REACTION SYSTEM

Theory vs Experience
From Load Tests
David K. Crapps

P=S+B

B = (-) S

Presented To
Loadtest Deep Foundation Workshop/Seminar

EXPANDING
OSTERBERG
CELL

May, 2007
B

CONVENTIONAL
TOP LOAD TEST

OSTERBERG CELL TEST

Engineer 1
Reasons For Not Using Shaft Shear

Engineer 1
(not comfortable using shaft shear)

Effects of Slurry
Clay Smear

P=S+B

Uncertain Shaft Roughness

Unknown or Uncertain Side Shear

P=0+B
Other

Bentonite
buildup

groove cut
in buildup

Slurry Buildup
On Shaft Walls
Can Destroy
Shaft Shear
(Holden, 1982)

Engineer 2
(not comfortable using shaft bearing)
P=S+B
P=S+0

Engineer 2
Reasons For Not Using Bearing

Heavy Sediments
At Shaft Bottom
Result In Loss
Of Shear
&
Bearing
(Holden, 1982)

Settled Slurry Suspensions

Reluctance To Inspect Bottom

Concern For Underlying Cavities
Unknown Or Uncertain End Bearing
Other

Engineer 3
(not comfortable with shaft shear
or shaft bearing)

Engineer 3
Should Use Load Tests To Gain Confidence

P=S+B
P=0+0
Nothing left!

30
Loose

15

Dense

25

Loose/Dense

P-D, K=5

C-K, = 5
C-K, = 0

20

P-D, K=10

10

Series6

L/D

L/D

C-K, K=10
O-G, K=5

O-G, K=3,30
layered
Series4

0
0.0

15
10
5

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

B/P

0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

B/P

Figure 1: B/P Elastic -space Solutions

Note that these early solutions show very little

load getting to shaft tip. (Crapps &
Schmertmann, 2004)

Figure 2 : B/P from FE Simulations of Shaft in

Sand and in a Friction Socket

Note that these FE solutions show more load going to tip

(Crapps & Schmertmann, 2004)

Acosta Bridge Conventional Test Setup Underway

Load Tests Are Important!

What Have We Learned From Them?

Acosta Bridge Osterberg Test Setup Underway

Osterberg Tests
Examples of Soft Bottoms

Other O-cell Assemblies

(Hayes, 2004)

O-cells can be Placed at two Levels in the

Shaft to Isolate Distinct Shaft Elements

The O-cell Need Not be Attached to A

Rebar Cage

TOP LOAD CURVES

Top Load (kips)
0

500

1000

Firm Base

Soft Base

1500

2000

CONSTRUCTION HAS AN IMPORTANT

EFFECT UPON DRILLED SHAFT CAPACITY

Movement (inches)

0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5

(Hayes, 2004)

Sometimes its just hard to clean a dry hole

0

0
Minimal loose
material at base

-25

Downward Bottom of
O-Cell Base
Movement (mm)

Downward Bottom of
O-Cell Base
Movement (mm)

-25

-50

-75

More than 200 mm of

loose material at
base

-100

-125
0

Assumed compression
of loose base material

-50

-75

-100

-125
9

10

Load (MN)

-150
0

10

Load (MN)

Example of scraping sides during cage instal ("dry hole") in sands, gravel

Example of poor cleanout procedures ("dry hole")

in weathered rock

(Schmertmann et al, 2004)

(Schmertmann et al, 2004)

30

27% loss in total capacity

at 0.5 movement

{
z

25
"Effective" L/D

Movement (inches)

Osterberg Cell Load- Movement

Curves

Evidence of Bottom disturbance

No evidence of bottom disturbance
Range from Fig. 2

20
15
10
5
0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

B/P

Figure 3: B/P Interpreted from OLTs

(Hayes, 2004)

Note that load tests show that more load goes to tip than
previously believed. Note that disturbance decreases tip load.
(Crapps & Schmertmann, 2004)

30

30

25

15

TLT
OLT - Evidence of bottom disturbance
OLT - No evidence of bottom disturbance

Light lines, theoretical, see Figs. 1 & 2

20

"Effective" L/D

"Effective" L/D

25

TLT
OLT
Fig. 2 Loose/Dense

Avg.

10

Field "Upper Bound" Curve

20

15
10

Avg.

0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

B/P

0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

B/P

Figure 4: B/P from OLTs Compared with from Literature TLTs

Note that top load tests show same trend as

Osterberg load tests (Crapps & Schmertmann 2004)

Early World Record

Osterberg Load Test
in Florida

Figure 5: All Field Data Points and Theoretical Curves

All data with upper envelope. (Crapps & Schmertmann, 2004)

Explanation is quality shaft construction!

The Florida Department of Transportation

S.R. 20 Apalachicola River Bridge

133.4 MN (15,000 tons) Equivalent Top
Load
But Florida has very poor quality rock.
Why an early world record?

Uses time limits to provide clean shaft sidewalls.

Shafts are overreamed when time limits exceeded.
Inspects shafts for bottom cleanliness (since 1982).
Uses adequate rebar spacing.
Uses and places good quality concrete.

EARLY WORLD RECORD OSTERBERG LOAD TEST

Apalachicola River SR 20 Bridge

OSTERBERG TEST USED

40

Upward
top of O-Cell
Movement (mm)

30

To determine Shaft Capacity at Tampa

20

condominium project.

10

Downward Bottom of
O-Cell Base
Movement (mm)

-10

133.4 MN Total

-20

-30
-40
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Load (MN)

Osterberg cell load-movement curves, world record load test

(2.75m diameter shaft embedded in limestone)

OSTERBERG TEST USED

To determine shaft shear from soil and
rock at Tampa condominium project.

Top Load Curve From Three Stage Osterberg Cell Test

(LOADTEST report)

Internal instrumentation used to

determine distribution of load.
(LOADTEST report, 2006)

Load distribution used to determine shaft shear

from soil and rock. (LOADTEST report, 2006)

Nishida (1966) Equations

OSTERBERG TEST USED

To determine modulus of soil and rock at
Tampa condominium project.

Vertical stress and vertical deformation of

ground under a deep circular uniform
pressure in the semi-infinite

Integrated Mindlins equation

Can determine stress below loaded area.

Can determine settlement for given Youngs
modulus (or Youngs Modulus for given
settlement).

Nishida (1966) Equations

(continued)

Nishida (1966) Equations

(continued)

Stress is a function of:

radius of circular loaded area

magnitude of stress on loaded area
depth below ground surface to loaded area
depth to point of interest below loaded area
Poissons ratio

Settlement is a function of:

radius of circular loaded area

magnitude of stress on loaded area
depth below ground surface to loaded area
depth to point of interest below loaded area
Poissons ratio
Youngs modulus

Modulus x Deflection vs. Bearing Pressure x Shaft Radius

Osterberg Test of Cell at Shaft Tip (LOADTEST report, 2006)

Modulus x Deflection vs. Bearing x Shaft Radius

SUMMARY
&
CONCLUSIONS
Osterberg tests valuable to determine
Shaft capacity.
Shaft shear from soil & rock.
Modulus of soil & rock.
Effects of construction methods &
equipment.

Summary & Conclusions (cont.)

30% of a sample of 30 Osterberg tests
showed evidence of severe bottom
disturbance.
Osterberg load tests without evidence of
bottom disturbance averaged B/P = 0.31and
with evidence of disturbance averaged 0.12

Summary & Conclusions (cont.)

Elastic Half Space Analyses Seriously
Underpredict B/P
L/D Ratio is Important (B/P = 1 when L/D
= 0 and B/P = 0 when L/D = infinity)
FE Studies showed effective stress,
dilatancy, soil slip and soil layering are
important

Conclusions (continued)
For the Study Average L/D = 6.7, B/P
ranged from 0 to 0.57. No method
predicted this range which demonstrates the
importance of load tests.
Small tip movements (average = 7.5 mm)
resulted in significant shaft bearing (54
OLT averaged B/P = 0.31at a tip movement
= 0.6% of the shaft diameter.
All of the above tends to demonstrate that
clean shafts are important, especially when
L/D is small.

Thanks & Acknowledgements

Jack Hayes & LOADTEST

John Schmertmann
Jorj Osterberg
Jim Holden

Any Questions ?