.4ft N: 62679 85; E: 93394 46 C. Russe* Howten Coins
GEOLOGICAL BORING LOG B-1
PROJECT IC SA PROJECT NAME NHPP 0702-344 19944 I-70G Edwards Intercrianoe DATE DRUL55 2/13/17
ROUTE COUNTY STRUCTURE BENT LOCATION L70G Eaqle Embankment Borina/ MPs 0.1 to 0.5
7245
7243
7235
1X1 SPT

Clayey Sand
(SC)
DESCRIPTION
wffh Gravel. E reran motet Flli
Clay, smootn. soft drilling from 21 to 24 fleet inferred from dm action
Silty / Clayey Gravel with Sana, gray ana red-Crown iccse ic medium dense, moist. ABuvlum. {GM f GC).
Silty Sand wftti Gravel, red-crcr*n dense, mcrst. Alluvium (SM).

Silty. Clayey Gravel Sand. croAT to red-Crown medum dense to sense, moist. Fill. (GC-GM).
Cocoies i to utter inferred from anil acoor 12 to 14 feet.
Cocoies coutter irierred from anil acOor 15 to 17 fleet
0 | COtsTT
grab
S
â– tnr-
ai
si
3“
ix-
1B
7-11
1C
6-12-29
ID
2-4-6
1E
9-E-5
1G
iO-a-5
1H
S-13-11
1J
6-e-a
si
5 /
SPT DATA
13 20 40 73
WELL
DIAGRAM
y
\
/
\
<

HjO DEPTH (ft) Dry
DATE 2/13/2017
TIME
NOTES CME 75 Hoaow Stem Auger
52


53


GEOLOGICAL BORING LOG B-2
PROJECT ID SA PROJECT NAME NHPP 0702-344 19944 L70G Edwards Interchange OATEDRJLLED 2/21/17
ROUTE COUNTY STRUCTUREBcNT LOCATION I-70G Eaqle F-104/North Abutment MPs01to05
TOP HOLE E-EV TOTAL DEPTH SURVEY INFO G5C-OGIST/ 3R^-ER
7,262 9ft 100 0ft N: 62656.9; E 93271 15 J. Javier Howten Blades
_Z2f£L
Z2S5-
7250
7245
7240
7255
- 29.0
7230

33.0-
DESCRIPTION
Irenes e* aspnait payerrert
Silty, Clayey Sand v*ttn Gravel, red-ero»n. medfcim dense moist Fin. (SC-SM).
Boulder inerred from aril action
Bcuiaer irterrea Trom oral action Berated SPT N value due to Dcuiaer
Poorty Graded Gravel with Clay and Sand.
red-crown very dense, mast Alluvium (GP-GC'l
39.0- *-
Poorty Graded Sand with Gravel, red-troy,r and Broan, medium dense to dense, most Aluvlum, (SP).
7215
43 0-
Auger refusal at 49 fleet
r
â–º-
a
s
•4.0
â– 9.a
•14.0
â– 19.0
â– 24.0
â– 29.0
â– 34.0
â– 39.0
â– 44.0
0.0
2A
12-10-9
2B
6-5-14
2C
7-5-9
20
49-10-10
2E
5-6-5
2F
25-50*2’
2G 20-27-24
2H
13-17-19
21
11-14-16
58
5*
19
22
17
20
14
SOT
51
36
30
H-0 DEPTH (ft) Dry
DATE 2/21/2017
TIME
SPT DATA
10 20 40 70
WELL
DIAGRAM
1
i
NOTES CME 75 Holcw stem Auger and NO Core
54


TOP HOLE E-EV TOTAL DEPTH SURVEv INFO GEOLOGIST or.l_er
7,262 9ft 100 0ft N: 62656.9; E 93271 15 J Javier/Howten EUailes
GEOLOGICAL BORING LOG B-2
PROJECT ID SA PROJECT NAME NHPP 0702-344 19944 1-70G Edwards Interchange DATE DRU.EC 2/21/17
ROUTE COUNTY STRUCTUREBENT LOCATION I-70G Eagle F-10-l/TJorth Abutment MPs01to05
7213
22£L

JUil
7190
71S5
7180
7175
7173
715
f
a
s
T5TT
DESCRIPTION
Poorly Graded Gravel with srrt'Clay. Sand. Cobbles, and Boulders, variably colored very dense, powders up io 24 m’cnes ir diameter, moist. Alluvium (GP-GM / GP-GC)
x
a
8
49.lv
â– SCO
f-57.0
HU
-680
y—75.0
-78.0
*-34 0
-39.0
-940
h
P
~TT
50.2*
2K
2M
2M
20
2P
20
2R
2S
t
58
>*
90
~W
lii

43S
112k

43S
m
30%
2Z&
HjO DEPTH (ft) Dry
DATE 2/21/2017
TIME
SPT DATA
5 13 20 40 70
WELL
DIAGRAM
HL CALIFORNIA
notes CME 75 Hoaow Stem Auger and NO Core
55


56


GEOLOGICAL BORING LOG B-3
PROJECT 10 SA PROJECT NAME NHPP 0702-344 19944 I-70G Edwards Interchange CATE DRILLED 3/30/17
ROUTE I-70G COUNTY STRUCTURE’BENT LOCATION Eaole F-1O-I/North Pier MPs 0.1 to 0 5
TOP HOLE E-EV TOTAL DEPTH SURVEY INFO GEOLOGIST CRl.fr
7,230 6ft 40 1ft N: 62631 14; E 93197 52 C. RusseH Moreno Blades
-TZTT
7225
7225
7215
7210.
72C5.
JL2C1
Z1LL
7150
7155
X
>.
a
u
a
a.5-
40.11
9
20.0-C
IX] SPT

DESCRIPTION
Poorly traded travel gray Sy Slag fill
:gp)._____________________________________
Silty Gravel with Sami. red-Cro»n medium dense, moist. Alluvium (GM).
r
a.
j-
a
Poorly Graded Gravel wim SJltlClay. Sana. Cot Wes, and BouMera. variably colored very dense, counters up to 20 riches Ir diameter, moist. Alluvium, (GP-GMI GP-GCl
'ToSricrrrg^ipffriE-'T
-so
-6 5
-10.0 -11 5
-15.0
-16.5
-200
-20.8
=25.0
25.3
-300
30.1
-35.0
”35.5
-100
35 S 8 i - 3“ m 58 S* z UJ K
3A r
3B 5-6-7 3C 15
3D 5-12-10 3E 22 issi
3F 11-12-11 3G 23 I12k
3H 23-50 i- 31 SW ai
3J 504’ 3K R
3L £0.1’ 3M R £42k
3N £05’ 30 R
3P 50,1* R
SPT DATA
5 10 20 40 70
WELL
DIAGRAM
CONT
Cdfl GRAB
HjO DEPTH (It) Dry
DATE 3/30/2017
TIME
SHELBY ZH CORE
NOTES CME 550 HQ Core
w CALIFORNIA
57


GEOLOGICAL BORING LOG B-4
PROJECT 10 SA PROJECT NAME NHPP 0702-344 19944 I-70G Edwards Interchange 3ATE DRILLED 3/29/17
ROUTE COUNTY STRUCTUREBENT LOCATION I-70G Eaale F-10-l/Soutti Pier MPs01to05
TOP HOLE E-EV TOTAL DEPTH SURVEY INEO GEOLOGIST DR_ER
7,230 2ft 82 5ft N: 62625 02; E. 93156 21 C. RussefcMoreno Blades
z h * 3§
â–º- a. O
a 8 1- >/
K
3.D •U i»
■5.0 •6.5 4E 5-6-17 23
4C
•10.0 40 12k
-15.0 •16.5 4E 13-11-13 21
IF 2S&
-20.0 20.8 4G 5ar
16-50/3* LLi
4H
25.0 41 67
26 5 30-25-23
4J
30.0 4K 74.S*
-31.3 15-24-53 2- â– Jh
4L
35.0 AW ±2h.
40.0 4N 73
415 •5-25-23 40 10CS
43.5 4P 78%
45.0 40 ilh
€
>
a
7225
m
1215.
72H
72D5
72C0
7155
715-3
7155
a
s
20.0-
:SM
-><»<3
.>< »o
â– L
»<»o
-L1^
-*<»o
:>Jo3
-><><3
-L
><»(3
■><»<3
DESCRIPTION
Silty SSB with Sand. red-fcrcvn medium Dense, moist, Alluvium (6M).
Poorly Graded ami nMH savctsy. Sana. CoDMe*. and Boulders, variably colored very dense, Boulders up to 16 sricnes ir Diameter, moist. Alluvium (GP-GMIGP-GC).
XI SPT
CONT
GRAB
SPT DATA
5 13 20 10 70
WELL
DIAGRAM
\
H-0 DEPTH (It) Dry
DATE 3/28/2017
TIME
SHELBY ZH CORE rar CALI FORMA
NOTES CME 550 HQ Core
58


/gey jSSax? GEOLOGICAL BORING LOG B-4
PROJECT ID SA PROJECT SAME NHPP 0702-344 19944 I-70G Edwards Interchange DATE DR. _lED 3129/17
ROUTE COUNTY I-70G Eaale STRUCTUREBENT LOCATION F-1O-I/Soutti Pier MPs 0 1 to 0 5
TOP HOLE ElEV TOTAL DEPTH SURVEV INFO GEOLOGIST,’ ORB ER
7,230 2ft 82 5ft N: 62625 02; E 93156 21 C. RussefcMoreno Blades
7180
7175
7170
7155
7150.
JUil
â– I1S0.
71.15
7140
7155
Z
>.
a
5
a
B
DESCRIPTION
739
Xl SPT
Poorty Graded Grav«l wtfh JJtfcClay. Sand, cobbles. ana Boulders. variably colored very dense, coudere up io 16 riches Ir diameter, moist. Alluvium. (GP-GM 1 GP-GC| {continued)
z
â–º-
a
s
inierceooea Limestone. l lay sione, anc Shale, very low to moderate strergw tar and gray witr iron oxtte staining very mir y laminated to minty bedded, seadlrg dips 3C degrees, weakly to strongly cemented snale beds are Tissue, claystone and sraie beds iCflaractertzed by mgniy rractureo. clocky ‘ lie. moderately to higniy weathered " alley Evapome_______________
snale, very low to low strergm oanc gray, very miwy lamnated and nes'e tedding dips so degrees, mgmy iractured. mccky texture, aiternailrg weakly to strongly cemer-ed
tones fresh, Eagle Valley Svaporne_____________
Total Bcrlrg Depth 82 5Jt
-500
-550
-600
-650
-700
-740
â– 77.5
35
II
4R
4S
4T
4U
4V
4W
4X
/
58
5/
ip
22S
SOS
SOS
iih
in1

S2S
US
OS
SPT DATA
in 20 40 70
WELL
DIAGRAM
CONT
grab
HjO DEPTH (ft) Dry
DATE 3/28/2017
TIME
SHELBY ZH CORE rat CALIFORNIA
MOTES CME 550 HO Core
59


JSW GEOLOGICAL BORING LOG B-5
PROJECT ID SA PROJECT NAME NHPP 0702-344 19944 L70G Edwards Interchange DATEDR2LLEC 2716/17
ROUTE I-70G COUNTY Eagle STRUCTUREEENT LOCATION F-10-l/South Abutment MPs 0.1 to 0.5
TOP HOLE E..EV TOTAL DEPTH SURVEY info GEOLOGIST? OR —ER
7,256 1ft 81 0ft N: 6261827; E 93083 75 C Russefi/Howten Colins
-Z2SL
72£fl_
7245.
7240
7235
7230
7225
J520.
-Z21L.
7233.
DESCRIPTION
lr:re; 3i:ri t pa.ener:_____________
Silty. Clayey Sana wftn Gravel. red-crcMn and gray dense, meet F* (SC-SM:
12.0
27.0-
31.0-
saity Clay wain sand, reo-orc\*n. very stir moist Aftjvium. (CL-ML).

Poorly Graded Gravel with Clay and Sand.
red-Crwn 3nd gray, aerse moist Alluvium,
(GP-GC).
Coceies i boulder inemed tram ami acnor at
37 feet.
cocoies i couider interred trcm anil actior at 39 feet.
42.0-

Silty Gravel with Sand, red-ercr*-i ar.a gray metaum dense to dense, moist Allu-aum.
(GM).
Cocoies ' Couider irtened tram anil acBon 12 to 13 feet
Cocoies t couider irterred tram anil ascon 24 to 25 teet
x
â–º-
a
s
-100
-20 0
â– 30.0
â– 35.0
•395
â– 45.0
i§
<-
5A
12-15-35
5E
12-12-22
SC
7-15
SO
14-21-13
5E
39-19-13
SF
17-17-13
/
38
5*
50
22
39
37
30
H-0 DEPTH (ft) Dry
DATE 2/16/2017
TIME
SPT DATA
5 10 20 4Q 70
WELL
DIAGRAM
NOTES CME 75 Hoaov Stem Auger and NO Core
60


/gw GEOLOGICAL BORING LOG B-5
PROJECT 10 SA PROJECT SAME NHPP 0702-344 19944 I-70G Edwards Interchange CATE DRLLEC 2/16717
ROUTE COUNTY I-70G Eaale STRUCTURE'EENT LOCATION F-10-l/South Abutment MPs 0.1 to 0 5
TOP HOLE E-EV TOTAL DEPTH SURVEY INFO GEOLOGIST1 CR'i—ER
7,256.1ft 81 0ft N: 62618.27; E 93083 75 C RusseH Howten Colins
s.
>
a
z
t
B
â– 
a
TTT
OQ
'o 0^
->90
DESCRIPTION
Poorly Graded Sand 3E Gravel 1 Poorly Graded Gravel with Sana, gray very dense, moist Aauvlum, (SP/GP)
z
y
a
H
o
Si
d-O
Ss*
5“
/ 38 5 /
zu
SPT DATA
13 20 *0 7C
WELL
DIAGRAM
72C5
2222
£5.3-
Auger Re*usai at 55.3 fleet Poorly Graded Gravel wllti silt'Clay. Sand. Cobbles, and Boulders, variably' colored very dense, Boulders u$ to 17 ricties ir diameter, moist. Alluvium. (GP-GM l GP-GC|
715S
2150.
7155
7183
â–  so.c
: £5 0 55.3 '56.3
-61.0
-66.0
-680
-71.0
-76.0
5G
46-53/1'
5H
SG.3-
51
SJ
5K
SL
5M
SN
50
5GT
R
iq:s
70S
75S
933k
ZEfc
aa
7175
810-
7170
7155
2m
IXl SPT
Total Boring Ceptn 81 cit
J | CONT |<$l GRAB
H20 DEPTH (ft) Dry
DATE 2/16/2017
TIME
SHELBY ZH CORE rat CALIFORNIA
MOTES O WE 75 Hoao* Stem Auger and NO Core
61


AW GEOLOGICAL BORING LOG B-6
PROJECT ID SA PROJECT SAME NHPP 0702-344 19944 L70G Edwards Interchange CATE DRILLED 2/14/17
ROUTE L70G COUNTY Eaale STRUCTURE/SENT LOCATION Embankment Borino/ MPs 01 to 0 5
TOP HOLE E-EV TOTAL DEPTH SURI/E* INFO GEOLOGIST! OR I ER
7,251 1ft 42 011 N: 62596 91; E 92995 53 C. Russel/Howten Colins
e.
>
a
111
1251
22iL
7240
7235
7233
7225
7221
I21L
1211
7205
E
E
>
a
s
o
Q
DESCRIPTION
a.7.
7 0-
Irenes 3scn.at pa.emer
Silty Sand wttti Gravel. Crown dense, mast Fill, (SM).
$
Clayey Gravel vntlfi Sand, crown ana gray, meaum dense most fih. (GC>
Cocoles i Couider insned ffcm drill asdon 7 to 8 feet
12 5-
170-
24.0-
32.0-
â–  42.0*
Gravelly Lean Clay wttn Sand, crown, .'ey stiff moist Fill,
cocoies Couider interred ffom ami action 17 to 18 feet.
Silty Sand 5E Gravel, red-crown and gray , dense to very dense moist Fin. (SM). Cocoies t couider inened ffcm dnn acuor at 24 feet.
Silty / Clayey Sand wtm Gravel, tan, very dense, motet. Alluvium (SC / SM).
Cocoies i Couider interred ffcm anil acnon 32 to 34 feet
Auger refusal at 42 feet Total Bering Deptn 42.CH
r
â–º-
a
s
-07
•50
•100
•15.0
-20.0
-25.0
â– 30.0
â– 3S.0
â– 40.0
h
a°
I*
6A
6c
14-22
6C
15-10-15
60
5-11-13
6E
12-13-14
6F
15-18-19
EG
19-21-31
6H
20-34-40
61
42-50/3*
*
S§
5/
36
25
24
27
37
52
74
EG3*
SPT DATA
5 10 20 40 70
WELL
DIAGRAM

H.0 DEPTH (ft) Dry
DATE 2/14/2017
TIME
NOTES: CME 75 hoeas Stem Auger
62


Aif GEOLOGICAL BORING LOG B-7
PROJECT IO SA PROJECT NAME NHPP 0702-344 19944 L70G Edwards Iriterctianqe SATE DR&.LES 2/13/17
ROUTE COUNTY I-70G Eaale STRUCTURE'BENT LOCATION Pavement / Embankment Borina/ MPs 0.1 to 0.5
TOP HOLE EuEV TOTAL DEPTH SURVEY INFO GEOLOGIST m ER
7,243 4ft 33 6ft N: 62545 38; E 92887 06 C RusseAHowten Colins
_Z24SL

72;a.
7225
7220
7215
7210

J2Z1_
.7355.
DESCRIPTION
0.7J
Inches 3sch3t paveneri
27.0-
â–  30 5
336
Silty, Clayey Sana wttn Gravel, crown ana rea-Crown medium dens* id sense moist. Fill. (SC-SM'I.
Cocoies t couider interred rrcm anil as cor e to 3 feet
Elevated SPT n V3iue sue to cobble I boulder.
cocoies i boulder iruemed item anil acoor io to 11 reet.
Eievatea SPT N Value due to coooie / boulder.
silty Clay vrttn sand, crown medium stttr moist Aauvlum. {CL-ML).
Very dense gravel 3no cocoies irterea from oral action. No sample recovery 3t 33.5 fleet
Auger refusal at 33.5 fleet Total Boring ceptn 33 en
[XI SPT
[l | CONT K*)i GRAB
z
â–º-
Q.
â– 
a
â– 3.5
â– 8 5
â– 13.5
â– 18.5
-23.5
â– 23.5
•33.5
Ssi
S*
7A
5-4-3
7B
4-4-3C
7C
13-22-21
7D
3-5-26
7E
9-16-19
7F
3-3-3
7G
50,r
*
58
5/
4 u Z*l e
12
34
43
35
35
SPT DATA
5 10 20 40 70
WELL
DIAGRAM
\
\
H20 DEPTH (ft) Dry
DATE 2/13/2017
TIME
NOTES CME 75 Hoeow Stem Auger
63


GEOLOGICAL BORING LOG B-8
PROJECT IO SA PROJECT NAME NHPP 0702-344 19944 L70G Edwards Interchanoe CATE DRILLED 3/13/17
ROUTE COUNTY L70G Eaale STRUCTURE.BENT LOCATION Pavement / Embankment Borina/ MPs 0.1 to 0 5
TOP HOLE E-EV TOTAL DEPTH SURVEY INFO GEOLOGIST OR ER
7,220 2ft 61 5ft N: 62308 6; E 92573 09 C RusseftMne Laboratones
€
>
y
IU
7215
7210
. 13.0
72C5
m
im
M,
7185
7180
7175
r
r-
&
s
DESCRIPTION
â–¡7-e
L* Irct-es 3s:h3: paveriert
25.0- •
- 28.0-
Clayey Sana wltn Gravel, ned-Brown. terse to very dense motet Fin, ;SC)

Poorly Graded Gravel **ttn SrttlClay and Sand. centres interred from drn action arid cuttings, gray ard tan very dense moist. Fa, (GP-GM / GP-GC)
No sample recovery at 25 feet
Poorly Graded Gravel with StlfCJay. Sana. CoDMe*. and Boulders, varaoty colored very dense, motet. Alluvium (GP-GM GP-GC1
- 44.0-
XI SPT
i
Silty l Clayey Sand wttn Gravel. c-txr very dense, moist to wet Aeuvtum.: SC ISMi
\ | CONT ]f$\ GRAB
X
P
a
s
-07
â– A 5
â– 9 5
-ISO
-200
-25.0
-30 0
â– 3S.0
â– 40.0
â– 45.0
0
u>
_j
0.0
1 i
5
SA
se
12-47-35
13-27-16
30
FOS-
SE
48-50/4-
SF
50.2-
8G
15-36-
50,4-
3M
SOG-
SI
50-3*
SJ
15-35-
50.5-
/
38
=J-o
32
43
504-
3e.‘ia*
35.11-
SPT DATA
5 10 20 40 70
WELL
DIAGRAM
H,0 DEPTH (ft) 2 50.3
DATE 3/13/2017
TIME
NOTES CME 750 Air Hammer
64


GEOLOGICAL BORING LOG
PROJECT IO
NHPP 0702-344
SA
19944
PROJECT NAME
B-8
DATE DRILLED
3/13/17
ROLTTE COUNTY STRUCTURE/BENT LOCATION
I-70G L iagte Pavement / Embankment Borina,1 MPs0.1lo0.5
TOP HOLE ELEV
7,220 2ft
TOTAL DEPTH
61 5ft
SURVEY INFO
N: 62308 6; E 92573 09
GEOLOGIST DRILLER
C Russell Vine Laboratories
7155
71 S3
IH5.
mi
iQL
im
7125
DESCRIPTION
Silty / Clayey Sand vrtlh Gravel br:*r very sense, rrwlsi to wet AluvUtm, SC: SI/
(conUnuett)
intertedoed Clayatone. Sandstone, ind SiltBtorw, very tow strength Drown Attn heavy nor crde staining, very irmly laminated Dedding dips 7a 10 EC degrees weakly cemented right) weathered. Eagle V3iley Evaporee

Total Bering Csptn 61 5tt
x
»-
a
s
â– 50 C
•55.0
-60.0
j
l*
2
8K
15-50.1*
: _
24-36-35
3M
35-15-40
/
38
5/
501*
71
55
SPT DATA
5 13 20 40 70
WELL
DIAGRAM
r
corn
m grab
H,0 DEPTH (ft) 2 50.3
DATE 3/13/2017
TIME
SHELBY M CORE rat CALIFORNIA
NOTES CME 750 Air Hammer


GEOLOGICAL BORING LOG B-9
PROJECT ID SA PROJECT NAME NHPP 0702-344 19944 L70G Edwards Interchange .led 3714/17
ROUTE COUNTY STRUCTURE'BENT LOCATION I-70G Eaale F-10-Q/North Abutment MPs0.1to0 5
TOP HOLE E-EV TOTAL DEPTH SURVEY INFO GEOLOGIST ORl-ER
7,210 9ft 65 0ft N: 62106 15; E 92453 43 C RusselLVine Laboratories
7210
â– â– T2C.S.
-I2S2-
?155.
7150
7185
7180
TH
12.0-
28 0-
â–  3*0-
7175
.71.70.
IX] SPT
DESCRIPTION
\5 Irenes ascnat pavemert
Gravelly sat with Sana bramr and red-crown loose, moist FBI, (ML).
Poorly Graded Gravel wrtn clay and Sand.
gray ana red-croeo, medium dense B aerse Fill, (GP-GC),
Poorly Graded Sand wltti SlltClay. Gravel. Cobbles, and Boulders, variably colored very dense, motet. Alluvium. (SP-SM) SP-SC).
Snale. very tow to tow strengtn tar to gray wltn Iren oidoe staining very BtInty laminated and issue bedding dips 73‘degrees, alternating zones of strongly to vseawy cemented material moderate 10 Ngniy «ve3tnered, Eagie va ley Evaporise
z
I
a
s
•5.0
•10.0
-15.0
•200
•25.0
•300
â– 35.0
CONT K*)i GRAB
Si
£°
I*
9A
*-3-5
9E
*-3-6
or
20-13-19
90
3-9-17
9E
**-22-23
9F
*6-25-31
5G 23-30-A2
/
58
5#
32
26
50
66
72
SPT DATA
10 20 *0 70
H-O DEPTH (ft) 2 46.0
DATE 3/14/2017
TIME
l
\
\
1
WELL
DIAGRAM
MOTES CMC 750 Air Hammer and NC Core
66


TOP HOLE E-EV TOTAL DEPTH SURVEY INFO geologist; DR^_ER
7,210 9ft 65.0ft N: 62106 15; E 92453 43 C. Russell Vine Laboratories
GEOLOGICAL BORING LOG B-9
PROJECT ID SA PROJECT NAME NHPP 0702-344 19944 I-70G Edwards Interchange DATE DRILLED 3/14/17
ROUTE COUNTY I-70G Eaale STRUCTUREBENT LOCATION F-10-Q/North Abutment MPs0.1to0 5
€
>
s
e
r
I
a
a
(5
B
DESCRIPTION
Hiale. verv E5 to low strength tar to gray with iron oidOe slaving, lery tnriy laminated and nsslle Deddmg dips 73 degrees alternating zones of strongly to weaciy cemented material moderate to highly weathered, Eagie Vaaey Evapcrtte fcontlrxject)
'manly *eatfered aeattly cemerted clayey material washed away curing coring only strongly cemented naterai was recovered
c
x
a
H
a
o
isi
is
5
*
uo
30
jo
SPT DATA
5 10 20 40 7C
WELL
DIAGRAM
7160
- so a-
7155
Jill
IHL
55.0-
M.
7135
7130
7125
7120
7115
-50 0
-55.0
-600
9K
3M
0\
30S
0%
50S
OS
Total Eortng Depth 65 OR
H,0 DEPTH (ft) 2 46 0
DATE 3/14/2017
TIME
H CORE
JK CALIFORNIA
NOTES CME 750 Air Hammer ano NC Core
67


GEOLOGICAL BORING LOG B-10
PROJECT ID SA PROJECT NAME NHPP 0702-344 19944 L70G Edwards Interchange GATE DRILLED 3/15/17
ROUTE COUNTY STRUCTURE'BENT LOCATION L70G Eagle Wall North of F-10-Q: East Side/ MPs 01 to 0 5
TOP HOLE ELEV TOTAL DEPTH SURVEY INFO GEC-OGtSTi’ DR-L-ER
7,2123ft 41 5ft N: 62140 78; E 92510 54 C Russeft'Vme Laboratories
DESCRIPTION
7213.
T2C5
T2C0
7155
7150
_LLS5_
i_zisa.
â–  7175
l
7173.
7165
lr:rs; 3;:r-: pa.ener:
. Poorly Graded Sand wttn Graver, moist \Ease course (SQ)_____________________________(
Silty. Clayey Gravel win Sand, red-crown meoum dense ic dense, moist. FI. (GC-GMi
. 24.0 —
Clayey Sana 03rK crown medium dense moist AJuvlum. (SC).
Poorly Graded Gravel wttn smictay. Sana Cobbles, and Boulders, variably colored verv dense, moist Alluvium (GP-GMI GP-GCj
No sample recovery 3ttees. Drneo tnroogn r-root oouioer tram 30 ic 3-i *eet
â–  20 5*
Interbedded Limestone. Clay-stone, and snaie. very low to low ssengtn iignt gray nim iron oidoe storing very tnir iy lam rated and issue bedding dips near Horizontal. very closely spaced Ira Mures, limestone layers
broker down to cttips 12-lncn and smaller, alternating zones or strongly cemented material v»itn weakly cemented material weatnered to clay sol ngntv weatnered.
Eagle valley Evaponte ____________________
Total Boring Depth it IS
"XI SPT
r
z
*-
a
s
•10.0
•20.0
â– 25.0
â– 30.0
•35.0
â– 40.0
5i
E q
i-
1EA
5-5-33
tee
15-12-13
1QC
5-7-3
too
5Q.2-
ioe
17-24-35
1CF
15-47-47
“8
5/
z°
ZIU
c
42
25
15
59
54
SPT DATA
13 20 40 70
CONT
<*A GRAB
H-0 DEPTH (ft) Dry
DATE 3/15/2017
TIME
SHELBY ZH CORE
WELL
DIAGRAM
NOTES CME 750 Air Hammer
IE CALIFORNIA
68


69


JXW GEOLOGICAL BORING LOG B-12
PROJECT ID SA PROJECT SAME NHPP 0702-344 19944 L70G Edwards Interchange DATEDRy-LEO 3/16/17
ROUTE COUNTY I-70G Eaale STRUCTUREBENT LOCATION F-10-Q/South Abutment MPs 0.1 to 0 5
TOP HOLE Ei.EV TOTAL DEPTH SURVEY IN'O G EC-.OGIST. DRjj ER
7,208 9ft 56 5ft N: 61936 22; E 92381 94 C Russefl/Vine Laboratories
72C5
72C0
JUii.
?isa.
7155.
71 m
7175
: 7170
? 7165
3.0-
8.0-
18.0-
23.0-
26.3-
DESCRIPTION
x6 Irches 3sph3.t pavenerl
I Poorly Graded Sand wttn Gravel, moist \B3se Course iSPj_________________________
' Clayey Sana with Gravel, crown moist Fill [
m_______________________________________/
Poorly Graded Gravel with Clay and Sand.
coocies and Dodders interred ircm drill acnor Drowr, medium dense moist Fill, (GP-GC;
Silty Gravel with Sand, red-crown ar-a gray medfcim dense lo dense, moist, F*, (GM)

Sandy Lean Clay w(Si Gravel, red-crown ana gray very 6trr moist FI*. (CL).
Clayey Sand. C3rtt Crown medium dense wood fragments present, moist. Alluvium
(SC).
Poorly Graded Gravel with Sllt'Clay. Sand. Cobbles, and Boulders, variably colored very dense, moist to wet Aluvium, [GP-GM / GP-GC i
35.0-
No sample recovery at 35 teet Drsec trrcugn 3 5-root oouioer Ycm 35 to 33.5 feet
interbedded Limestone. Claystone, and snaie. very lo*1 to low strengsi lignt gray with Iron oxide staining very mirlv laminated and issue bedding dips 20'degrees very closely spaced tractwlng limestone aye’rs
DroKer down to chips 1,'2-inch and smaller, anemailng zones of strcngry cemented material wttn weary cemented matersi we3tnered to oiay sol moderately to highly weatnered, Eag;e V3iiey Evaportte_________
SPT
z
>.
a
Q
â– AS
â– 9 5
-15.0
-20.0
-25.0
â– 30.0
â– 3S.0
â– 10.0
â– 450
P
12A
126
26-11-13
12C
11-11-10
120
11-18-13
126
10-13-15
12F
6-7-9
12G
13-13-23
12H
sc.tr
121
31-50.5-
12J
28-16-
EOiS'
*
ajQ
DO
>/
K
21
21
31
28
16
71
5G5*
96.1V
SPT DATA
5 10 20 10 70
WELL
DIAGRAM

CONT
GRAB
H-O DEPTH (ft) 2 34.5
DATE 3/16/2017
TIME
NOTES CME 750 Air Hammer
70


71


Estimation of Soil Parameters Using SPT Blow Counts
SPT blow counts are an affordable method for estimating the soil parameters when geotechnical engineers do not have enough geotechnical information or laboratory recommendation. In the same way, it can be used for the projects that have a limited budget; the estimation equation can be used regarding the number of SPT blow counts (Coduto, 2001).
Estimation of Soil Parameter for Analysis
• Unit Weight of Soil and Vertical effective stress
Table 5.4 shows the unit weight of most of the soil in situ (Coduto, 2001).
Typical Unit Weight, y
Above Below
Groundwater Table Groundwater Table
(Ib/ft'i (kN/nv) (lb/ft') (kN/m’)
GP — Poorly graded gravel 110 130 17.5-20.5 125-140 19.5-22.0
GW — Well graded gravel 110 140 17.5-22.0 125-150 19.5-23.5
GM — Silty gravel 100 130 16.0-20.5 125-140 19.5-22.0
GC — Clayey gravel 100 130 16.0-20.5 125-140 19.5-22.0
SP — Poorly graded sand 95 125 15.0-19.5 120*135 19.0-21.0
SW — Well graded sand 95 135 15.0-21.0 120-145 19.0 23.0
SM — Silty sand so 135 12.5-21.0 110-140 17.5-22.0
SC — Clayey sand 85 130 13.5-20.5 110-135 17.5-21 0
ML — Low plasticity silt 75 110 11.5-17.5 80-130 12.5-20.5
MH — High plasticity silt 75 110 11.5-17.5 75-130 11.5-20.5
CL —Low plasticity clay 80 no 12.5-17.5 75-130 11.5-20.5
CH — High plasticity clay 80- III) 12.5-17.5 70-125 11.0-19.5
Soil Type and Unified Soil Classification (See Section 5.3)
72


Effective unit weight = Unit weight of water - Wet unit weight (Transportation, 1996).
av
eQii.Yeff)
2000
Where:
av = Thickness of soil layer i above point being considered (FT)
Yeff = Effective unit weight of soil layer i (PCF)
I = Number of soil layer under consideration
• An angle of internal friction (cp) (Transportation, 1996): Ncorr= (0.771og(—))JV
Where:
Ncorr = Corrected SPT blow count (Blows/FT) N = SPT blow count (Blows/FT):
av
eQii.Yeff)
2000
Where:
av = Thickness of soil layer i above point being considered (FT) yeff = Effective unit weight of soil layer i (PCF)
I = Number of soil layer under consideration = a. Ncorr + b
Eq.5.1
Eq.5.2
Eq.5.3
Eq.5.4
73


Where
a and b are as listed in Table 2
Table 5.5: Correlation (Transportation, 1996).
Description Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Very Dense
Ncorr = 0-4 4-10 10-30 30-50 >50
yf = 25-30 27-32 30-35 35-40 38-43
a = 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.15 0
b= 27.5 2.7.5 30 33 40.5
• Modulus of elasticity (E):
E = 7. Ncorr
Eq.3.5
74


Development of Soil Parameters for I-7QG Edward’s Project
According to the geotechnical recommendation of CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation), I-70G Edward’s soil parameters were developed in the following tables.
Table 5.6: Soil Parameters for B-l (Chang, 2018).
No Layer Depth Thickness ft ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) (E) ksi N Corr
1 4 4 18 14.87 35.50 120 0.24 1.46 21.99
2 9 5 41 33.86 40.23 120 0.54 3.32 40.90
3 14 5 10 8.26 32.19 120 0.84 0.81 8.76
4 19 5 11 9.09 32.18 120 1.14 0.89 8.70
5 24 5 9 7.43 31.67 90 1.37 0.73 6.67
6 29 5 9 7.43 31.58 80 1.57 0.73 6.33
7 34 5 24 19.82 34.02 80 1.77 1.94 16.09
8 39 5 23 19.00 33.68 80 1.97 1.86 14.74
9 44 5 14 11.56 32.12 110 2.24 1.13 8.47
10 49 5 34 28.08 34.87 110 2.52 2.75 19.47
11 54 3 50 41.30 36.92 120 2.70 4.05 27.68
12 57 3 90 74.33 42.05 120 2.88 7.28 48.22
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
• N60
O °
o o
>
o o

•
N60 v.s Depth
75


Table 5.7: Soil Parameters for B-2 (Chang, 2018).
No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) (E) ksi N Corr
1 4 4 19 15.69 35.80 120 0.24 1.54 23.21
2 9 5 22 18.17 35.49 120 0.54 1.78 21.95
3 14 5 17 14.04 33.72 120 0.84 1.38 14.88
4 19 5 20 16.52 33.96 120 1.14 1.62 15.82
5 24 5 14 11.56 32.54 120 1.44 1.13 10.17
6 29 5 50 41.30 38.43 120 1.74 4.05 33.72
7 34 5 51 42.12 38.08 110 2.02 4.13 32.33
8 39 5 36 29.73 35.39 110 2.29 2.91 21.55
9 44 5 30 24.78 34.27 100 2.54 2.43 17.10
N60 Vs Depth
0.00 5.00
10
15
20
£25
a>
a
30
35
40
45
50
10.00
15.00
N60
20.00 25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
•
)»
•C
>
O
o
o
0
c f

76


Table 5.8: Soil Parameters for B-3 (Chang, 2018).
No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) (E) ksi N Corr
1 5 5 15 12.39 34.35 120 0.30 1.21 17.40
2 10 5 22 18.17 35.33 120 0.60 1.78 21.31
3 15 5 23 19.00 34.92 120 0.90 1.86 19.70
4 20 5 50 41.30 39.71 120 1.20 4.05 38.85
5 25 5 50 41.30 39.00 110 1.48 4.05 36.00
6 30 5 50 41.30 38.41 110 1.75 4.05 33.64
7 35 5 50 41.30 37.91 110 2.03 4.05 31.63
8 40 5 50 41.30 37.50 100 2.28 4.05 30.02
9 44 4 50 41.30 37.19 110 2.50 4.05 28.74
N60 Vs Depth
N60
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00
0
5
10
15
20
a>
a
30
35
40
45
50
77


Table 5.9: Soil Parameters for B-4 (Chang, 2018).
No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) (E) ksi N Corr
1 5 5 23 19.00 36.67 120 0.3 1.86 26.68
2 15 10 21 17.34 34.50 120 0.9 1.70 17.99
3 20 5 50 41.30 39.79 110 1.18 4.05 39.14
4 25 5 67 55.34 42.14 110 1.45 5.42 48.56
5 30 5 74 61.12 42.52 110 1.73 5.99 50.08
6 40 10 73 60.29 40.96 110 2.28 5.91 43.83
N60 Vs Depth
N60
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00
0
5
10
15
20
+â– *
LL.
-C
+â– *
Q.
ai
â–¡
25
30
35
40
45


Q



W, _W




78


Table 5.10: Soil Parameters for B-5 (Chang, 2018).
No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Unit Friction Weight Angle b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) (E) ksi N Corr
1 10 10 50 41.30 43.51 80 0.40 4.05 54.02
2 20 10 34 28.08 37.56 80 0.80 2.75 30.23
3 30 10 22 18.17 34.15 100 1.30 1.78 16.61
4 35 5 39 32.21 36.84 110 1.58 3.16 27.38
5 39.5 4.5 37 30.56 36.12 110 1.82 2.99 24.48
6 45 5.5 30 24.78 34.62 120 2.15 2.43 18.47
7 50 5 50 41.30 37.20 120 2.48 4.05 28.81
8 55 5 50 41.30 36.77 120 2.81 4.05 27.09
N60 Vs Depth
0.00
5.00
10
20
â– K 30
Q.
a>
a
40
50
10.00
15.00
N60
20.00 25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
60





o o
• £ • 0

79


Table 5.11: Soil Parameters for B-6 (Chang, 2018).
No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) (E) ksi N Cor
1 5 5 36 29.73 40.44 120 0.30 2.91 41.76
2 10 5 25 20.65 36.20 100 0.55 2.02 24.81
3 15 5 24 19.82 35.39 90 0.78 1.94 21.55
4 20 5 27 22.30 35.58 90 1.00 2.19 22.34
5 25 5 37 30.56 36.98 120 1.30 2.99 27.93
6 30 5 52 42.95 39.07 120 1.60 4.21 36.27
7 35 5 74 61.12 42.16 100 1.85 5.99 48.65
8 40 5 50 41.30 37.78 100 2.10 4.05 31.12
10
15
20
Q.
a>
â–¡
25
30
35
40
45
N60 Vs Depth N60 00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.
M

c w
h\
A
^***.


A -W
w
80


Table 5.12: Soil Parameters for B-7 (Chang, 2018).
No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) (E) ksi N Corr
1 3.5 3.5 12 9.91 33.93 100 0.18 0.97 15.71
2 8.5 5 34 28.08 39.04 100 0.43 2.75 36.17
3 13.5 5 43 35.51 40.06 100 0.68 3.48 40.25
4 18.5 5 35 28.91 37.43 100 0.93 2.83 29.71
5 23.5 5 35 28.91 36.85 100 1.18 2.83 27.40
6 28.5 5 6 4.96 31.10 90 1.40 0.49 4.41
7 33.5 5 50 41.30 38.67 90 1.63 4.05 34.67
N60 Vs Depth
0.00 5.00 10.00 N60 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00
o
40
81


Table 5.13: Soil Parameters for B-8 (Chang, 2018).
No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) (E) ksi N Corr
1 4.5 4.5 82 67.73 55.41 100 0.23 6.64 101.63
2 9.5 5 43 35.51 41.10 100 0.47 3.48 44.42
3 15 5.5 50 41.30 41.22 110 0.77 4.05 44.89
4 20 5 50 41.30 40.17 110 1.10 4.05 40.70
5 25 5 50 41.30 39.37 110 1.33 4.05 37.48
6 30 5 86 71.03 45.00 110 1.60 6.96 59.99
7 35 5 50 41.30 38.17 110 1.88 4.05 32.69
8 40 5 50 41.30 37.70 110 2.15 4.05 30.80
9 45 5 85 70.20 42.32 120 2.45 6.88 49.29
10 50 5 50 41.30 36.85 120 2.75 4.05 27.40
11 55 5 71 58.64 39.34 90 2.98 5.75 37.37
12 60 5 55 45.43 36.96 90 3.20 4.45 27.84
N60 Vs Deoth
N60
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
0
10
20
50
60
70
• o
"f A
o y*\
o A
»
o

82


Table 5.14: Soil Parameters for B-9 (Chang, 2018).
No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Unit Weight Angle b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) (E) ksi N Corr
1 5 5 8 6.61 32.37 110 0.275 0.65 9.47
2 10 5 9 7.43 32.23 110 0.55 0.73 8.93
3 15 5 32 26.43 37.18 90 0.775 2.59 28.73
4 20 5 26 21.47 35.38 90 1 2.10 21.51
5 25 5 50 41.30 39.64 90 1.225 4.05 38.57
6 30 5 66 54.51 41.73 120 1.525 5.34 46.92
7 35 5 72 59.47 41.90 120 1.825 5.83 47.61
8 40 5 50 41.30 37.74 120 2.125 4.05 30.96
9 46 4 41 33.86 36.04 120 2.365 3.32 24.18
N60 Vs Depth
0.00
10.00
20.00
N60
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
10
15
20
£25
a>
a
30
35
40
45
50

W


r\
pi
w.


~W

83


Table 5.15: Soil Parameters for B-10 (Chang, 2018).
No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Unit Weight Angle b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) (E) ksi N Corr
1 10 10 42 34.69 40.16 120 0.6 3.40 40.68
2 20 10 25 20.65 34.85 120 1.2 2.02 19.43
3 25 5 15 12.39 32.70 110 1.475 1.21 10.80
4 30 5 50 41.30 38.46 100 1.725 4.05 33.84
5 35 5 59 48.73 39.43 100 1.975 4.78 37.73
6 40 5 94 77.64 44.32 90 2.2 7.61 57.31
N60 Vs Depth
N60
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00
10
15
20
Q.
a>
â–¡
25
30
35
40
45




r\
w

'•A
w r\
o

84


Table 5.16: Soil Parameters for B-ll (Chang, 2018).
No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) (E) ksi N Corr
1 10 10 50 41.30 42.41 110 0.55 4.05 49.63
2 15 5 94 77.64 51.10 90 0.78 7.61 84.39
3 20 5 50 41.30 40.34 90 1.00 4.05 41.37
4 25 5 51 42.12 39.83 90 1.23 4.13 39.34
N60 Vs Depth
N60
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00
0
5
25 *
30
85


Table 5.17: Soil Parameters for B-12 (Chang, 2018).
No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Unit Weight Angle b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) (E) ksi N Corr
1 4.5 4.5 24 19.82 37.27 110 0.2475 1.943 29.11
2 9.5 5 21 17.34 35.43 90 0.4725 1.700 21.72
3 15 5.5 31 25.60 37.11 90 0.72 2.509 28.46
4 20 5 28 23.13 35.75 120 1.02 2.266 23.01
5 25 5 16 13.21 33.02 110 1.295 1.295 12.10
6 30 5 71 58.64 42.47 110 1.57 5.747 49.90
7 35 5 50 41.30 38.32 90 1.795 4.047 33.29
8 40 5 50 41.30 37.91 90 2.02 4.047 31.66
9 45 5 96 79.29 44.35 110 2.295 7.770 57.40
10 50 5 51 42.12 37.22 110 2.57 4.128 28.90
11 55 5 53 43.77 37.16 100 2.82 4.290 28.68
N60 Vs Depth
N60
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
0
10
20
â– K 30
Q.
a>
a
40
50
60
< o
o
o



O
•..
•..




o

86


CHAPTER VI
Nominal Capacity of Driven Piles at Edwards, Colorado Introduction Introduction
An 1-70 Edwardes’s soil profile considers that the type of soil is sandy soil (Ch.5), so the nominal capacity of cohesionless soil should follow the Kulhawy formula for end bearing and /3 — method for side fiction. In this case, the pore water pressure dissipates quickly. As a result, the evaluation of the toe bearing should be from the resistance of effective stress with drained strength (Coduto, 2001).
qf = ByN* + afDNq Eq.6.1
Where:
qf =Nominal Net Toe-Bearing Capacity
B = Pile Diameter
Ny, Nq= Bearing Capacity Factor
y= Unit Weight of Soil in The Zone of Influence Around the Toe (jfD= Vertical Effective Stress at The Pile Toe
Therefore, Ny, Nq factors depend on the shear strength and compressibility, so the rigidity index presents the compressibility effects, and it is the ratio of the shear modulus to the shear strength.
Ir = ----r4-----— Eq.6.2
2(1+v)ctzDtan0~ n
Where:
Ir =Rigidity Index
E= Modulus of Elasticity of Soil within The Zone of Influence
v= Poisson’s Ratio of Soil within The Zone of Influence
afD =Vertical Effective Stress at the Toe Elevation
0~= Effective Friction Angle of Soils within The Zone of Influence
87


Figure 6.1: Bearing Capacity Factor Ny (Coduto, 2001).
Figure 6.2: Bearing Capacity Factor Nq (Coduto, 2001).
88


Full Text

PAGE 1

EVALUATING OF 14H PILES IN COHESIONLESS SOIL S FOR METHOD AND FINITE ELEMENT METHOD By YAHYA BINMAHFOUZ B.S. in Civil Engineering, Umm Al Quraa University, 2012 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment Civil Engineering 2019

PAGE 2

i Table of Content Table of Contents .. List of Figures iv List of Tables x . Chapter I. .. . . ...1 Problem Statements Research Goals and objectives Research Tasks II. Literature Review on Driven H Pile Capacity .. .. 3 Historical Perspective of Geotechnical Engineering ....... 3 4 4 Chemical Weathering 4 4 4 5 Unified Classification System 6 Beari Type of Driven Pile Foundations . ... 2 2 H 3

PAGE 3

ii Axial Load Transfer Through H . 4 . Tip . . . Ultimate Resistance .. .. ... . Standard Penetration Test (SPT) . . III . Theoretical Background of Load and Resistance Factor Design of Driven Piles .. 29 .. 29 .. .. 30 Estimate Total Dead Loads .. 32 Estimate Total Live Loads .. 34 IV. . 5 35 Plan and Implement a Static Load Testing Program 35 Axial Compression Load Test 3 5 Equipment of Compressional Test 3 6 Interpretation of Compression Test Result . 4 0 Evaluation of Load Transformation . 4 0 Telltales . .. 4 1 Strain Gages .. 4 2 V . . ..... . . 46 Introduction .. . . . 46 46

PAGE 4

iii ... 47 .. . 49 Log Boring From B ... .. 5 2 Estimat e . . 7 2 Estimat e . ... 7 2 Development of Soil Parameters for I Project .. . 7 5 V I . Nominal Capacity of Driven Piles at Edwards, Colorado ... . . ... .. 87 Introduction . ... 87 Computing The Nominal Capacity for 14 H Pile in Cohesionless Soil ... . .............. 89 VI I . Finite Element Analysis of H Pile performance . ... 9 3 .. 9 3 Finite Element Analysis by (SSI3D Software .. 9 3 . 9 4 Analysis of 14/102 H ... .. .. .. 96 Modeling of ... ... .. 96 Modeling of the soil ... .. .. . 99 Side Shear, Displacement , and Load Displacement ... 2 VII I . Biased Factors for steel HP14*102 for Resistance Factor Calibration ... 1 0 8 IX. PILE D riving A nalyzer (PDA) PDA Components .. 4 X I . Summary, Conclusion , and Recommendation for Future Study ... . ... 8 .. 11 9

PAGE 5

iv List of Figures Figure 1.1: The location of Bridges Figure 2 .1: Karl Terzaghi (1883 1963) (Das & Sobhan, 2013) . 3 Figure 2 .2: Plasticity Chart (Das & Sobhan, 2013) . 7 Figure 2 .3: FlowChart For coarse grained (Das, 2015) . 9 Figure 2 .4: FlowChart For fine grained (Das & Sobhan, 2013) . . 10 Figure 2 .5: FlowChart For Classifying coarse grained (Das & Sobhan, 2013) 1 Figure 2 .6: Types of Deep Foundation (Coduto, 2001) 2 Figure 2 .7: Classification of Pile Systems (Coduto, 2001) 3 Figure 2 .8: Hardened Steel Point Attached to The Toe of a Steel H Pile to Protect Hard Driving . (Coduto, 2001) 4 Fig ure 2 .9: Transfer of Structural Loads from a Pile Foundation into the Ground: (a) Axial Downward ( Compressive) Loads, (b) Axial Upwards (Tensile) Loads, and (c) Lateral Loads . (Coduto, 2001) 5 Figure 2. 10 Transfer of load to a pile and from a pile to the soil. (Cai, Liu, Tong, & Du, 2009) Figure 2. 11 Beta coefficient for piles in sand versus embedment length. (Data from Rollins et al. 2005 with ranges suggested by CFEM 1992 , Gregersen et al. 1973, and Hong Kong Geo Fig. 2. 1 2 Beta coefficient in sand versus average effective stress. (Data from Clausen et al. 2005)

PAGE 6

v Fig. 2. 1 3 Beta coefficie nt for piles in clay versus plasticity index, IP. (Data from Clausen et al. Figure 2. 1 4: Apparent preconsolidation stress vs. N60 for soils. (Mayne, 2006) Figure 2. 1 5: Combinative in situ test interpretations of stress history at College Station sand site, Texas. (Mayne, 2006) Figure 3 .1: Bell Curves Illustrating Distribution of Load and Resistance (FHWA, July 2015) Figure 3 32 Figure 3 .3: Design Truck (FHWA, July .. 34 Figure 3 .. . 34 Figure 3 .. 34 Figure 4 . 1 : Axial compression static load test (FHWA, 2016 3 6 Figure 4 . 2 : Static load test setup diagram (FHWA, 2016) 37 Figure 4 . 3 : Load test application and monitoring system (FHWA, 2016) 8 Figure 4 . 4 : Load test movement monitoring components (FHWA, 2016) 9 Figure 4 . 5 : Typical load movement curve for axial compression load test (FHWA, 2016) ... .. 40 Figure 4 . 6 : Diagram of telltale rods installed on the pile (modified from Kyfor et al. 1992) (FHWA, 2016) 42 Figure 4 . 7 : Vibrating wire strain gage sister bars for concrete embedment (FHWA, 2016) ..43 Figure 4 . 8 : Vibrating wire strain gage with welded anchor blocks and protective channel (FHWA, 2016) 44 Figure 4 . 9 : Electrical resistance strain gage on sister bars in concrete pile casting bed (FHWA, 2016) 44

PAGE 7

vi Figure 4 . 10 : Multiple externally mounted strain gages (2 on each web face) located in soil resistance free area during static load test (courtesy WKG2) (FHWA, 2016 ) 45 Figure 5 .1: The SPT Sampler in Place in The Boring with Hammer, Rope, and Cathead (Adapted from Kovacs et al., al) (Coduto, 2001) 48 Figure 5 .2: The SPT Sampler (Adapted from ASTM D1586; Copyright, used with Permission) (Coduto, 2001) 48 Figure: 5 .3: Types of SPT Hammers. (Coduto, 2001) 51 52 54 57 5 8 60 62 63 64 66 68 Bo 69 70 Figure 6 .1: Bearing Capacity Factor (Coduto, 2001) 8 8 Figure 6 .2: Bearing Capacity Factor (Coduto, 2001) 8 8 Figure 6 .3: Load Displacement Curve for H 90 Figure 6 .4: Load Displacement Curve for H Pile14/102 for B 3 92

PAGE 8

vii Figure 7 . 1 (Hien, 2019) 94 Figure 7.2: A Geometry of 14 H Pile in SSI3D (3D) Figure 7. 4 : A Cross Section of 14 H Pile in SSI3D (2D) Figure 7.3: N60 Vs. Depth for B Figure 7 . 5 : Side Shear Distribution Along H .. 102 Figure 7 . 6 : Depth V.s. Displacement Curve for H .. 104 Figure 7 . 7 : Load Displacement Curve for H .. 105 Figure 7 . 8 : Side Shear Distribution Along H Pile14/102 for B 3 .. 10 6 Figure 7 . 9 : Depth V.s. Displacement Curve for H Pile14/102 for B 3 .. 10 7 Figure 7 . 10 : Load Displacement C urve for H Pile14/102 for B 3 10 8 Figure 9.1: cap beam testing schemes: Option1 presents the initial scheme, Option 2 presents modified scheme Figure 9.2: A A Section Connection Detail Between Cap Beam and Pile Head Figure 9.3: Time history of SLT of initial scheme Figure 9.4: Comparison between applied and measured load Figure 9.5: Load settlement curve of pile group Figure 10 .1: Co mparison of Different Bearing Capacity Methods for Southern Portion (B 9) (Chang, 2018) 14 Figure 10 .2: Comparison of Different Bearing Capacity Methods for Northern Portion (B 3) 115

PAGE 9

viii List of Tables Table 2 .1: AASHTO Soil Classification System (Das & Sobhan, 2013) 5 Table 2 .2: Description of Soil in Plasticity 6 Table 2 .3: Unified Classification Chart (Das & Sobhan, 2013) 8 Table 2. 4 : Approximate Ranges of Beta coefficients (Randolph, 2003) Table 2. 5 : Approximate Values of (Randolph, 2003) Table 2. 6 : presents a range of values for clay, silt, sand, and gravel. (Randolph, 2003) Table 2. 7 : Summary of direct CPT based pile design methods. (Cai et al., 2009) Table 2. 8 : Comments on direct CPT based methods. (Cai et al., 2009) 25 Table 2. 9 : SPT direct methods for prediction of pile bearing capacity (Cubrinovski et al., 1999) Table 5 .1: Evaluating Engineering Properties of Shale Rock (M.Santi, 1996) 47 Table 5 . 2 SPT Hammer Efficiency. (Coduto, 2001) 50 Table 5 . 3 : Borehole, Sampler, and Rod Correction Factors. (Coduto, 2001) 51 Table 5 . 4 the unit weight of most of the soil in situ. (Coduto, 2001) 74 Table 5 . 5 : Correl ation (Transportation, 1996) 75 Table 5 . 6 : Soil Parameters for B 7 6 Table 5 . 7 : Soil Parameters for B 7 7 Table 5 . 8 : Soil Parameters for B 7 8 Table 5 . 9 : Soil Parameters for B 7 9 Table 5 . 10 : Soil Parameters for B .. 80 Table 5 .1 1 : Soil Parameters for B 81

PAGE 10

ix Table 5 .1 2 : Soil Parameters fo r B 82 Table 5 .1 3 : Soil Parameters for B 83 Table 5 .1 4 : Soil Parameters for B 84 Table 5 .1 5 : Soil Parameters for B 85 Table 5 .1 6 : Soil Parameters for B 1 86 Table 5 .1 7 : Soil Parameters for B 87 Table 5 88 Table 5 .2: The Nominal Side Friction Capacity for B 3 89 Table 6.1: The Nominal Side Friction Capacity for B 9 Table 6.2: The Nominal Side Friction Capacity for B 3 Table 7 .1: the geometry 9 6 Table 7 .2 : Correlation (Tr ansportation, 1996) .. 99 Table 7 .3: The Estimated Soil Parameters by SPT for B .. 100 Table 10 . 1 : Total Side Friction Capacity for 14H .. 9

PAGE 11

x EVALUATING OF 14H METHOD AND FINITE ELEMENT METHOD Abstract Impediments to the progress of civil engineering projects could have adverse consequences on the economy and reputation of the builders. M any peer reviewed papers supported the main objective of this paper which is Evaluating two 14H Pile s in cohesionless soil for project by using finite element method and method. However, comparing the methods is the best technique to prevent th e failure in foundation and soil. Also, field investigation with many in situ tests can indicate the great picture of what the soil properties are. The main objective of this paper is to find out how much the soil can resist the loads with different location of Edward (Northern portion and Southern portion) by using different methods. The Colorado Department project by using s tandard penetration test (SPT). Keywords: geotechnical engineering, bearing capacity, deep foundations, FEM, strength, metho d

PAGE 12

xi Acknowledgment Beneficial strategies prevent many issues before they escalate and become complicated problems. Therefore, investment in basis is a brilliant strategy. In the meantime, the development of the basis is needed by investors because they found that weak basis might be awful. Thus, a meager bases affect structure awkwardly. In other words, if students had been taught with weak education, they would be with struggles in their knowledge which might cause t hem a weakness in their education systems. In the same way, geotechnical engineering is the basis of all buildings because the first step to build structures is geotechnical analysis, so subsurface of the buildings must be treated sufficiently to avoid sus tainability issues in the future. Structures without treated soil and strong foundations might cause many issues , and this issue may not be seen immediately because soils botheration would take a long time to appear. In the present, strong soil that can r esist loads of the buildings have been used since people moved to cities, and the other soil that has not used is weak. Improving soil is not effortless because the soil has a lot of uncertainty that could be affected by any external impact, such as weathe ring, leaching, and cracking. Eradication of soil issues can be solved by improving engineering properties of soils and modeling the soil interaction by the worthy method s , such as the finite element method. Subse que ntly, soil can without increasing the stress of the soil when soil properties have been 0 improved. Furthermore, a well designed foundation prevents the soil from getting stressed dramatically. There are two princip al kind s of the foundation that should be assigned regarding the soil profile, and they are shallow foundations and deep foundations. Shallow foundations usually resist the load by end bearing, and its depth is short comparing to deep foundations. On the other hand, deep foundation s usually resist the load by end bearing and friction bearing, and these particular foundations can resist mega loads, such as bridges, high rise buildings, and airports. In the past ten years, deep foundations have established to play a more significant r ole in foundation engineering development, with an escalation in the urban renaissance, and events s design.

PAGE 13

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Problem Statements The F ederal Highway A dministration (FHWA) has a plan to improve the interstate highway by build ing several bridges in many states and develop the roadway from north to south of the s tates, so Colora do. T his research considers the foundation improvement for two bridges that are located in Edwards, Co. The first bridge is located over the Eagle River (South Portion), and the second bridge is located over an inactive Union Pacific Railroad (Figure 1.1) . In other words, each bridge should be replaced with a new bridge that has two lanes in each direction . Research Goals and objectives The Colorado Dep artment of Transportation recommends that the type of foundation should be driven pile foundation to support the abutments of the bridge, and the driven pile should be tipped into the bedrock to meet both axial capacity and lateral resistance . In the same way, the size of the driven pile is 14 H pile according to professor Chang. This study aims to evaluate the total bearing capacity for Edward's project for the two14 H pile foundation that should be driven into two different locations (North & South Portion ). According to the Colorado Department of Transportation, most of the field test indicates that the site has sandy soil. Moreover, this study determines the total bearing capacity from different methods: Finite method. Rese arch Tasks Field exploration is the most important task in geotechnical engineering because it describes a perfect picture of what the soil parameters are for each layer in the ground. According to The Colorado Department of Transportation , the soil prof were explored by standard penetration test (SPT), and the number of boreholes is twelve boreholes . Therefore, the number of blow count should be calibrated with many equations to find out the soil strength parameters of each layer, such as the friction angle, the cohesion, the unit weight, and module of elasticity.

PAGE 14

2 Determination of the total bearing capacity for two 14H piles that should be driven into different locations and different soil properties (Northern Portion, and South Portion). After soil parameters were determined by fi el d exploration, the two driven piles should be modeled by using finite element method, and the affordable program for this task is soil structure interaction 3 D program (S SI3D). Then, the total bearing capacity should be compared with the nominal bearing capacity that should be calculated by method . The calibrations of load resistance and factor design should be collected from all states that are in the improvement plan and determination the best factor design to avoid the fail for both bridges of Edward, Colorado. Axial load test should be applied for both bridges on instrumented full scale piles to determine the load settlement and the load transfer relationships . Then, the measured data should be compared with corresponding values predicted by FEM and method . Figure 1.1: The location of Bridges: The W hite Market Presents The Location of The Eagle River Bridge, The Yellow Market Presents The Location of The Union Pacific Railroad .

PAGE 15

3 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ON DRIVEN H PILE CAPACITY Historical Perspective of Geotechnical Engineering Geotechnical engineering concepts started early in the 18 th century, and most of these concepts were depended on experimental practices. In 1908, Albert Mauritz Atterberg stated that the size critical concept of the plasticity. Moreover, he expanded his research in the consistency of cohesive soil by def ining a liquid limit, plastic limit, and shrinkage limit (Das & Sobhan, 2013) . In October 1909, earth dam at Charmers, France failed with 56 ft high ; therefore, Jean Fontrad investigated the reason for failure . Thus, he did an undrained double shear test on the taken sample . As a result, his investigation admitted that the time of failure was between 10 to 20 minutes. Arthur Langley found the relationship between lateral pressure and resistance that was for the bearing capacity of shallow foundation in clay soil. The stability analysis of saturated clay slope with an internal friction angle equals zero was developed by Wolmar Fellenius in 1918 . Karl Terzaghi developed the theory of consolidation while he was teaching at the American Robert College in Istanbul, Turkey ( Das & Sob han, 2013) . Fig ure 2 .1 : Karl Terzaghi (1883 1963) (Das & Sobhan, 2013) .

PAGE 16

4 Soil Formation A natural aggregate of mineral grains is the best description of soil. In the same way, the roc ks are the natural aggregate of mineral grains with strong cohesive force. The weathering process can segregate mineral grains by reducing the cohesive force. Thus, the particle of rocks would be a smaller and smaller particle , and this process might be from mechanical or chemical weathering process (Das & Sobhan, 2013) . Mechanical Weathering Prosses Change in temperature could influence the volume of rocks in term of expansion and contraction. Also, rain and wind can cause erosion for the rocks and isolate them from being smaller. Cracking in rock let the plant to grow up in voids between the cracks, so growing the plant might break down the rock (Das & Sobhan, 2013) . Ch emic al Weath e ring Prosses This kind of prosses is calle d decomposition which moves from hard rock mineral to soft rock mineral, and it includes hydration, o x idation , carb o nation , desalination , and leaching ( Das & Sobhan, 2013) . Types of Soils S oils can be used for many purposes, such as agriculturist , and construction . The process of weathering can format the soil . For example, because of the weather , the rock can be ranged from colloidal to boulders, but soils can be ranged according to their grain size under categories, cobbles, gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The soils that have a graining size between 4.75 to 76.2 mm are gravel soils. The grains that can be seen without a telescope are sandy soil, and their diameter is less than 4.75mm ( Das & Sobhan, 2013) . Soil Classification Systems In geotechnical engineering, t wo systems classify the soil regarding their engineering properties, suc h as grain size distribution, liquid limit, and plastic limit. They are the American Association of State Highway and T ransportation Officials (AASHTO) system, and the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM) system ( Das & Sobhan, 2013) .

PAGE 17

5 AASHTO Class ification System In this system, the soil is classified in to eight groups depending on their grain size distr ib ution , liquid limit, and plastic limit. Coarse grained materials are recorded in group A 1, A 2, and A 3. Fine grained material s are recorded in group A 4, A 5, A 6, and A 7. The organic materials are recorded in the group A 8 ( Das & Sobhan, 2013) . Table 2 .1: AASHTO Soil Classification System (Das & Sobhan, 2013) .

PAGE 18

6 Where: Presesnt Passing No200 Seives = Liqued Limit = Plasticty Index Unified Classification System The first person who used the unified classification system is A. Casagrande in 1942. Then, the United S tates Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers edited this system later. In this system, most of the geotechnical engi neers the follow ing table for iden ti fy ing the type of soi l in the plasticity chart (Das & Sobhan, 2013). Table 2 .2: Description of Soil in Plasticity Chart (Das & Sobhan, 2013). Sym b ol G S M C O Pt H L W P Descr ip tion Gravel Sand Silt Clay Organic Silt and Clay Peat and highly organic soils High plasticity Low plasticity Well graded Poorly graded

PAGE 19

7 Figure 2 . 2 : Plasticity Chart (Das & Sobhan, 2013) .

PAGE 20

8 Table 2 .3: Unified Classification Chart (Das & Sobhan, 2013) . (After ASTM, 2011) Based on ASTM D 2487 10 Standard Practice Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classif i cation ) (Das & Sobhan, 2013).

PAGE 21

9 Figure 2 .3 : FlowChart For Classifying coarse grained( more than 50% retained on No 200 s ie ve) (After ASTM, 2011) Based on ASTM D2487 10 Standard Practice Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification ) (Das, 2015)

PAGE 22

10 Figure 2 .4 : FlowChart For Classifying fine grained( more than 50% retained on No 200 sieve) (After ASTM, 2011) Based on ASTM D2487 10 Standard Practice Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification ) (Das & Sobhan, 2013)

PAGE 23

11 Figure 2 .5 : FlowChart For Classifying coarse grained( more than 50% retained on No 200 sieve) (After ASTM, 2011) Based on ASTM D2487 10 Standard Practice Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification ) (Das & Sobhan, 2013)

PAGE 24

12 Bearing Capacity of Driven Pile Type of Deep F oundations Most of the engineers do not prefer to use deep foundations in their projects because they are expensive and difficult to build, but many situations impose engineers for using deep foundations in the field such as, high rise buildings which cause a huge lateral load capacity. Depending on site insulation methods, many kinds of foundations have been developed , so those kinds are caisson, piles, and pile supported and pile enhanced mats (Coduto, 2001) . Figure 2 .6: Types of Deep Foundation (Coduto, 2001) . Pile Foundations Pile is foundation wildly used in the fields , and it is penetrated deep into the soil . Also, this kind of foundation divided in to 1 Driven pile s are manufactured elements that should be driven deep into the ground. 2 Drilled shafts should be cast in the field by digging a hole. After that, the reinforcing steel should be placed into the excavated hole, and it should be filled with concrete. 3 Auger Piles is similar to the drilled shaft, but this kind uses a hollow stem auger (Coduto, 2001) .

PAGE 25

13 Figure 2. 7 : Classification of Pile Systems (Codut o, 2001) . H Pile Foundations The l ength of the H pile s usually is from 15 to 50m (50 to 150 ft), and they can resist axial loads from 350 to 1800 kN (80 to 400 k). When H piles are driven , they cause small displacement for soil, and they can be driven to bedrock by using a hardened steel point. Subsequently, they have a perfect performance in foundation design (Coduto, 2001) .

PAGE 26

14 Figure 2 .8 : Hardened Steel Point Attached to The Toe of a Steel H Pile to Protect Hard Driving ( Coduto, 2001) . Axial Load Transfer Through H Pile The main applied loads to H piles are axial loads and lateral loads. Axial l oads are forces conducted along the vertical axis of H piles, so the axial load causes compressive stress and sometimes tension stress. However, the lateral loads c reat e shear and moment. Different methods should analyze those loa ds because their movements through the H pile into the ground are different (Coduto, 2001) .

PAGE 27

15 Figure 2 .9 : Transfer of Struc t ural Loads from a Pile Foundation into the Ground: (a) Axial Downwar d ( Compressive) Loads, (b) Axial Upwards (Tensile) Loads, and (c) Lateral Loads ( Coduto, 2001) . H pile can transfer the loads from the structure into the ground by toe bearing and side friction. The toe bearing resists the load that is between the bottom of the pile, and it is similar to transferring load of the shallow foundations. In the other hand, the friction along the side and adhesio n between the soil and pile produce the side friction capacity (Coduto, 2001) . q= Eq. 1.1 Where: q= Gross Toe Bearing Resistance = Axial Load Mobilizaed Between the Pile Toe and The Underlying Soil = Pile Toe Contact Area

PAGE 28

16 Eq. 1.2 Where: Side Friction Resistance = The Side Force Transferred from The Pile to the ground. = Pile Side Contact Area. Analysis of how the loads transfer through driven piles under axial loads is the first step that has been taken before designing them, and this analysis focuses on the bearing capacity of driven piles. Therefore, the bearing capacities of driven piles are toe bearing capacity and side shear capacity. The load transfer analysis is often called static analysis or capacity analysis. In this analysis, the settlement must be involved because settlement analysis of piles cannot be separated from load transfer. There are two crucial primar ies that can assign the driven pile capacities, and they depend on the kind of soil (Randolph, 2003) . Firstly, the analysis that uses undrained shear strength is called method, or stress independent method, and this analysis is for sandy soil because the pile resistance is proportional to the effective overburden stress in sandy soil. Also, the function of this analysis is the shaft shear because a cohesive material, such as sandy soil does not usually deal with overburden stress, but it deals with surrounding effective stress (Randolph, 2003) . Secondly, the analysis that uses effective stress is calle d method or an adhesion method, so this analysis is for the clay soil. Finally, the and methods, usually refer to shaft resistance. Most of the foundation design methods use empirical correlations whether by use of method or ß method (Randolph, 2003) . Shaft Resistance Dead load and live load are considered in the static analysis of axial pile, and they transfer from the top of piles to the toe of pills trough soil layers, so the loads can be refused by the toe and shaft resistance as indicated in Fig. 2. 1 (Cai et al., 2009) .

PAGE 29

17 Figure 2. 1 0 Transfer of load to a pile and from a pile to the soil (Cai et al., 2009) . The general numerical relation for the unit shaft resistance, rs, of a short pile element is Eq 2. 1 Where: = effective cohesion intercept (or, simply: shear strength undrained or otherwise) usually, c' is not included in the analysis = Bjerrum Burland coefficient (or "effective stress proportionality coefficient") = effective overburden stress

PAGE 30

18 Note: Usually, the shaft resistance of soil increases through the movement because of strain softening response. Also, the cohesion factor should be zero because unit shaft resistance mostly deals with the effective overburden stress as indicated in Eq 2.1 a. In other words , shear resistance applies when there is movement. Usually, there is friction between pile surface and soil surface along with the pile, so that friction might produce shear forces develop along with compression. The load movement for the sha ft resistance and shear stress should not be disturbed by the direction of the movement (Cai et al., 2009). The accumulated shaft resistance from Depth 0 through Depth z is Eq.2.2 Where: = accumulated shaft resistance As the = circumferential area of the pile at Depth z (i.e., surface area over a unit length of the pile ) Note: Many aspects might affect the beta coefficient, such as soil gradation, mineralogical composition, density, depositional history ( G enesis ), grain angularity, pile construction method, etc. The beta coefficient should be assigned with table 2.1 (Cai et al., 2009) . Table 2. 4 : Approximate Ranges of Beta coefficients (Randolph, 2003) Soil Phi Beta Clay 25 30 0.15 0.35 Silt 28 34 0.25 0.50 Sand 32 40 0.30 0.90 Grave 35 45 0.35 0.80

PAGE 31

19 Fig ure 2. 11 Beta coefficient for piles in sand versus embedment length (Randolph, 2003) .

PAGE 32

20 Fig ure 2. 1 2 : Beta coefficient in sand versus average effective stress (Randolph, 2003) .

PAGE 33

21 Fig ure 2. 1 3 : Beta coeff icient for piles in clay versus plasticity index, IP (Randolph, 2003) . Note: All the above figures show that the depth can affect the coefficient that is c alled beta coefficient, ß applied to the effective stress Using lambda method is exclusive in the analysis , and it is usually applied to the Gulf of Mexico soils to find the shaft resistance for heavily loaded pipe piles in uniform soils (Randolph, 2003) . Eq.2.3 Where: = mean shaft resistance along the pile

PAGE 34

22 = mean overburden effective stress mean undrained shear strength Lambda is a function of pile embedment depth, and it reduces with increasing depth , as shown in Table 2.2 Table 2. 5 : Approximate Values of (Randolph, 2003) Feet Meter 0 0 0.50 10 3 0.36 25 7 0.27 50 15 0.22 75 23 0.17 100 30 0.15 200 60 0.12 T ip resistance The unit toe resistance is: Eq.2.4 Where: = unit toe resistance = toe bearing "capacity" coefficient = embedment depth = effective overburden stress at the pile toe Eq.2.5 Where: = total toe resistance

PAGE 35

23 = toe area (normally, the cross sectional area of the pile) Table 2. 6 : presents a range of values for clay, silt, sand, and gravel (Randolph, 2003) . Soil Phi Nt Clay 25 30 3 30 Silt 28 34 20 40 Sand 32 40 30 150 Gravel 35 45 60 300 Ultimate Resistance Ultimate resistance means the sum of the shaft and the toe resistances, so this summation is the capacity of the pile. Eq2.6 Where = ultimate resistance ("capacity") = total toe resistance = total shaft resistance In equation 2.5, when the side shear resistance is assumed mobilized, the relation for the load in a pile was presented at assumed depth. Eq.2.7 Where = axial load at depth z = ultimate resistance ("capacity") = cross sectional area of pi le = beta coefficient = effective overburden stress

PAGE 36

24 = total shaft resistance to Depth z Note: The movement of the pile that results from down drag increase the reticence of shaft and toe resistances (Randolph, 2003) . Cone Penetration Test (CPT) method Cone penetration might be used for predicting the axial pile capacity, and this method can be divided in to two approaches: 1. Direct approach: the cone tip resistance should estimate the end bearing . In the same way, the shaft resistance should be determin ed by the sleeve friction. 2. Indirect approach: CPT could be used in estimating of soil strength parameters such as the undrained shear strength and the angle of internal friction, so this approach us es the strength parameters to evaluate the unit end bearing capacity of the pile and the unit skin friction of the pile . Note: The horizontal stress, soil compressibility, and strain softening are neglected in indirect methods ; engineers do not prefer this method . Titi and AbuFarsakh (1999) presented these methods in table 2.5 (Cai et al., 2009) .

PAGE 37

25 Table 2. 7 : Comments on direct CPT based methods. (Cai et al., 2009) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Method Most of the geotechnical engineer s use the standard penetration test for predicting the axial load capacities of the pile , and it has been using for a while. The first use of SPT was in the United States in 1902. SPT estimates the soil parameters by direct methods apply N values with calibration factors th at assist in calcul ating them . Table 2.5 shows how SPT can be employed for the prediction of pile bearing capacity (Cubrinovski, Ishihara, & Foundations, 1999) . Table 2. 8 : SPT direct methods for prediction of pile bearing capacity (Cubrinovski et al., 1999) Method Unit Base (Qb) and Unit Shaft (Qs) resistance Meyerhof (1976) M = Bazaraa & Kurkur (1986) = = Decourt (1995) = Shariatmadari et al. (2008) =0.385

PAGE 38

26 =3.65 Note: It is important to note that heterogeneity of soil layers should be considered in estimating of pile bearing capacity, so the capacity should be related to the average value of N. There are two averaging methods, arithmetical and geometrical. The arithmetical average is calculated as follows (Cubrinovski et al., 1999) : Eq.2.8 1. The geometrical average ( geo mean ) is calculated as follows: Eq.2. 9 Calibrated friction angle of Sandy soil by SPT SPT can be used for estimating the friction angle of sandy soil with energy corrected and stress nor malized N value (Hatanaka & Uchida 1996; Mayne et al. 2002): = Eq.2. 10 Where: Eq.2 .11

PAGE 39

27 Fig ure 2. 1 4 : Apparent preconsolidation stress vs. N60 for soils. (Mayne, 2006)

PAGE 40

28 Fig ure 2. 1 5 : Combinative in situ test interpretations of stress history at College Station sand site, Texas. (Mayne, 2006)

PAGE 41

29 CHAPTER III Theoretical Background of Load and Resistance Factor Design of Driven Piles Introduction Structural foundations must be safe structures and should resist the external loads without failure. For achieving that statement, the pe rformance requirements of the structural foundation are recommended in most of the geotechnical projects. In the same way, t wo types of ultimate state design should apply in structural foundations for preventing structural failures before they happen, and they are allowable stress design (ASD), and load and resistance factor design (LRFD). Briefly, the allowable stress design has three main steps should be proposed. Firstly, the nominal capacity of structure compares to expected working loads on the structure . Because of that, the ASD is named the working stress design method. Secondly, ASD uses just a factor of safety for finding the ability design load. Design Load should be less than . Finally, the factor of safety depends on the behavior of structure. On the other hand, the load and factor res istan design use many ways that compare the high loads to ulti mate strength, and this method is more accurate than the ADS because it can find the source of uncertainty from many approaches. The following equation should be applied to find out the factored load, and it must be less than the nominal load capacity (Coduto, 2001) . U = Eq. 3 .1 Where: U = Factored Load D = Dead Load L = Live Load E = Earthquake Load Live loads are more uncertain than the dead load. The load factor of live loads is greater than the load factor of the dead load. The other part of LRFD is the resistance factors or strength factors.

PAGE 42

30 U < Eq. 3 .2 Where = Resistance Factor N = Nominal Load Capacity LRFD is a reliability analysis that depend s on the experience and empiricism used. Figure 3 .1: Bell Curves Illustrating Distribution of Load and Resistance (FHWA, July 2015 ) . According to The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials ( AASHTO ) LRFD specifications , bridges expose to many types of loads, such as dead loads, live loads, construction loads, wind loads, friction forces, and blast loading . This chapter presents most of the load sources that are specified by The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials factored load (Coduto, 2001) .

PAGE 43

31 * Permanent Loads: Creep effects (CR) Downdrag Loads (DD) Structura l Dead Load (DC) Wearing Surface Dead Load (DW) Horizontal Earth Pressure (EH) Locked in Loads (DC) Earth Surcharge Loads (EC) Vertical Earth Pressure (EV) Post tensioning Loads (PS) Shrinkage Loads (SH) * Transit Loads: Breaking Loads (BR) Centrifugal Loads (CE) Vehicle Collision Loads (CT) Vessel Collision Loads (PS) Earthquake Loads (EQ) Friction Loads (FR) Ice Loads (IC) Vehicle Dynamic Loads (IM) Live Surcharge Loads (LS) Pedestrian Live Loads (PL) Settlement Loa ds (SE)

PAGE 44

32 Temperature Gradient Loads (TG) Uniform Temperature Loads (TU) Water and Stream Loads (WA) Wind Loads on Live Loads (WL) Wind Loads on Structure (PS) Estimate Total Dead Loads The dead loads c ontain of the self weight of the superstructure and finishing weight. In bridge design, the dead loads are divided in to two main categories, and they are listed under c omponent d ead l oads one , and c omponent d ead l oads two . C omponent dead loads one include s the self weight of girders, deck sections, and cross frames. Component dead loads two is constructed later, and they hav e raised sidewalks, roadway barriers, and lighting structures . Most of the bridge design should be constructed with prestressed concrete girders and steel girders (Figure 6.2) (FHWA, July 2015) . Figure 3 .2: Steel Girder and Tributary Area (FHWA, July 2015 )

PAGE 45

33 Deck thickness = 9 Haunch thickness = 2 The area of the girder is calculated as follows: Flange width = 14.585 Top flange thickness = 0.505 Bottom flange thickness = 0.505 Web thickness = 0.505 Web depth = 40 Girder area (steel) = ( 14.585 0.505 14.585 0.505 0 0.505 34.93 in2 (1008 in2 / 144 in2/ft2) x 0.145 kcf = 1.015 kips/ft ( 34.93 in2 / 144 in2/ft2) x 0.490 kcf = 0. 12 kips/ft = 1.015 + 0.12 = 1.13 kips/ft

PAGE 46

34 Estimate Total Live Loads In bridge loads design, the weight of the truck should be added to the live loads ' list, so t he first axle has a loading of 8 kips, and the second and third axles have loadings of 32 kips each. Figure 3 .3: Design Truck (FHWA, July 2015 ) The design lane load has a uniform load of 0.64 kips per linear foot and is distributed in the longitudinal direction (FHWA, July 2015 ) . Figure 3 .4: Design Lane Load (FHWA, July 2015 )

PAGE 47

35 Figure 3 .5: Effect of Design Truck Plus Design Lane Load (FHWA, July 2015 ) . CHAPTER IV Plan for Static Load T est at Edwards, Colorado Introduction Static load tests are the most accurate method to find out the actual load capacity of the driven pile. This test should be implemented during the construction stage or design stage. Static load test presents the load displacement curve for the driven pile where should install in the field. Also, it should be operated by a professional geotechnical engineer because it has complicated proc edures that should be taken carefully. SLT is the reference for design, testing, and construction techniques (FHWA, 2016) . P lan and Implement a Static Load Testing Program This test is an effort test that requires different instrumentation, so it should follow the sensitive steps for preventing the false result.: The capacity loading of equipment should be assigned before applying them to find geotechnical failure. If they involv ed with the nominal geotechnic al resistance, the goal of SLT load should be applied . Evaluation of load and movement at the pile head must be measured by sensitive ga u ges SLT should be monitored by professional geotechnical engineers . All details should be recorded in appropriate document. SLT can be applied either in the design phase or construction phase to determine the geotechnical resistance of a specified field (FHWA, 2016) . Axial Compression Load Test Usually, the pile experiences an axial compression load in the actual condition. Therefore, the pile should be tested for compression load to find out if it can resist the compression load or not. The following steps should be performed : The top of the pile should be loaded by using a continuous constant rate of the load . Movement at the head pile, load, and time should be recorded . Load Movement Curve should be plotted to assign the nominal geotechnical resistance and the movement at the nominal resistance . Telltales, which is solid rods protected by tubes, can measure movement along with the pile. They are shown in figure 6.1. Also, they can find the strains that are located between their locations. Therefore, the measured strains evaluate the load transfer along the pile shaft (FHWA, 2016) .

PAGE 48

36 Fi gure 4 . 1 : Axial compression static load test (FHWA, 2016) . Equipment of Compressional Test Hydraulic jacks against a weighted platform should be applied to a compression test , and the pressure gage should be calibrated to measure the jack pressure. For preventing eccentricities in the applied loads, spherical bearing plates should be used in the load application arrangement. a minimum of 2 inches of travel and precision of at least 0.01 inches is required. The pile head should have at least two dial ga u ges or LVDT's, and they sh ould be at the center of the pile. According to ASTM D1143, the distance between a test pile and reaction piles should be five times the maximum diameter of the reaction pile, but it should not be less than 8 feet (FHWA, 2016) . Figure 4 . 2 shows a typical compression load test setup. Figures 4 .3, and 4 .4 are the typical load application and movement monitoring components. Figure 4 .5 presents the loading arrangement for improving the accuracy of the load cell readings (FHWA, 2016) .

PAGE 49

37 Figure 4 . 2 : Static load test setup diagram (FHWA, 2016) .

PAGE 50

38 Figure 4 . 3 : Load test application and monitoring system (FHWA, 2016) .

PAGE 51

39 Figure 4 . 4 : Load test movement monitoring components (FHWA, 2016) .

PAGE 52

40 Interpretation of Compression Test Result In the compression test, the main objective is to obtain a load movement curve. The following equation computes the ela the uniform cross section (FHWA, 2016) : =QL/AE Eq. 4 .1 Where: (inches). Q = test load (kips). L = pile length below dial ga u ge or LVDT measurement location (inches). A = pile cross sectional area (in2). E = elastic modulus of pile material (ksi). Figure 4 . 5 : Typical load movement curve for axial compression load test (FHWA, 2016) . Evaluation of Load Transformation Instrumented static load tests can find out the values of shaft and t oe resistances, and load transfer evaluation along the pile shaft can be determined by using telltale rods (extensometers) or strain gages (FHWA, 2016) .

PAGE 53

41 Telltales Telltales are made of thin steel rods, and it should be extended from the pile head to a selected p oint in the pile with slightly larger tube figure 4 . 6 ga u ges should be connected with the top of the telltale rod to measure the relative movement between the rod attachment locations on the pile and other points. The average load in a pile , Qavg, between two measured points can be evaluated by the following equation (FHWA, 2016) : Q_avg=AE (R_1 R_2)/L Eq. 4 .2 Where: Qavg = average load in a pile between two points (kips). A = pile cross sectional area (in2). E = elastic modulus of pile material (ksi). R1 = defle ction reading at upper measurement location (inches). R2 = deflection reading at lower measurement location (inches). L = length of the pile between two measuring points under no load condition.

PAGE 54

42 Figure 4 . 6 : Diagram of telltale rods installed on the pile (modified from Kyfor et al. 1992) (FHWA, 2016) Strain Gages Telltales are not enough for an accurate result, so strain gauges should be applied beside s telltales. According to Dunnicliff (1988), weldable vibrating wire strain gages should be used on steel piles, and sister bars with vibrating wire strain gages should be embedded in concrete piles to evaluate the complete load transfer (Figure 4 . 7 & 4.9 ). Because of the variation of a strain gauge, geotechnical engineers should know the type of str ain gauge, and its purpose in measurement. Usually, the Sister bar gages are cast into prestressed concrete piles or embedded in concrete during concrete placement. For prestressed concrete piles, the sister bars should be tied to the longitudinal rebar. F or protection, A bolt on, waterproof, foil resistance strain gage should be attached to the side of a pile (Figure 4 . 8 ). Resistance strain ga u ges shoul d be on sister bars ; it is shown in figure 4 . 9 . Center of sister bar has an accelerometer for dynamic load test (FHWA, 2016) .

PAGE 55

43 Figure 4 . 7 : Vibrating wire strain gage sister bars for concrete embedment (FHWA, 2016) .

PAGE 56

44 Figure 4 . 8 : Vibrating wire strain gage with welded anchor blocks and protective channel (FHWA, 2016) . Figure 4 . 9 : Electrical resistance strain ga u ge on sister bars in concrete pile casting bed (FHWA, 2016) .

PAGE 57

45 Therefore, strain gauge should be dry because the corrosion might fail the resistance of strain gauge. The loc ation of strain gauge should be below the pile head where shaft resistance does not act on the pile. Figure 4 . 10 : Multiple externally mounted strain gages (2 on each web face) located in soil resistance free area during static load test (courtesy WKG2) (FHWA, 2016) . The axial force in the plane of the ga u ge: Eq. 4 .3 Where: F = axial force in the plane of gage (kips). E = elastic modulus of pile material (ksi). A = pile cross sectional area (in2).

PAGE 58

46 CHAPTER V SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION USING STANDARD PENETRATION TEST FOR EDWA RD S PROJECT Introduction The subsurface of proposed bridges has been characterized by standard penetration test with twelve boring holes. B 1 to B 7 characterize the subsurface of the northern portion , and B 8 to B 12 characterize the subsurface of the southern portion . The distance between each boring hole approximately is one foot with different depth . Furthermore , B 1, B 6, and B 7 were expedited by hollow stem auger drilling techniques. After the depth of refusal, a CME 75 truck mounted drill rig and a CME 750 ATV m ounted drill rig were used to deliver them ( RUSSELL, 2017) Moreover , borings B 2 and B 5 were expedited by selecting somnambulantly hollow stem auger and NQ wireline coring techniques selecting a CME 75 truck mounted drill rig. Borings B 3 and B 4 were expedited by HQ wireline coring techniques with a CME 550 ATV mounted drill rig. Borings B 8 through B 12 were expedited by a down hole air hammer and casing advance system with a CME 750 ATV mounted drill rig ( RUSSELL, 2017) . Bedrock is observed in many boreholes, and t he formation that caused by wells of oil and gas has many thick salt deposits . This formation consists of gray and red gray siltstone, sandstone, shale, and carbonate rocks with lenses of gypsum. Table 3.1 presents the engineering properties of shale rock (RUSSELL, 2017) .

PAGE 59

47 Table 5 .1: Evaluating Engineering Properties of Shale Rock (M.Santi, 1996) . Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Standard penetration test has a perfect performance in the geotechnical field because it finds out what the soil parameter for each layer is . Besides personal experience, SPT can indicate subsurface statues through auguring the boring by using a hammer that weighs 140 l b (63.5kg). Before starting the test procedure, the operator should drill a preparatory boring to the depth of the first test with 60 to 200 mm diameter. A spilled spoon sampler that is displayed in figure 5 .1 shou ld be embedded into the boring. After that, the operator should use either rope and cathead arrangement or an automatic tripping mechanism for raising the hammer (figure 5 .2) to a depth of 30 in (760 mm), so this movement of the hammer produces energy whic h brings forward the simpler to the base of the boring. The operator should stop the previous step when the sampler reaches a depth of 18 in (450 mm) with listing the number of hammer blows for each 6 in (150 mm). When the hammer reaches the refusal case w hich the is fifty hammer blows, the operator should stop the test of that interval, and it should be written in the boring log. Finally, N value

PAGE 60

48 should be computed by summing the blow counts for the last 12 in (300 mm) of penetration, and the first layer s hould be written in the boring log, but it should be used to compute N value because the first layer might be disturbed by the drilling process. (Coduto, 2001) Figure 5 . 1 : The SPT Sampler in Place in The Boring with Hammer, Rope, and Cathead (Adapted from Kovacs et al., al) (Coduto, 2001) Figure 5 . 2 : The SPT Sampl er (Adapted from ASTM D1586; Copyright, used with Permission) (Coduto, 2001)

PAGE 61

49 Correction to The Test Data The purpose of the correction is to improve the SPT data that should be corrected by the correction factor, so N value should be N60 as follows (Coduto, 2001) : Eq. 5 .1 Where: =SPT N Value Corrected for Field Procedure. = Hammer Efficiency (Table 3.1) = Borehole Diameter Correction (Table 3.2) = Sampler Correction (Table 3.3) = Rod Length Correction (Table 3.4) = Measured by SPT N Value Most of the hammer is not 100 percent efficient, so it should be corrected by using a hammer with an efficiency of 60 percent. The result of the above (Eq. 3.1) equation determines the 60 percent efficiency of hammer use. Figure 5 .3 presents the form of SPT hammers, and table 5 .1 shows the hammer efficiency (Coduto, 2001) .

PAGE 62

50 Table 5 . 2 SPT Hammer Efficiency (Coduto, 2001) . Country Hammer Type Hammer Release Mechanism Hammer Efficiency, Argentina Donut Cathead 0.45 Brazil Pin Weight Hand Dropped 0.72 China Automatic Donut Donut Trip Hand Dropped Cathead 0.60 0.55 0.50 Colombia Donut Cathead 0.50 Japan Donut Donut Tombi Trigger Cathead 2 Turns+Special Release 0.78 0.85 0.65 0.67 UK Automatic Trip 0.73 USA Safety Donut 2 Turn on cathead 2 Turn on cathead 0.55 0.60 0.45 Venezuela Donut Cathead 0.43

PAGE 63

51 Figure: 5 .3: Types of SPT Hammers (Coduto, 2001) . Table 5 . 3 : Borehole, Sampler, and Rod Correction Factors (Coduto, 2001) . Factor Equipment Variables Value Borehole Diameter factor, 65 115mm (2.5 4.5in) 150mm (6 in) 200mm (8 in) 1.00 1.05 1.15 Sampling Method Factor, Standard Sampler Standard Simpler without Liner (Not Recommended) 1.00 1.20 Rod Length Factor, 3 4m (10 13 ft) 4 6m (13 20 ft) 6 10 m(20 30 ft) >10m (>30 ft) 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.00

PAGE 64

52 Log Boring From B 1 to B12 for Ed (RUSSELL, 2017)

PAGE 65

53

PAGE 66

54

PAGE 67

55

PAGE 68

56

PAGE 69

57

PAGE 70

58

PAGE 71

59

PAGE 72

60

PAGE 73

61

PAGE 74

62

PAGE 75

63

PAGE 76

64

PAGE 77

65

PAGE 78

66

PAGE 79

67

PAGE 80

68

PAGE 81

69

PAGE 82

70

PAGE 83

71

PAGE 84

72 Estimation of Soil Parameters Using SPT Blow Counts SPT blow counts are an affordable method for estimating the soil parameters when geotechnical engineers do not have enough geotechnical information or laboratory recommendation. In the same way, it can be used for the projects that have a limited budget ; the estimation equation can be use d regarding the number of SPT blow counts (Coduto, 2001) . Estimation of Soil Parameter for Analysis Unit Weight of Soil and Vertical effective stress Table 5 . 4 shows the unit weight of most of the soil in situ (Coduto, 2001) .

PAGE 85

73 Effective unit weight = Unit weight of water Wet unit weight (Transportation, 1996) . = Eq. 5 .1 Where: = Thickness of soil layer i above point being considered (FT) = Effective unit weight of soil layer i (PCF) I = Number of soil layer under considera tion An angle (Transportation, 1996) : Ncorr = Eq. 5 .2 Where: Ncorr = Corrected SPT blow count (Blows/FT) N = SPT blow count (Blows/FT): = Eq. 5 .3 Where: = Thickness of soil layer i above point being considered (FT) = Effective unit weight of soil layer i (PCF) I = Number of soil layer under consideration Eq. 5 .4

PAGE 86

74 Where a and b are as listed in Table 2 Table 5 . 5 : Correlation (Transportation, 1996) . Description Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Very Dense Ncorr = 0 4 4 10 10 30 30 50 >50 f = 25 30 27 32 30 35 35 40 38 43 a = 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.15 0 b= 27.5 2.7.5 30 33 40.5 Modulus of elasticity (E): E = 7. Ncorr Eq.3.5

PAGE 87

75 Development of Soil Parameters for I Project According to the geotechnical recommendation of CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation), I were developed in the following tables. Table 5 . 6 : Soil Parameters for B 1 (Chang, 2018) . N60 v.s Depth 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 Depth ft N60 No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) ( E ) ksi N Corr 1 4 4 18 14.87 35.50 120 0.24 1.46 21.99 2 9 5 41 33.86 40.23 120 0.54 3.32 40.90 3 14 5 10 8.26 32.19 120 0.84 0.81 8.76 4 19 5 11 9.09 32.18 120 1.14 0.89 8.70 5 24 5 9 7.43 31.67 90 1.37 0.73 6.67 6 29 5 9 7.43 31.58 80 1.57 0.73 6.33 7 34 5 24 19.82 34.02 80 1.77 1.94 16.09 8 39 5 23 19.00 33.68 80 1.97 1.86 14.74 9 44 5 14 11.56 32.12 110 2.24 1.13 8.47 10 49 5 34 28.08 34.87 110 2.52 2.75 19.47 11 54 3 50 41.30 36.92 120 2.70 4.05 27.68 12 57 3 90 74.33 42.05 120 2.88 7.28 48.22

PAGE 88

76 Table 5 . 7 : Soil Parameters for B 2 (Chang, 2018) . No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) ( E ) ksi N Corr 1 4 4 19 15.69 35.80 120 0.24 1.54 23.21 2 9 5 22 18.17 35.49 120 0.54 1.78 21.95 3 14 5 17 14.04 33.72 120 0.84 1.38 14.88 4 1 9 5 20 16.52 33.96 120 1.14 1.62 15.82 5 24 5 14 11.56 32.54 120 1.44 1.13 10.17 6 2 9 5 50 41.30 38.43 120 1.74 4.05 33.72 7 34 5 51 42.12 38.08 110 2.02 4.13 32.33 8 39 5 36 29.73 35.39 110 2.29 2.91 21.55 9 4 4 5 30 24.78 34.27 100 2.54 2.43 17.10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 Depth Ft N60 N60 Vs Depth

PAGE 89

77 Table 5 . 8 : Soil Parameters for B 3 (Chang, 2018) . No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) ( E ) ksi N Corr 1 5 5 15 12.39 34.35 120 0.3 0 1.21 17.40 2 10 5 22 18.17 35.33 120 0.6 0 1.78 21.31 3 15 5 23 19.00 34.92 120 0.9 0 1.86 19.70 4 20 5 50 41.30 39.71 120 1.2 0 4.05 38.85 5 25 5 50 41.30 39.00 110 1.4 8 4.05 36.00 6 30 5 50 41.30 38.41 110 1.75 4.05 33.64 7 35 5 50 41.30 37.91 110 2.0 3 4.05 31.63 8 40 5 50 41.30 37.50 100 2.2 8 4.05 30.02 9 44 4 50 41.30 37.19 110 2. 50 4.05 28.74 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 Depth Ft N60 N60 Vs Depth

PAGE 90

78 Table 5 . 9 : Soil Parameters for B 4 (Chang, 2018) . No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) ( E ) ksi N Corr 1 5 5 23 19.00 36.67 120 0.3 1.86 26.68 2 15 10 21 17.34 34.50 120 0.9 1.70 17.99 3 20 5 50 41.30 39.79 110 1.1 8 4.05 39.14 4 25 5 67 55.34 42.14 110 1.45 5.42 48.56 5 30 5 74 61.12 42.52 110 1.7 3 5.99 50.08 6 40 10 73 60.29 40.96 110 2.2 8 5.91 43.83 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 Depth Ft N60 N60 Vs Depth

PAGE 91

79 Table 5 . 10 : Soil Parameters for B 5 (Chang, 2018) . No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) ( E ) ksi N Corr 1 10 10 50 41.30 43.51 80 0.4 0 4.05 54.02 2 20 10 34 28.08 37.56 80 0.8 0 2.75 30.23 3 30 10 22 18.17 34.15 100 1.3 0 1.78 16.61 4 35 5 39 32.21 36.84 110 1.5 8 3.16 27.38 5 39.5 4.5 37 30.56 36.12 110 1.82 2.99 24.48 6 45 5.5 30 24.78 34.62 120 2.15 2.43 18.47 7 50 5 50 41.30 37.20 120 2.48 4.05 28.81 8 55 5 50 41.30 36.77 120 2.81 4.05 27.09 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 Depth Ft N60 N60 Vs Depth

PAGE 92

80 Table 5 .1 1 : Soil Parameters for B 6 (Chang, 2018) . No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) ( E ) ksi N Cor 1 5 5 36 29.73 40.44 120 0.3 0 2.91 41.76 2 10 5 25 20.65 36.20 100 0.55 2.02 24.81 3 15 5 24 19.82 35.39 90 0.7 8 1.94 21.55 4 20 5 27 22.30 35.58 90 1 .00 2.19 22.34 5 25 5 37 30.56 36.98 120 1.3 0 2.99 27.93 6 30 5 52 42.95 39.07 120 1.6 0 4.21 36.27 7 35 5 74 61.12 42.16 100 1.85 5.99 48.65 8 40 5 50 41.30 37.78 100 2.1 0 4.05 31.12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 Depth Ft N60 N60 Vs Depth

PAGE 93

81 Table 5 .1 2 : Soil Parameters for B 7 (Chang, 2018) . No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) ( E ) ksi N Corr 1 3.5 3.5 12 9.91 33.93 100 0.1 8 0.97 15.71 2 8.5 5 34 28.08 39.04 100 0.4 3 2.75 36.17 3 13.5 5 43 35.51 40.06 100 0.6 8 3.48 40.25 4 18.5 5 35 28.91 37.43 100 0.9 3 2.83 29.71 5 23.5 5 35 28.91 36.85 100 1.1 8 2.83 27.40 6 28.5 5 6 4.96 31.10 90 1.4 0 0.49 4.41 7 33.5 5 50 41.30 38.67 90 1.6 3 4.05 34.67 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 Depth Ft N60 N60 Vs Depth

PAGE 94

82 Table 5 .1 3 : Soil Parameters for B 8 (Chang, 2018) . 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 Depth Ft N60 N60 Vs Deoth No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) ( E ) ksi N Corr 1 4.5 4.5 82 67.73 55.41 100 0.2 3 6.64 101.63 2 9.5 5 43 35.51 41.10 100 0.4 7 3.48 44.42 3 15 5.5 50 41.30 41.22 110 0.77 4.05 44.89 4 20 5 50 41.30 40.17 110 1. 10 4.05 40.70 5 25 5 50 41.30 39.37 110 1.3 3 4.05 37.48 6 30 5 86 71.03 45.00 110 1.6 0 6.96 59.99 7 35 5 50 41.30 38.17 110 1.8 8 4.05 32.69 8 40 5 50 41.30 37.70 110 2.15 4.05 30.80 9 45 5 85 70.20 42.32 120 2.45 6.88 49.29 10 50 5 50 41.30 36.85 120 2.75 4.05 27.40 11 55 5 71 58.64 39.34 90 2.9 8 5.75 37.37 12 60 5 55 45.43 36.96 90 3.2 0 4.45 27.84

PAGE 95

83 Table 5 .1 4 : Soil Parameters for B 9 (Chang, 2018) . No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) ( E ) ksi N Corr 1 5 5 8 6.61 32.37 110 0.275 0.65 9.47 2 10 5 9 7.43 32.23 110 0.55 0.73 8.93 3 15 5 32 26.43 37.18 90 0.775 2.59 28.73 4 20 5 26 21.47 35.38 90 1 2.10 21.51 5 25 5 50 41.30 39.64 90 1.225 4.05 38.57 6 30 5 66 54.51 41.73 120 1.525 5.34 46.92 7 35 5 72 59.47 41.90 120 1.825 5.83 47.61 8 40 5 50 41.30 37.74 120 2.125 4.05 30.96 9 46 4 41 33.86 36.04 120 2.365 3.32 24.18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 Depth Ft N60 N60 Vs Depth

PAGE 96

84 Table 5 .1 5 : Soil Parameters for B 10 (Chang, 2018) . No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) ( E ) ksi N Corr 1 10 10 42 34.69 40.16 120 0.6 3.40 40.68 2 20 10 25 20.65 34.85 120 1.2 2.02 19.43 3 25 5 15 12.39 32.70 110 1.475 1.21 10.80 4 30 5 50 41.30 38.46 100 1.725 4.05 33.84 5 35 5 59 48.73 39.43 100 1.975 4.78 37.73 6 40 5 94 77.64 44.32 90 2.2 7.61 57.31 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 Depth Ft N60 N60 Vs Depth

PAGE 97

85 Table 5 .1 6 : Soil Parameters for B 11 (Chang, 2018) . No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) ( E ) ksi N Corr 1 10 10 50 41.30 42.41 110 0.55 4.05 49.63 2 15 5 94 77.64 51.10 90 0.78 7.61 84.39 3 20 5 50 41.30 40.34 90 1.00 4.05 41.37 4 25 5 51 42.12 39.83 90 1.23 4.13 39.34 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 Depth Ft N60 N60 Vs Depth

PAGE 98

86 Table 5 .1 7 : Soil Parameters for B 12 (Chang, 2018) . No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) ( E ) ksi N Corr 1 4.5 4.5 24 19.82 37.27 110 0.2475 1.943 29.11 2 9.5 5 21 17.34 35.43 90 0.4725 1.700 21.72 3 15 5.5 31 25.60 37.11 90 0.72 2.509 28.46 4 20 5 28 23.13 35.75 120 1.02 2.266 23.01 5 25 5 16 13.21 33.02 110 1.295 1.295 12.10 6 30 5 71 58.64 42.47 110 1.57 5.747 49.90 7 35 5 50 41.30 38.32 90 1.795 4.047 33.29 8 40 5 50 41.30 37.91 90 2.02 4.047 31.66 9 45 5 96 79.29 44.35 110 2.295 7.770 57.40 10 50 5 51 42.12 37.22 110 2.57 4.128 28.90 11 55 5 53 43.77 37.16 100 2.82 4.290 28.68 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 Depth Ft N60 N60 Vs Depth

PAGE 99

87 CHAPTER V I Nominal Capacity of Driven Piles at Edwards, Colorado Introduction Introduction A n I 70 5 ), so the nominal capacity of cohesionless soil should follow the Kulhawy formula for end bearing and In this case, the pore water pr essure dissipates quickly. As a result, the evaluation of the toe bearing should be from the resistance of effective stress with drained strength (Coduto, 2001) . Eq. 6 .1 Where: Nominal Net Toe Bearing Capacity B = Pile Diameter = Bearing Capacity Factor = Unit Weight of Soil in The Zone of Influence Around the Toe = Vertical Effective Stress at The Pile Toe Therefore, factors depend on the shear strength and compressibility, so the rigidity index presents the compressibility effects, and it is the ratio of the shear modulus to the shear strength. Eq. 6 .2 Where: Rigidity Index E= Modulus of Elasticity of Soil within The Zone of Influence Vertical Effective Stress at the Toe Elevation = Effective Friction Angle of Soils within The Zone of Influe nce

PAGE 100

88 Figure 6 .1: Bearing Capacity Factor (Coduto, 2001) . Figure 6 .2: Bearing Capacity Factor (Coduto, 2001) .

PAGE 101

89 Nominal Side Friction Capacity Using : In , most of the engineer combine , ratio and the into one factor which is (Burland, 1973). Eq. 6 .3 Eq. 6 .4 The Total Bearing Capacity for Intermediate Geomaterials: According to the Colorado Department of Transportation, the following equations determine the nominal side friction capacity and end bearing capacity for intermediate geomaterials that have SPT N60 values o f less than 100: Computation the Nominal Capacity for 14 H pile 14H pile (Boring #9) (Southern Portion) A 14 H pile should be driven 40 ft into the soil profile that is shown in log boring number 9 with soil parameters that are presented in chapter 3. (NO Ground Water) The Total B earing Capacity in Intermediate Geomaterials : Tip Bearing: For this calculati on, the following parameter should be used The distance to the toe of the pile = 40 ft = 12.192 m SPT = 41.30 14 H pile Area = 202.86 in 2 = 0.92 *41.30 = 37.99 k/ft 2 = 263.819 psi The tip bearing capacity = 263.819*202.86 = 53.52 k The Shear Capacity: = 0.075 *41.30 = 3.09 k/ft2 = 21.5 psi The Shear Capacity = 5176.8 in * 21.5 psi = 111 k

PAGE 102

90 The Nominal Side Friction Capacity Table 6 .1: The Nominal Side Friction Capacity for B 9 Thickness ft Unit Weight lb/ft3 Effective Stress lb/ft2 Eff. Stress at mid lbft2 B fn lb/b2 As ft2 fnAs lb fnAs kips 5 110 550 275 0.27 74.436456 35.95 2675.99 2.68 5 110 1100 825 0.27 223.18711 35.95 8023.58 8.02 5 90 1550 1325 0.27 359.48976 35.95 12923.66 12.92 5 90 2000 1775 0.27 482.92401 35.95 17361.12 17.36 5 90 2450 2225 0.27 597.29005 35.95 21472.58 21.47 5 120 3050 2750 0.26 727.1492 35.95 26141.01 26.14 5 120 3650 3350 0.26 884.49495 35.95 31797.59 31.80 5 120 Intermediate Geomaterials 111.30 The Total 231.70 Figure 6 .3 : The Nominal Side Shear through The Pile for B 9 The Total Nominal Bearing Capacity Q = Qt + Qs = 53.52 + 231 . 70 = 285.22 kip 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 Depth (ft) Side shear (psi)

PAGE 103

91 14H pile (Boring #3) A 14 H pile should be driven 40 ft into the soil profile that is shown in log boring number 9 with soil parameters that are presented in chapter 5 . (NO Ground Water) The Tip B earing Capacity in Sandy Soil : A 14 H pile should be driven 40 ft into the soil profile that is shown in log boring number 9 with soil parameters that are presented in chapter 3. (NO Ground Water) The toe bearing Capacity: For this calculation, the following parameter should be used T he distance to the toe of the pile = 40 ft = 12.192 m Modulus of Elasticity = 289.07 TSF = 27923.77 kpa The Unit Weight = The effective unit weight = 120 lb/ft3 = 18.9 kn /m3 The effective stress = 4800 lb/ft2 = 232 kn /m2 = 59 From figure 4.1 From figure 4.2 = 70 18.9) (20) +(232) (70) = 17865.4 kpa = 2591.16 psi Qt = 2591.16 * 21.4 = 55 kip The Nominal Side Friction Table 6.2: The Nominal Side Friction Capacity for B 3 Thickness ft Unit Weight lb/ft3 Effective Stress lb/ft2 Eff. Stress at mid lbft2 B fn lb/b2 As ft2 fnAs lb fnAs kips 5 120 600 300 0.26 78 35.95 2804.10 2.80 5 120 1200 900 0.26 234 35.95 8412.30 8.41 5 120 1800 1500 0.31 465 35.95 16716.75 16.72 5 120 2400 2100 0.27 567 35.95 20383.65 20.38 5 110 2950 2675 0.26 695.5 35.95 25003.23 25.00 5 110 3500 3225 0.26 838.5 35.95 30144.08 30.14 5 110 4050 3775 0.26 981.5 35.95 35284.93 35.28 5 100 4550 4300 0.27 1161 35.95 41737.95 41.74 The Total 180.49

PAGE 104

92 Figure 6 .4 : The Nominal Side Shear through The Pile for B 3 The Total Nominal Bearing Capacity Q = Qt + Qs = 55 + 180.49 = 235.49 kip 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Depth (ft) Side shear (psi)

PAGE 105

93 CHAPTER VI I Finite Element Analysis of H Pile performance Introduction Engineering software has expanded the potential development in a way that was possible even ten years ago, so every professional engineering institute requires that engineers should earn satisfying knowledge in engineering programming besides their practical engineering knowledge . In the meantime, most of the megaprojects have been analyzed by engineering software because the analysis of megaprojects might proceed in a long time without engineering software. Moreover, engineering software deal with issues which subject to time rel ated challenges, and many projects might be produced with mistake free analysis. Therefore , SSI3D has been used to evaluate HP14/102 foundations for I 70G Edwards Bridges in many aspects, such as total bearing capacities , side shear friction, and displacem ents . Finite Element Analysis by (SSI3D Software ) Method SSI3D software stands to soil structure interaction analysis, and Dr. Nghiem developed it , Hien M. In this study, SSI3D software has solved many algebraic equations by using finite element analysis. In finite element, the element has many nodes which tie every element together, and every node has degrees of freedom (DOF) if the method deals wi th the elements as 2 D. In the geotechnical analysis, the degrees of freedom is known as displacement. HP14/102 has infinite degrees of freedom (DOF) because it has a huge dimension. Also, HP14/102 has six degrees of freedom for each node because SSI3D dea ls with an element as a 3 D frame structure. In other words, SSI3D formes every node by using the stiffness matrix of the 3 D corresponding to freedom numbering (Hien, 2019) .

PAGE 106

94 The Prosses of Finite Element Method By using SSI3D, finite element analysis forms HP14/102 foundation analysis as a single pile foundation under vertical load with the soil surrounding the vertical pile and continuous spring (Figure 7 .1 ) (Hien, 2019) Figure. 7 . 1 (Hien, 2019) Where: The normal load caused by soil reaction along with the pile (Hien, 2019) : Eq. 7 .1 The equilibrium equation: Eq. 7 .2 The relation between internal force and displacement: Substituting Eq. 1.1 in Eq. 1.2:

PAGE 107

95 Eq. 7 .3 Rearrange Eq. 7 .3: Eq. 7 .4 Eq. 7 .5 Substituting Eq. 7 .5 in Eq. 7 .4: = Eq. 7 .6 Rearrange Eq. 7 .6: = 0 Eq. 7 .7 Solving Eq. 7 .7: Eq. 7 .8 The internal force in a pile has been determined by substituting Eq. 7 .8 to Eq. 7 .2: P = EA = Eq. 7 .9 The stiffness matrix of the soil pile system is determined by the direct method as follows: Then; Then; The stiffness matrix of th e soil pile system is given by:

PAGE 108

96 Analysis of 14/102 H Pile More than fifty thousand equations were used to analyze soil structure interaction of a 14/102H Pile driven in sandy soil under axial load. This amount of equations were used because SSI3D software divided the pile in to great elements. In the same way, each layer of the soil profile was divided as well as a pile dimension. The size of the stiffness matrix is 558216944 bytes. Modeling of HP14/102 in SSI3D A 14 H pile was modeled deep into 40 feet under the ground surface of the site (Fig . 7 . 2 ), and an actual geometry of HP14/102 was modeled by SSI3D with the following dime nsions ( Table 7 .1 ). Table 7 .1 : the geometry of HP14/102 Section Number Weight Per Foot lb Area of Selection in2 Depth of Section d in . Flange Width bf in . Flange Thickness tf in . Web Thickness tw in . 14HP 102 21.4 14.7 13.8 0.615 0.615

PAGE 109

97 Figure 7 . 2 : A Geom e try of 14 H Pile in SSI3D (3D)

PAGE 110

98 Figure 7 . 3 : A Cross Section of 14 H Pile in SSI3D (2D)

PAGE 111

99 Modeling of the soil profile Colorado Department of transportation provided a geotechnical exploration report that includes a soil profile of the specified site. For an exploration of the site, they used a standard penetration test, so this method should be calibrated with many equations for getting the parameters of soils. Thus, the calibration equations that were used are in the following equations . Ncorr = Where: Ncorr = Corrected SPT blow count (Blows/FT) N = SPT blow count (Blows/FT): = Where: = Thickness of soil layer i above point being considered (FT) = Effective unit weight of soil layer i (PCF) I = Number of soil layer under consideration a. Ncorr + b Where a and b are as listed in Table 7. 2 Table 7 .2: Correlation (Tr ansportation, 1996) Description Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Very Dense Ncorr = 0 4 4 10 10 30 30 50 >50 jf = 25 30 27 32 30 35 35 40 38 43 a = 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.15 0 b= 27.5 2.7.5 30 33 40.5

PAGE 112

100 Modulus of elasticity (E): E = 7. Ncorr In this analysis, boring number 9 has been evaluated because it is the nearest boring to the location of the specified foundation. Also , the number of the layer in this study is nine layers with, and all of these layers are sandy soil. From above, the parameters of the boring have been corrected , and its parameters are in table 7 . 3. Table 7 . 3: The Estimated Soil Parameters by SPT for B 9 (Chang, 2018) No Layer Depth ft Thickness ft N N 60 Friction Angle Unit Weight b/ft3 effective stress (TSF) ( E ) ksi N Corr 1 5 5 8 6.61 32.37 110 0.2 8 0.65 9.47 2 10 5 9 7.43 32.23 110 0.55 0.73 8.93 3 15 5 32 26.43 37.18 90 0.7 8 2.59 28.73 4 20 5 26 21.47 35.38 90 1 .00 2.10 21.51 5 25 5 50 41.30 39.64 90 1.2 3 4.05 38.57 6 30 5 66 54.51 41.73 120 1.5 3 5.34 46.92 7 35 5 72 59.47 41.90 120 1.8 3 5.83 47.61 8 40 5 50 41.30 37.74 120 2.1 3 4.05 30.96 9 46 4 41 33.86 36.04 120 2.3 7 3.32 24.18

PAGE 113

101 Figure 7 . 4 : N60 Vs. Depth for B 9 . 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 Depth Ft N60 N60 Vs Depth

PAGE 114

102 Side Shear, Displacement , and Load Displacement Curves B 9 Figure 7 . 5 : Side Shear Distribution Along H Pile14/102 for B 9 . The Side Resistance = 222 kip 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Depth ft Side Shear psi FEM

PAGE 115

103 Figure 7 . 6 : Depth V.s. Displacement Curve for H Pile14/102 in B 9 . -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Depth (ft) Displacement (in.)

PAGE 116

104 Figure 7 . 7 : Load Displacement Curve for H Pile14/102 for B 9 . The tip resistance = 70 kip 292 kip 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0.00E+00 1.00E-02 2.00E-02 3.00E-02 4.00E-02 5.00E-02 6.00E-02 7.00E-02 Load (kip) Displacement (in)

PAGE 117

105 B 3 Figure 7 . 8 : Side Shear Distribution Along H Pile14/102 for B 3 . 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Depth (fr) Side Friction (psi)

PAGE 118

106 Figure 7 . 9 : Depth V.s. Displacement Curve for H Pile14/102 for B 3 . 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 Depth (ft) Displacement (in.)

PAGE 119

107 Figure 7 . 1 0 : Load Displacement Curve for H Pile14/102 for B 3 . 232 kip 0 50 100 150 200 250 0.00E+00 2.00E-02 4.00E-02 6.00E-02 8.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.20E-01 1.40E-01 1.60E-01 1.80E-01 Load kip Displacment in

PAGE 120

108 CHAPTER VII I Biased Factors for steel HP14*10 2 for Resistance Factor Calibration The objective of the static load test is to find out the biased factor that should be calculated from the following equation (Coduto, 2001) : Eq.8.1 Where: = The biased factor = The Measured Capacity (SLT) = The Nominal Capacity ( According to The Colorado Department of Transportation , the static load test was scheduled to be applied on March/15/2019. Then, it was rescheduled to be at the end of May, but the last response from them is no STL in this year, and it might be in the next year. Therefore, this study does not include the STL due to delay in applying the SLT.

PAGE 121

109 CHAPTER I X PILE DRIVING ANALYZER (PDA) Introduction In geotechnical engineering, quality control (QC) of the pile can be determined by using pile driving analyzer (PDA) , and this chapter explain s the procedure of PDA for any driven pile. To perform pile driving analyzer, the engineers should follow the following step s : 1 PDA should be installed to the end of each pile. 2 Appl y ing many hammers blows to generate wave propagation singles through the pile, and CAPWAP should read that singles. 3 In the instrumented full scale pile, two groups of cap beam SLTs should be applied, and t he number of each group is five piles. Furthermore, each pile should produce SLT capacity and end of drive ( EOD ) capacity . 4 The pile should be exposed to additional many hammer blows a fter a setup time period to determine the beginning of restrike capacity ( BOR ). This step evaluates the increased capacity that comes from soil and soil pile interface strengths . 5 SLT capacity and bias factors should be compared with the n ominal capacities from m ethod, finite element method , EOD and BOR (Chang, Vu, N ghiem, October 31, 2018) . PDA Components 1 Strain Gage: Strain gage measures the stress along with the pile. 2 Accelerometer:

PAGE 122

110 It produces acceleration sigma, and it is very fast, so we should use CAPWAP to do the signal matching (Chang, Vu, Nghiem, October 31, 2018) . In PDA, there are two kinds of schemes that can be used in the pile bent static load test , and they are the initial scheme and modified the scheme . The test pile should be cast into the cap , and the other four piles ( Production piles ) should be left with voids in the initial scheme. On the other hand, the production piles should be cast into cap beam for the mod ified scheme , and the head of the pile should be tested by applying hydraulic actuator and load cell , so the c ap beam is reaction loading frame for a static load test . After that, the avoids of the test pile should be filled with the concert . (Chang, Vu, Nghiem, October 31, 2018) Figure 9.1 : cap beam testing schemes : Option1 presents the initial scheme , Option 2 presents the modified scheme (Chang, Vu, Nghiem, October 31, 2018) PDA P rocedure For i nitial scheme P ile Bent Static Load test schemes ( PBSLT ), p roduction pile should be installed with a load cell for monitoring pile load on one side of pile web above the soil . In the same way, the test pile should be installed with strain gauges at selected depths . Then, the top center of the cap beam should be loaded with cylindrical of the loading , so the hydraulic

PAGE 123

111 transducer on the hydraulic ramp can determine the applied load . In the same way, the LVDT measures t he displacement of the cap beam (Chang, Vu, Nghiem, October 31, 2018) . For m odified scheme PBSLT , cylinder pump set with the capacity of 50 tons should be used to apply the load , so the jack should be placed on the center of test pile before the test start . Therefore, the reaction piles should be c onnected to the cap beam by threaded rods, bolts, steel plates and steel angles (Figure 9.2) . T he LVDT measures the displacement of the cap beam (Chang, Vu, Nghiem, October 31, 2018) . Figure 9.2: A A Section Connection D etail B etween C ap B eam and P ile H ead (Chang, Vu, Nghiem, October 31, 2018) . Test Result , so the result from other research Bent Static Load Tests with Strain Gauges and Wireless Signal Transimeter is used for this

PAGE 124

112 section, so the test result are three charts, and they are Load time histories curve , c omparison between applied and measured load curve , and Load sett lement curve of pile group (Chang, Vu , Nghiem, October 31, 2018) . Figure 9.3: Time history of SLT of the initial scheme (Chang, Vu, Nghiem, October 31, 2018) . Legend explanation: Positive load value mean compression P1 to P4 Production pile one to four T Test pile

PAGE 125

113 Figure 9.4: Comparison between applied and measured load (Chang, Vu, Nghiem, October 31, 2018) . Figure 9.5: Load settlement curve of pile group (Chang, Vu, Nghiem, October 31, 2018) .

PAGE 126

114 CHAPTER X Comparison of The Results T his study evaluate s the bearing capacity of two single 14H Pile by using two methods: the method and finite element method. In the f inite element method , the amount of the total bearing capacity is 232 kip for B 3. On the other hand, the total bearing capacity is considered as 235.49 kip by method . Thus, figure 8 .1 illustrates the side shear capacity that is calculated by method and finite element method . In the same way, it presents how the results are almost similar in both methods. Figure 10 .1: Comparison of Different Bearing Capacity Methods for Southern Portion (B 9) (Chang, 2018) . 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Side Friction psi FEM B-Method

PAGE 127

115 Figure 10 .2: Comparison of Different Bearing Capacity Methods for Northern Portion (B 3 ) (Chang, 2018) . 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Depth (ft) Side Friction (psi) FEM B-Method

PAGE 128

116 Table 10 . 1 : Total Side Friction Capacity for 14H Pile (Boring 3 and Boring 9). Location of Pile Total Side Resistance by Using FEM (kip) Total Side Resistance by Using (kip) Total Side Tip Resistance by Using FEM (kip) Total Tip Resistance by Using Method (kip) The Total Nominal Capacity By Using FEM (kip) The Total Nominal Capacity By Using Method (kip) Northern P ortion (B 3) 216 180 16 55 232 235.49 S outhern P ortion (B 9) 222 231.7 70 111 292 285.22

PAGE 129

117 T he FEM should be more confident because it gives a conservative result for foundation design . FEM is accurate comparing to Method because Method divided the layer to 8 layers. On the other hand, FEM Divided the layer to at least 40 layers to find out the side friction capacity of the H piles. As a result, FEM should be applied in foundation design because it is a practical method in the foundation industry.

PAGE 130

118 CHAPTER X I Summary, Conclusion , and Recommendation for Future Study To sum up, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has the plan to replace two bridges , so they started with site exploration. Standard Penetration test was applied to investigate the soil for a different location in Edward . Thus, this study evaluated the bearing capacity for two location s that are for the north ern portion and the southern portion . All log boring indicated that the soil s are sandy soil with shale bedrock. In the same way, the soil parameters that w ere already calibrated with many equations showed the range of internal friction angle is between 30 and 45, and the range of unit weight is between 90 and 120 lb./ft3. All sandy so ils do not have a cohesion shear strength in that location, but the shale bedrock its cohesion is almost 33 psi. According to Dr. Chang , the size of H pile is 14 H P ile which is the biggest size in the geotechnical industry. Therefore, the FEM method was applied because it is the perfect way to evaluate that size. FEM divided the 14H Pile to more than 100 elements, and each element has 6 degrees of freedom because this study used a program t hat deals with elements as 3 D. The name of the Program is SSI3D, and it stands to Soil Structure Interaction 3 D . The duration of evaluating the bearing capacity by SSI3D was five hours for each pile. As a result, the side bearing capacit ies that were calculated by FEM for the southern portion and the northern portion are 146 kip s and 118 kip s sequentially . On the o ther hand, the side bearing capacities that were method for the southern portion and the northern portion are 158 kip s and 164 kip s sequentially Moreover, this study presented and evaluated the sources of loads by using AASHTO Bridge Codes, and it listed the type of loads to two main categories: dead loads and live loads. Then, factors should be used to make sure that the structure can resist loads without failure. Furthermore, the resistance capacities used reduction factors to find out if the design satisfies the LRFD AASHTO Code for Bridges. Finally, this study should evaluate the bearing capacity by using the static load test, but it does not exist du e to a delay in the instrumentation plan. Static load test should be applied for

PAGE 131

119 References Cai, G., Liu, S., Tong, L., & Du, G. J. E. G. (2009). Assessment of direct CPT and CPTU methods for predicting the ultimate bearing capacity of single piles. 104(3 4), Cai, G., Liu, S., Tong, L., & Du, G. J. E. G. (2009). Assessment of direct CPT and CPTU methods for predicting the ultimate bearing capacity of single piles. 104 (3 4), 211 222. Chang. (201 8) Foundation Engineering Coduto, D. P. (2001). Foundation design: principles and practices : Prentice Hall. Cubrinovski, M., Ishihara, K. J. S., & Foundations. (1999). Empirical correlation between SPT N value and relative density for sandy soils. 39(5), 61 71. Das, B. M. (2015). Principles of foundation engineering: Cengage learning. Das, B. M., & Sobhan, K. (2013). Principles of geotechnical engineering: Ce ngage learning. 211 222. Mayne, P. (2006). In situ test calibrations for evaluating soil parameters. Paper presented at the Characterisation and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Characterisation a nd Engineering Properties of Natural Soils: Taylor & Francis. Randolph, M. F. J. G. (2003). Science and empiricism in pile foundation design. 53(10), 847 876. (SSI3D), F. E. A. (2019) Finite Analysis Method /Interviewer: D. Hien. The University of Colorad o D enver .

PAGE 132

120 RUSSELL, C. P. (2017). Re: I 7OG EDWARDS INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 2, SA 19944, NHPP O7O2 344: FINAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Cai, G., Liu, S., Tong, L., & Du, G. J. E. G. (2009). Assessment of direct CPT and CPTU methods for pr edicting the ultimate bearing capacity of single piles. 104 (3 4), 211 222. Chang. (2018) Foundation Engineering Coduto, D. P. (2001). Foundation design: principles and practices : Prentice Hall. Cubrinovski, M., Ishihara, K. J. S., & Foundations. (1999). Empirical correlation between SPT N value and relative density for sandy soils. 39 (5), 61 71. Das, B. M. (2015). Principles of foundation engineering : Cengage learning. Das, B. M., & Sobhan, K. ( 2013). Principles of geotechnical engineering : Cengage learning. FHWA. (2016). Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations . FHWA. (July 2015 ). Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) For Highway Bridge July 2015 Superstructures Reference Manua l Hien, C. (2019) Finite Analysis Method University of Colorado D enver M.Santi, J. L. W. a. P. (1996). Shales and Other Degradable Mater i als Mayne, P. (2006). In situ test calibrations for evaluating soil parameters. Paper presented at the Characterisat ion and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Characterisation and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils: Taylor & Francis. Nien Yin Chang, P. D., P.E., Cuong Vu ,Ph. D., P.E., Hien Manh Nghiem, Ph.D. ( October 31, 2018). Driven Pile Bent Static Load Tests with Strain Gauges and Wireless Signal Trans mit ter .

PAGE 133

121 Randolph, M. F. J. G. (2003). Science and empiricism in pile foundation design. 53 (10), 847 876. RUSSELL, C. P. (2017). Re: I 7OG EDWARDS INTERCHANG E IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 2, SA 19944, NHPP O7O2 344: FINAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Transportation, U. S. D. o. (1996). LRFD Steel Girder SuperStructure Design Example . Retrieved from https://www.fhw a.dot.gov/bridge/lrfd/us_dsp.cfm