Simple Soil Structure Interaction Concepts in Innovative Foundation Design

Presented To: ASCE/SAME Engineering Conference Presented By: Clyde N. Baker Jr., P.E., S.E. STS Consultants Ltd.

Introduction
Purpose of Talk
To share some experiences and insights gained over a 50 year career on a subject hopefully of interest to both geotechnical and structural engineers.

Method
Use well documented case histories to illustrate points.

Key Points to Illustrate or Discuss

Things are not always what they seem. Type of testing and amount can greatly influence predictions. Local geological knowledge and relevant case history experience more important than uncorrelated testing no matter how sophisticated. Simple tests and concepts correlated with relevant experience can result in predictions closer to reality than more elaborate testing and analysis not well correlated. We learn from experience but how close to the edge should we get? Take small steps. Make change gradually.

Four Simple Concepts

Use dense soil layer over soft clay as a mat to spread out loads to permit footing design instead of a mat foundation. Use deep basement excavation stress relief effects in ways to maximize site building capacity. Use of piles as settlement reducers rather than as required structural elements for building support. Use of variable length piles under mat to minimize differential settlement.

Normal Consolidation vs. Preconsolidation

Normal Consolidation Test - preconsolidation value often inaccurate. Thus settlement prediction based on test preconsolidation value is often inaccurate but usually conservative. Pressuremeter creep pressure quite similar to preconsolidation pressure in preconsolidated cohesive deposits.

Project Name: Dunbar Builders Depth: 25 27.5 Water Content: 28.8% LL: 30.1 PL: 16.1 Soil Classification: Silty Clay, Trace Sand and Gravel, Gray (CL)

Project Name: Dunbar Builders Depth: 25 27.5 Water Content: 28.5% LL: 33.4 PL: 16.1 Soil Classification: Silty Clay, Trace Sand and Gravel, Gray (CL)

Project Name: Dunbar Builders Depth: 30 32.5 Water Content: 21.0% LL: 28.4 PL: 15.1 Soil Classification: Silty Clay, Trace Sand and Gravel, Gray (CL)

Modified Mat Foundation Design on Soft Clay

Concept
Use dense sand layer over soft clay as a mat to spread out loads to permit footing design instead of mat foundation. Monitor pore pressure buildup and shear displacement in soft clay during 26-story construction to see that shear strength not exceeded.

Site Investigation and Lab Testing Program Soil Profile

Possible foundation solutions Bearing capacity and settlement analysis Structural design concepts Instrumentation Program Settlement Measurements Conclusions

Soil Profile and Properties

Settlement Analysis
Assumptions: Boussinesq stress spread through dense sand layer (conservative)
Average net stress increase beneath mat = 2000 psf Clay Layer: Top 8 Normally Consolidated, Lower Clay Preconsolidated Average t90 = 12-16 minutes

Calculated Settlement:
4 at center of mat 2-1/2 at edge of mat 90% occurring in 9 to 12 months

Summary of the Stresses Beneath the Center of the Building at a Depth of 5 Feet into the Soft Clay

Inclinometer Readings

Piezometer Readings

Settlement Data

Conclusions:
By utilizing the high bearing capacity of the dense sand layer overlying the soft clay, a relatively thin and economical modified mat foundation design proved feasible at this site Construction of a building that developed theoretically induced shear stresses in the underlying soft clay soils, which exceeded the initial shear strength of the soft clay soil, was successfully accomplished by monitoring the performance of the structure and the critical soft clay. Construction loading occurred at a rate which permitted pore pressure dissipation and resultant shear strength buildup to occur fast enough so that excessive shear strains did not occur. Apparent pore pressure dissipation in the soft clay deposit at the site occurred more rapidly than was predicted by one-dimensional laboratory consolidation tests. Settlement of the structure has been less than anticipated, possibly due to insufficient recognition of overconsolidation effects.

Dearborn Center
Concept
Use deep basement excavation stress relief in combination with new basement mat over existing caisson foundations to maximize number of additional floors possible at site. Building load is distributed between new mat and existing caissons based on relative stiffness predicted by pressuremeter testing.

Site Investigation
Soil
Borings and lab testing In-situ pressuremeter testing

Existing Foundations
Coring Pressuremeter testing below caissons

Pressuremeter Set-Up

Pressuremeter Reduction
STS Consultants, Ltd.
Pressuremeter Data Reduction (BX)
Ed = Deformation Modulus Eo = Rebound Modulus E+ = Recompression Modulus Pf = Creep Limit Pl = Limit Pressure
+ = Ed/E

Pressure in TSF
0 900 800 10 20 30 40 90 80 70

Injected Volume in CC

Po
PSEUDO-ELASTIC ZONE

Pf
PLASTIC ZONE

Pl

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 0

Ed E+ Volume Creep
10 20 30 40

50 40 30 20 10 0 -10

Pressure in TSF

Creep in CC

60

Rules with Pressuremeter

Dead Load Pressure + Long-term Real Live Load + Effective Overburden Pressure Must be less than Creep Pressure

Rules with Pressuremeter (cont.)

K (Pl Po ) Allowable Bearing Pressure F .S .
Where K varies from 0.8 to 1.8 depending on depth to diameter ratio and material type Pl = Limit Pressure Po = Beginning of Psuedo Elastic Range F.S. = Factor of Safety

Dearborn Center Pressuremeter Profile

Dearborn Soil Profile

Geotechnical Analysis
Settlement Prediction
Existing Caissons New Mat

Dearborn Center Deflection and Spring Calculations

Dearborn Center Deflection and Spring Calculations (cont.)

Dearborn Center Deflection and Spring Calculations (cont.)

Dearborn Center Deflection and Spring Calculations (cont.)

Dearborn Center Deflection and Spring Calculations (cont.)

Dearborn Center Foundation Plan

Structural
Local distribution through shear walls 3-dimensional SAP model used to determine overall behavior using geotechnical developed springs.

Observed Settlement
Full structure dead load in place Live load not in yet Estimated 70% of total design load. So predicted 5 settlement would be about 0.7 8 inches or about to inches Measured settlement varied from:
0 on the North wall reported to be on rock caissons to on the West wall 5 8 on the South wall and interior mat

Possible likely settlement based allowing for survey accuracy is 18 to

South Side Office Building Concept:

Use of straight shaft piers as settlement reducers in combined footing design over Chicago soft clay. Predict settlement of 12-story building on mat or strip footings on medium dense sand layer over soft clay with and without supplementary pile or pier settlement reducers Monitor load distribution between footing and piers and settlement during and after construction

Strain Gage Readings and Measured Settlement of Column B-6

Date
3-Oct-94 200 3-Apr-95 3-Oct-95 2-Apr-96 2-Oct-96 2-Apr-97 2-Oct-97 2-Apr-98 2-Oct-98 2.0

- = Compression Microstrains + = Tension

0.0

-400

-4.0

-600

-6.0

Black - 1
-800

Gray-1 Average Settlement

-8.0

-1000

-10.0

Settlement (Inches)

-200

-2.0

Strain Gage Readings and Measured Settlement of Caisson B-6

Date

pr -9 6

pr -9 5

pr -9 7

ct -9 5

ct -9 6

pr -9 8

ct -9 7

3O

2O

3O

2O

200

- = Compression Microstrains + = Tension

100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -500 Gage 8745 Gage 8746 Average Settlement

2O
2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.5 -3.0 -3.5 -4.0 -4.5 -5.0

3A

2A

2A

2A

Settlement (Inches)

ct -9 8

ct -9 4

Strain Gage Readings and Measured Settlement of Column C-2

Date
3-Oct-94 200 3-Apr-95 3-Oct-95 2-Apr-96 2-Oct-96 2-Apr-97 2-Oct-97 2-Apr-98 2-Oct-98 2.0

- = Compression Microstrains + = Tension

0.0

-400

-4.0

-600

-6.0

Black - 2 Gray-2
-800

Average Settlement

-8.0

-1000

-10.0

Settlement (Inches)

-200

-2.0

Strain Gage Readings and Measured Settlement of Caisson C-2

Date
3-Oct-94 200 3-Apr-95 3-Oct-95 2-Apr-96 2-Oct-96 2-Apr-97 2-Oct-97 2-Apr-98 2-Oct-98 2.00

Gage 8747
- = Compression Microstrains + = Tension
150

Gage 8748 Average Settlement

1.50

100

1.00

50

0.50

0.00

-50

-0.50

-100

-1.00

-150

-1.50

-200

-2.00

Settlement (Inches)

Measured Column/Caisson Load Distributions as of April 14, 1998

Column Number Column Load (kips) Shaft Load (kips) Shaft Base Pressure (ksf) Settlement (inches)

B-6 C-2

1978 2327

1496 (75%) 1377 (59%)

76 48

1.25 0.9

Conclusion:
Innovative cost effective solutions to foundation design problems are sometimes possible using combinations or mixtures of foundation elements provided that ground deformation and response to structure loading can be reasonably predicted within allowable tolerances.

Petronas Towers
Worlds tallest building (1482) Worlds deepest high rise foundations up to 430 Worlds deepest ground improvement up to 530

Tower Foundation Profile

Concept:
Use of variable length piles under mat to minimize critical differential settlement of worlds tallest building Petronas Towers. Predict settlement based on modulus values based on bored pile load testing and extensive in-situ pressuremeter testing Use simple equivalent footing approach as well as more complete finite element computer programs to predict settlement Monitor settlement and load distribution in piles and on mat during and after construction

Standard Penetration Resistance Profile

Pressuremeter Test Results

Boring Ed Min. Max. # of Tests Avg. ER Min. Max. # of Tests Avg. B14 9.3MPa 99 18 37.6MPa 27.5 479 17 186.9MPa B23 10MP1 309 15 133.9MPa 22.3 931 15 391.8MPa T1-10 32MPa 683 27 67.9MPa 55 851 27 176MPa T1-24 17.8MPa 222 26 109.8MPa 32 496 25 226MPa T1-54 38.5MPa 199.4 26 101.8MPa 57.7 590.3 25 223MPa T2-26 18.3MPa 157 31 64.1MPa 47.8 495 31 190MPa T2-54 11.7MPa 470 27 149MPa 68.3 383.3 27 535MPa
Ed Avg. = 94.3 ER Avg. = 267

Overall Weighted

Settlement Analysis Using Equivalent Footing Method

q = 1,130 kPa

Pressuremeter Data E d Av = 94.3Mpa

E + Av = 267 Mpa E = d = 0.35 , Use 0.4 E+

q = 610 kPa
Av 60m piles

Settlement Calculation Menard Empirical Method

s Menard = 1.33 R qR0 2 3 EB R0

E1 = E d E2 = Ed

q3 R
4.5E1

2 , 3 = 1 for a circle
R0 = 30cm

E 3, 4 ,5 = 20 E d

s Menard

1.33 7,500 = 0.610 30 3 135 30

0 .4

0.4 0.61

7,500 2 4.5 94

EB =

3 .2 1 1 1 + + E1 0.85 E 2 E3, 4 , 5 3. 2

s Menard = 0.55cm + 2.16cm = 27.1mm Settlement Calculation Elastic Theory qB s Elastic = 0 1 E 0.35 0.92 6,100 75,000 s Elastic = = 59mm 250,000

EB =

1 1 1 + + 94 0.85 94 20 94 E B = 135 MPa

Settlement Analysis Using Equivalent Footing Method

Elastic Compression of Shaft Down to Equivalent Footing Level L = E conc

kN 2,680,000kN = 9,727 2 82 1.2 2.8 m E conc 27,000,000kPa 9,727 40,000 = 14.4mm 27,000,000

Total Predicted Settlement By Menard Empirical Method S = s Menard +

S = 27.1mm + 14.4mm = 41.5mm

By Elastic Theory S = s Elastic +

S = 59mm + 14.4mm = 73.4mm

Settlement Maps and Rock Contour Plan Tower 1

Settlement Maps and Rock Contour Plan Tower 2

Layout Plan of Instrumented Barrettes

LOAD DISTRIBUTION CURVE

COMPUTED FROM SGs MEASUREMENT
Load (kN)
Thousands -5 0 5 15 25 35 0.0m 0.5m (Lev. A) 7.5m (Lev. B)

Depth below cut-off level

10 15.0m (Lev. C)

Meters

20 22.0m (Lev. D)

30

30.0m (Lev. E) 37.5m (Lev. F)

40 41.25m (Lev. G) 50

LOAD DISTRIBUTION CURVE

COMPUTED FROM SGs MEASUREMENT Load (kN) - Thousands
-5 5 15 25 35 45 0.0m 0.5m (Lev. A) 9.5m (Lev. B)

Depth below cut-off level

Meters

12.5m (Lev. C) 20 27.5m (Lev. D)

36.5m (Lev. E) 40 45.5m (Lev. F)

54.25m (Lev. G) 60

RELATION OF AVERAGE MAT PRESSURE CELL READINGS AND BUILDING LOAD

Tower Building Load in MN

Pressure in PSI
(1 PSI = 6.9 kPa)

Settlement of Tower 1 Columns

Settlement m.m.

Petronas Towers: Conclusions and Lessons Learned

In-situ testing with empirical correlations works well enough for engineering purposes . Menard Empirical procedures yield better settlement predictions compared to elastic theory using test pressuremeter modulus values as the Youngs modulus for the soil and geologic conditions reported herein. Simple hand calculations for settlement and bearing capacity can be as reliable as sophisticated computer solutions. Innovative cost effective foundation solutions are often possible with close interaction of geotechnical and structural engineer and cooperation of experienced contractor.

References
C.N. Baker, Jr. and T.P. Wiesinger, Modified Mat Foundation Design Over Soft Clay, ASTM Special Technical Publication 584 C.N.Baker, Jr., T.D. Bushell, Rob Diebold, Dearborn Center: A Unique Soil Structure Interaction Design, Fifth International Conference on Case Histories, N.Y., N.Y., April, 2004. C.N. Baker, Jr., T.A. Kiefer, Kolbjorn Saether, Use of Straight Shaft Piers as Settlement Reducers in Combined Footing Design Over Soft Clay, Fifth International Conference on Case Histories, N.Y., N.Y., April, 2004. C.N. Baker, et. Al., Foundation Design and Performance of the Worlds Tallest Building, Petronas Towers, Fourth International Conference on Case Histories, St. Louis, March 1998.

Questions???