Analysis of Osterberg and Statnamic Axial Load Testing and Conventional Lateral Load Testing MSC

ANALYSIS OF OSTERBERG AND STATNAMIC AXIAL LOAD TESTING
AND
CONVENTIONAL LATERAL LOAD TESTING
By
MYOUNG-HO KIM
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2001
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Attending the graduate school at the University of Florida was an excellent
opportunity for me. The past two years at the University of Florida were one of the
happiest times I can think of. I truly appreciate all the professors in the department for
giving me the opportunity to study here.
I would like to extend special thanks to professor Michael McVay for supporting
me throughout my degree. Not only did Dr. McVay teach me essential geotechnical
concepts but he also taught me how to think throughout our research. It was a great
pleasure to work for him.
In July of 1999, I left my country, Korea. I have missed my family since the day I
left. My mother has been sick for years. I pray for her and hope that she gets better.
I thank my wife who has been here with me encouraging and helping me focus on
my study. She never complained even though I frequently came home late from the
library. In my second year at the university, my adorable daughter, Julie Kim, was born.
My wife and my daughter make me feel that I am the luckiest man in the universe.
Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues in the geotechnical group. I truly had
a great time studying and hanging out with them. I will never forget the precious times
with my Latin friends: alimaa Juan Villegas, gentleman Rodrigo Herrea, hard-worker
Victor Alvarez, forever TA Jose Ramos, frequent-traveler Jaime Velez, and Miami helper
Carlos Cepero. I also thank my other friends: tennis foe Marc Novak, tennis instructor
ii
Walt Faulk, genius Thai Nguyen, semi-Japanese Landy Rahelison, Langan boss John
Magnavita. I wish the best of luck to everybody.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................viii
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Brief History of Drilled Shafts .................................................................................. 2
1.3 Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................... 4
2 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 6
2.1 General ...................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 17th Street Bridge....................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1. Site Description ................................................................................................. 8
2.2.2 General Soil Profile............................................................................................ 8
2.3 Acosta Bridge............................................................................................................ 9
2.3.1 Site Description .................................................................................................. 9
2.3.2 General Soil Profile............................................................................................ 9
2.4 Apalachicola Bridge................................................................................................ 10
2.4.1 Site Description ................................................................................................ 10
2.4.2 General Soil Profile.......................................................................................... 10
2.5 Fuller Warren Bridge .............................................................................................. 11
2.6 Gandy Bridge .......................................................................................................... 12
2.7 Hillsborough Bridge................................................................................................ 13
2.8 MacArthur Bridge ................................................................................................... 13
iv

2.9 Venetian Causeway Bridge ..................................................................................... 14
2.10 Victory Bridge....................................................................................................... 15
2.10.1 Site Description .............................................................................................. 15
2.10.2 General Soil Profile........................................................................................ 15
3 LITERATURE REVIEW: METHODS OF LOAD TESTING .................................... 16
3.1 General .................................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Comparison of Axial Load Testing: Static, Statnamic, and Dynamic Load Testing
....................................................................................................................................... 17
3.3 Conventional Load Testing ..................................................................................... 20
3.4 Osterberg Load Testing........................................................................................... 21
3.5 Statnamic Load Testing........................................................................................... 26
3.6 Lateral Load Testing ............................................................................................... 32
4 MEASURED SKIN AND TIP RESISTANCE ANALYSIS........................................ 35
4.1 General .................................................................................................................... 35
4.2 Static (Osterberg & Conventional) Load Testing ................................................... 42
4.2.1 General ............................................................................................................. 42
4.2.2 17th Street Bridge.............................................................................................. 42
4.2.3 Acosta Bridge................................................................................................... 44
4.2.4 Apalachicola Bridge......................................................................................... 45
4.2.5 Fuller Warren Bridge ....................................................................................... 46
4.2.6 Gandy Bridge ................................................................................................... 47
4.2.7 Hillsborough Bridge......................................................................................... 48
4.2.8 MacArthur Bridge ............................................................................................ 48
4.2.9 Victory Bridge.................................................................................................. 49
4.2.10 Analysis and Summary................................................................................... 50
4.2.10.1 Skin friction analysis and summary ........................................................ 50
4.2.10.2 End bearing analysis and summary......................................................... 54
4.3 Statnamic Load Testing........................................................................................... 63
4.3.1 General ............................................................................................................. 63
4.3.1 17th Street Bridge.............................................................................................. 64
4.3.2 Gandy Bridge ................................................................................................... 64
4.3.3 Hillsborough Bridge......................................................................................... 65
4.3.4 Victory Bridge.................................................................................................. 65
4.3.5 Analysis and Summary..................................................................................... 66
4.3.5.1 Skin friction analysis and summary .......................................................... 66
4.3.5.2 End bearing analysis and summary........................................................... 70
4.4 Analysis of Combined Data Using Osterberg and Statnamic ................................. 76
4.4.1. Skin Friction Analysis and Summary ............................................................. 76
4.4.2 End Bearing Analysis and Summary ............................................................... 77
v
5 COMPARISON BETWEEN OSTERBERG AND STATNAMIC LOAD TESTS ..... 87

5.1 General .................................................................................................................... 87
5.2 17th Street Bridge.................................................................................................... 88
5.3 Gandy Bridge .......................................................................................................... 88
5.4 Hillsborough Bridge................................................................................................ 89
5.5 Victory Bridge......................................................................................................... 89
5.6 Analysis and Summary of Comparison................................................................... 91
5.6.1 General ............................................................................................................. 91
5.6.2 Comparison Using Unit Skin Frictions (tsf) .................................................... 91
5.6.3 Comparison Using Total Skin Capacity (tons) ................................................ 95
6 LATERAL RESISTANCE ANALYSIS..................................................................... 102
6.1 General .................................................................................................................. 102
6.2 17th Street Bridge.................................................................................................. 103
6.3 Apalachicola Bridge.............................................................................................. 103
6.4 Fuller Warren Bridge ............................................................................................ 104
6.5 Gandy Bridge ........................................................................................................ 104
6.6 Victory Bridge....................................................................................................... 105
6.7 Back-Analysis of Lateral Load Test Data and Summary...................................... 108
7 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS .................................. 114
7.1 Summary ............................................................................................................... 114
7.2 Conclusion............................................................................................................. 115
7.3 Recommendation................................................................................................... 117
APPENDICES
A SHAFT DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS .......................................................... 118
B COMPUTED UNIT SKIN FRICTION IN THE ROCK SOCKET ........................... 137
C UNIT SKIN FRICTION, T-Z CURVES.................................................................... 146
D LATERALLY TESTED SHAFTS INFORMATION................................................ 157
REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 164
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 165
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
4.1 Summary of Unit End Bearing from Osterberg Load Tests ............................................ 55
4.2 Summary of Unit End Bearing from Statnamic Load Tests............................................ 71
6.1 Summary of Shear and Moment for Lateral Load Test................................................... 112
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
2.1 Project Locations with Number of Load Tests................................................................ 7
3.1 Comparison of Stresses, Velocities and Displacements for Dynamic, Statnamic, and
Static load Testing............................................................................................... 19
3.2 Schematic of Typical Conventional Load Test ............................................................... 20
3.3 Schematic of Osterberg Load Test .................................................................................. 22
3.4 Multi-level Osterberg Testing Setup Configuration........................................................ 25
3.5 Schematic of Statnamic Load Test.................................................................................. 28
3.6 Schematic of Unloading Point Method ........................................................................... 30
3.7 Schematic of Conventional Lateral Load Test ................................................................ 34
4.1. Osterberg Setup When the O-cell is Installed above the Tip ......................................... 39
4.2 Examples of Fully and Partially Mobilized Skin Frictions ............................................. 40
4.3 Examples of Mobilized, FDOT Failure, and Maximum End Bearing ............................ 41
4.4 Osterberg Unit Skin Friction Probability Distribution .................................................... 52
4.5 Osterberg Unit Skin Friction with Standard Deviation ................................................... 52
4.6 Normalized T-Z Curves with General Trend (Osterberg)............................................... 53
4.7 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Osterberg Load Test, 17th Bridge ....................... 56
4.8 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Osterberg Load Test, Acosta Bridge .................. 57
4.9 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Osterberg Load Test, Apalachicola Bridge ........ 58
4.10 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Osterberg Load Test, Fuller Warren Bridge ..... 59
4.11 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Osterberg Load Test, Gandy Bridge................. 60
viii
4.12 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Osterberg Load Test, Hillsborough Bridge ...... 61
4.13 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Osterberg Load Test, Victory Bridge ............... 62
4.14 Statnamic Unit Skin Friction Probability Distribution.................................................. 68
4.15 Statnamic Unit Skin Friction with Standard Deviation................................................. 68
4.16 Comparison of Statnamic and Derived Static (using UPM) Load in tons .................... 69
4.17 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Statnamic Load Test, 17th Bridge ..................... 72
4.18 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Statnamic Load Test, Gandy Bridge................. 73
4.19 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Statnamic Load Test, Hillsborough Bridge ...... 74
4.20 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Statnamic Load Test, Victory Bridge ............... 75
4.21 Combined Unit Skin Friction Probability Distribution ................................................. 78
4.22 Combined Unit Skin Friction with Standard Deviation ................................................ 79
4.23 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Combined Data, 17th Bridge............................. 80
4.24 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Combined Data, Acosta Bridge........................ 81
4.25 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Combined Data, Apalachicola Bridge.............. 82
4.26 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Combined Data, Fuller Warren Bridge ............ 83
4.27 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Combined Data, Gandy Bridge ........................ 84
4.28 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Combined Data, Hillsborough Bridge.............. 85
4.29 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Combined Data, Victory Bridge....................... 86
5.1 Gandy Load Test Location Plan ...................................................................................... 89
5.2 Victory Load Test Location Plan..................................................................................... 90
5.3 Ratio of Unit Skin Friction.............................................................................................. 93
5.4 Comparison of Unit Skin Friction in Limestone............................................................. 94
5.5 Comparison of Skin Capacity in Limestone and Soil ..................................................... 97
5.6 Summary of Osterberg and Statnamic Skin Capacity Comparison................................. 97
5.7 Unit Skin Friction along the shaft for comparison, 17th Bridge ...................................... 98
ix
5.8 Unit Skin Friction along the shaft for comparison, Gandy Bridge.................................. 99
5.9 Unit Skin Friction along the shaft for comparison, Hillsborough Bridge ....................... 100
5.10 Unit Skin Friction along the shaft for comparison, Victory Bridge .............................. 101
6.1 Lateral Test Setup, Condition, and Maximum Deflection .............................................. 107
6.2 FB-Pier: Measured vs. Computed Lateral Deflection ..................................................... 110
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School

of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering
ANALYSIS OF OSTERBERG AND STATNAMIC AXIAL LOAD TESTING
AND
CONVENTIONAL LATERAL LOAD TESTING
By
Myoung-Ho Kim
August 2001
Chairman: Michael C. McVay
Major Department: Civil and Coastal Engineering
The work presented is part of a project sponsored by the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) to suggest guidelines on the use of Osterberg and Statnamic
testing for FDOT structures.
The primary purpose of this thesis is to reduce Osterberg and Statnamic load test
data to analyze them in terms of skin and end bearing resistances. The data from both
tests are individually analyzed and compared. The combined data from both tests are
also analyzed.
In addition, conventional lateral load tests are back-analyzed using FB-Pier to find
the tip cut-off elevation. Shafts with free head and fixed head conditions (with and
without superstructure) are analyzed.
A brief summary of the conclusions drawn from this research is as follows:
xi
1. Florida limestone generally has high spatial variability horizontally and vertically.
The typical range of ultimate unit skin frictions in Florida limestone is from 3 to 11
tsf.
2. Most of the Statnamic load tests studied did not develop ultimate side and end bearing
resistances.
3. When shafts are installed in soft geomaterials (soft limestone), large discrepancies
were observed between Statnamic and derived static forces.
4. About 80% of ultimate side friction is developed when 0.25 inches of vertical
movement occurred for 4-foot diameter shafts.
5. The majority of the lateral load is transferred in the upper 7 feet of the rock socket
resulting in a small displacement within the competent limestone socket.
xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The Florida Department of Transportation under State Job No. 99052794
(Contract No. BC-354) contracted with the University of Florida to evaluate their current
load testing approach for drilled shafts.
Until the late 1980s, FDOT only conducted conventional top down load tests,
which were generally limited to 1000-ton capacities. The conventional load tests could
typically be successfully performed (generating ultimate capacity) with small diameter
drilled shafts (generally less than 48 inches) when founded in Florida limestone. Due to
economics (using a single shaft instead of a pile group), soil stratigraphy (installed in the
limestone), and loading (ship impact), larger and larger diameter drilled shafts have
become more attractive than pile groups.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Osterberg load test was developed. The
Osterberg load tests use a hydraulic jack that is cast into the bottom or near the bottom of
a drilled shaft. As the O-cell (Osterberg cell) is inflated, the upper portion of the shaft
from the O-cell is pushed upward, while the lower portion of the shaft from the O-cell is
pushed downward, mobilizing both skin and end bearing resistances. Osterberg tests
have exceeded 6000 tons on large diameter drilled shafts.
In addition, in the early to mid 1990s, the Statnamic load test was developed.
This test has involved dynamic loadings (inertial and damping forces) in excess of 4000
2
tons. Dead weights (reaction masses) are placed upon the surface of the test shaft. Small
propellants and load cell are placed underneath the dead weights. Solid fuel pellets in a
combustion chamber develop large pressures, which act upward against the shaft and
dead weights (reaction masses).
To measure shaft response, strain gauges are installed along the shaft for both the
Statnamic and Osterberg tests. However, in the case of the Statnamic test, the dynamic
components have to be subtracted out to determine an equivalent static load. The UPM
(Unloading Point Method) is used to obtain the derived static forces.
The Osterberg and Statnamic load tests have not been broadly studied in Florida
since they were recently introduced in construction. A total of 42 full scale axial load
tests were obtained for the research: 27 Osterberg, 12 Statnamic, and 3 conventional load
tests.
A thorough analysis was carried out using these load test data.
1.2 Brief History of Drilled Shafts
A drilled shaft is a type of deep foundation. It is constructed by placing fluid
concrete in a drilled hole. The hole can be drilled using wet or dry methods (slurry or
open hole). Reinforcing steel is installed in the drilled hole. Drilled shafts can be belled
at the bottom to increase tip resistance. To gain more resistance, the diameter and length
of the shaft may be increased.
Early versions of drilled shafts originated from the need to support higher and
heavier buildings in cities such as Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and London, where the
subsurface conditions consisted of relatively thick layers of medium to soft clays
overlying deep glacial till or bedrock. In 1908 hand-dug caissons were replaced by
3
machine excavation which were capable of boring a 12 inch hole to a depth of 20 to 40
feet. Early truck-mounted machines were developed by Hugh B. Williams of Dallas in
1931. The machine was used to excavate shallow holes and later became popular in the
drilled-shaft industry.
Prior to World War II, more economical and faster constructed drilled shaft
foundations were possible with the development of large scale, mobile, auger-type and
bucket-type, earth-drilling equipment. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, drilling
contractors had developed techniques for making larger underreams, larger diameters,
and cutting into rocks. Large-diameter, straight shafts founded entirely in clay, which
gained most of their support from the side resistance, became common usage in Britain.
Many contractors also began introducing casing and drilling mud into boreholes for
permeable soils below the water table and for caving soils.
A bridge project in the San Angelo District of Texas is believed to be the first
planned use of drilled shafts on a state department of transportation projects (McClelland,
1996). While drilled shaft is the term first used in Texas, drilled caisson or drilled
pier is more common in the Midwestern United States.
As computer techniques, analytical methods and full-scale load-testing programs
were introduced in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the behavior of drilled shafts was
better understood. Then, extensive research was carried out through the 1960s and into
the 1980s. Due to improved design methods and construction procedures, drilled shafts
became regarded as a reliable foundation system for highway structures by numerous
state DOTs (Reese and ONeil, 1999). A principle motivation for using drilled shafts
4
over other types of piles is that a single large drilled shaft with high capacity can be
installed to replace a group of driven piles, resulting in lower costs.
1.3 Purpose and Scope
All state and highway organization use both driven piles and drilled shafts to
support their bridge pier foundations. Generally, when stiff soil or rock is close to the
surface or large lateral loads are part of the design (i.e. ship impact, hurricane, etc) drilled
shafts become more economical than driven piles.
In the event that drilled shafts are used, field load testing is generally performed
(especially in major bridge projects). In the past, such tests involved conventional static
load tests with the use of massive frames. However, recently Osterberg and Statnamic
load testing has become more prevalent. This has occurred as a result of the following
reasons: Osterberg and Statnamic load tests 1) have higher capacity than conventional
tests, 2) have less setup time than conventional tests, and 3) are more cost effective than
conventional tests.
Due to questions on interpreting Statnamic and Osterberg testing results, these
two testing methods have been employed jointly many times (17th Causeway, Gandy,
Hillsborough, and Victory bridges). In addition, a preliminary survey of FDOT jobs has
shown that there is a wide variability between these two tests.
The objectives of this thesis are as follows:
1) To reduce data from Osterberg and Statnamic axial load tests and analyze them. The
site variability will be reflected in the result of the load test data. Since the sites are
all located in Florida, the variability within a site as well as the variability between
sites can be compared.
2) To compare Osterberg and Statnamic load tests. Presently there exists no broad
comparison between static and Statnamic load testing in Florida.
5
3) To compare derived static forces and Statnamic forces in Statnamic load testing. The
Statnamic loads applied were reported as static resistance on the load test companys
report. However, significant inertial and damping forces may have been developed.
4) To back analyze the lateral load tests using the U.F. computer program FB-Pier. The
soil and rock properties used to generate p-y curves are varied to provide the best
match to the actual measured displacements at the maximum load. In addition, the
shaft with and without fixed head condition (with or without superstructure) is
analyzed to find the tip cut-off elevation.
CHAPTER 2
SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 General
To complete the purpose and scope of the project, the following information was
required: 1) as built design plans, 2) Osterberg & Statnamic load test reports, 3)
geotechnical reports, and 4) schedule & cost data. A total of 11 bridge projects had the
required information.
17th Causeway Bridge, State Job #86180-3522
Acosta Bridge, State Job #72160-3555
Apalachicola River Bridge (SR20), State job #47010-3519/56010-3520
Christa Bridge, State job #70140-3514
Fuller Warren Bridge Replacement Project, State Job #72020-3485/2142478
Gandy Bridge, State Job #10130-3544/7113370
Hillsborough Bridge, State Job #10150-3543/3546
McArthur Bridge, State job 87060-3549
Venetian Causeway (under construction), State job #87000-3601
Victory Bridge, State job #53020-3540
West 47th over Biscayne Water Way, State job #87000-3516
The location of each project is shown in Figure 2.1. Evident is that all the
projects are located in coastal areas of Florida, and all the shafts are constructed in
Florida limestone. A description of each site along with field and laboratory tests
follows.
6
Victory Bridge
(Chattahoochee)
O-cell: 5 Stat: 1
Lateral: 4
Acosta Bridge
(Jacksonville)
O-cell: 4 Conv: 2
Fuller Warren Bridge
(Jacksonville)
O-cell: 4
Lateral: 2
Apalachicola Bridge
(Calhoun Liberty)
O-cell: 6
Lateral: 1
Crista Bridge
(Brevard)
Gandy Bridge
(Tampa)
O-cell: 3 Stat: 3
Lateral: 6
17th Causeway
(Fort Lauderdale)
O-cell: 4 Stat: 6
Lateral: 2
Hillsborough Bridge
(Tampa)
O-cell: 1 Stat: 2
MacArthur Bridge
(Miami)
Conv: 1
Venetian Bridge
(Miami)
West 47 Bridge
(Miami)
Note:
Stat: Statnamic Load Test (number of test: 12)
O-cell: Osterberg Load Test (number test: 27)
Conv: Conventional Load Test (number of test 3)
Total Number of Axial Load Tests: 42
Total Number of Lateral Load Tests: 15
Figure 2.1 Project Locations with Number of Load Tests
2.2 17th Street Bridge

2.2.1. Site Description
This is a bascule replacement bridge for the old movable bridge on S.E. 17th
Street Causeway over the intracoastal waterway in Fort Lauderdale, located in Broward
County. The new bascule bridge provides about 16.76 meters of clearance over the
navigation channel of the intracoastal waterway when in the closed position.
The construction started on the west end at Station 28+73, which is approximately
127 meters west of the intersection between Eisenhower Boulevard and S.E. 17th Street
Causeway. The end of construction was on the east at Station 41+60, which is
approximately 540 meters east of the intersection between S.E. 23rd Avenue and S.E.
17th Street Causeway.
2.2.2 General Soil Profile
The general topography on the west end of the S.E. 17th Street project was level
outside of the area of the embankments, i.e. elevation in the range of +1.5 to +2.0 meters
(NGVD). The project alignment from the west end to the intracoastal waterway, the
elevation of the ground surface increases smoothly to elevations of +8 meters (NGVD) in
the vicinity of the west abutment of the bridge. The average elevation of the ground
surface on the N.W. and S.W. frontage roads ranges from approximately +1.5 to +2.0
meters (NGVD).
Over the Intra-coastal Waterway, as the project alignment approaches the
Navigation Channel, the elevation of the bottom of the bay drops smoothly to elevations
as low as 4.6 meters (NGVD). From the Navigation Channel, the elevation of the bottom
of the bay increases smoothly until the ground surface is encountered at the east side of
the Intra-coastal Waterway. The average elevation of the ground surface on the N.E. and
9
S.E. Frontage Roads ranges from approximately +1.5 to +2.0 meters (NGVD). The
elevation of the project alignment on S.E. 17th Street on the east approach embankment
starts approximately at elevations of as much as +6.5 meters (NGVD). As the project
alignment proceeds to the east, the ground surface elevation drops to approximate
elevations between +1.5 and +2.0 meters around stations 40+50 to 41+00. At this point,
the ground surface elevation starts to increase again as the project alignment approaches
the Mercedes Bridge on S.E. 17th Street.
2.3 Acosta Bridge
2.3.1 Site Description
The newly elevated 4-lane Acosta Bridge crosses the St. Johns River in the
downtown district of Jacksonville, FL. It replaces a 2-lane lift span bridge (completed in
1921) and carries the Automated Skyway Express (ASE), a light-rail people mover, for
the Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA).
The average elevation of the ground surface of the project ranges from +3.0 to
+15.0 feet (NGVD). In the shallow areas of the river crossing (i.e. less than 30), there is
a 2 to 10 thick layer of sand. This thin upper sand layer is very susceptible to scour.
The upper sand layer is underlain by a layer of limestone varying in thickness from 10 to
20' thick, which is underlain by overconsolidated sandy marl. The limestone layer is
much more resistant to scour.
10
2.4 Apalachicola Bridge
The Florida Department of Transportation widened State Road (SR) 20s crossing
the Apalachicola River between the towns of Bristol and Blountstown in Calhoun
County, by constructing a new 2-lane bridge parallel to the existing 2-lane structure. The
existing steel truss bridge was constructed in the 1930's and was recently designated as an
historic monument. The construction involved building a new 2-lane concrete-steel
bridge, and renovating the old bridge. The final bridge consists of two lanes traveling
east-west (new bridge) and two lanes traveling west-east (renovated old bridge).
Each of the structures consists of a trestle portion crossing the surrounding flood
plain as well as a high-level portion spanning the river itself. The trestle portion of the
new structure is 4,464 feet long while the approaches and main span comprise 3,890 feet,
resulting in a total structure length of 8,362 feet. The main span provides a vertical
clearance of 55 feet from the normal high water level of the river. The river is about 700
feet wide at the crossing.
The new bridge alignment runs approximately parallel to the existing structure
just to its south. Natural ground surface elevations in the flood plain generally range
from about elevation +41 feet to +47 feet on the West Side of the river and from
elevation +44 feet to +48 feet on the East Side of the river. Mud line elevations at pier
locations within the river range from about + 17 feet to + 18 feet. According to the
project plans, the mean low river water elevation is + 32. 0 feet and the normal high river
water elevation is +46.5 feet.
11
Subsurface stratigraphy consists of soft to very stiff sandy clays, sandy silts, along
with some clayey sands of 10 to 20 feet in thickness underlain by sands to silty clayey
sands ranging in density from loose to dense with thickness from a few feet to a
maximum of 30 feet. Beneath the sands, calcareous silts, clays, sands and gravels, with
layers of inter bedded limestone, generally extend from about elevation zero feet to about
elevation -50 feet to -60 feet. The calcareous material is limestone that is weathered to
varying degrees. While the upper 10 to 15 feet of the material generally ranges from stiff
to medium dense, it appears to become very dense to hard with increasing depth. At
approximately elevation -50 feet to -60 feet, very well cemented calcareous clayey silt
with sand is encountered that extended to elevation -65 feet to -75 feet. This material is
generally underlain by very hard limestone that extends to the maximum depth of 135
feet (elevation -94 feet).
2.5 Fuller Warren Bridge
The new Fuller Warren Bridge replaces the old Gilmore Street Bridge in
Jacksonville, Florida. The new bridge spans Interstate Highway 95 (I-95) across the St.
Johns River in downtown Jacksonville. The old bridge was a four-lane concrete structure
with steel, drawbridge bascule extending across the channel. The new concrete high span
bridge has a total of eight travel lanes and was constructed parallel to the old bridge, 120
feet offset to the south.
The average elevation of the ground surface for this project ranges from +4.0 to
+20 feet. The overburden soils are generally encountered from these surface elevations
down to the limestone formation at elevations -12 to -27 feet. The overburden soils
12
generally consist of very loose to very dense fine sands with layers of clayey fine sands
and/or layers of very soft clay. A variably cemented sandy limestone formation is
encountered between elevations of -12 to -45 feet (MSL). The limestone formation is
typically 10 to 20 feet thick.
2.6 Gandy Bridge
The Gandy Bridge consists of two double lane structures across Old Tampa Bay
between Pinellas County to the west and Hillsborough County to the east in west central
Florida. The new bridge replaces the westbound structure of the existing Gandy Bridge
across Old Tampa Bay. The age, deterioration, and other factors of the old bridge
warranted its replacement.
The average elevation of the ground surface of the project ranges from +0.0 to -22
feet. The surface soils consist of approximately 45 feet of fine shelly sand and silt.
Underlying the sands and silts are highly weathered limestone. The limestone is
encountered at depths varying from 58 to 65 feet below existing grade. The elevation of
the top of the limestone varies from approximately -4 feet (NGVD) to -53 feet (NGVD)
along the axis of the bridge across the bay. Four-inch rock cores were taken in selected
borings. The recovered rock samples are generally tan white shelly calcareous slightly
phosphatic limestone, which contains chert fragments. Much of the limestone has been
weathered and due to solution processes have pockets of silts and clays within the matrix.
13
2.7 Hillsborough Bridge
The project consisted of the construction of a new bridge, as well as the
rehabilitation of the existing bridge on State Road 600 (Hillsborough Avenue) across the
Hillsborough River in north Tampa. The old bridge was designed and constructed in the
late 1930's. This structure is 358 linear feet long with a 93.5 foot vertical lift span. The
four 10-foot traffic lanes was not able to accommodate the heavy traffic. Due to its
historic significance, the old bridge was identified as a historic monument and was to be
rehabilitated. The new structure is 436 linear feet in length and has a bascule-type
moveable span.
The average elevation of the ground surface of the project ranges from +1.8 to 10.5 feet, and the limestone formation is found at elevation -15 to -40 feet. The
overburden soils generally consist of very loose to very dense fine sands and clayey fine
sands. A variably cemented limestone formation is encountered between elevations of 15 to -40 feet. The limestone formation is typically 10 to 50 feet thick.
2.8 MacArthur Bridge
The former MacArthur Causeway Draw Bridge served as one of a few means of
transportation between the Cities of Miami and Miami Beach. Due to traffic congestion
when the drawbridge was up, the Florida Department of Transportation decided to
construct a new high-level fixed span bridge to improve traffic conditions.
The new bridge begins at Station 1039+00 (interstate I-395) and extends to the
east along the MacArthur Causeway, to Station 225 + 80 (Watson Island).
14
The west approach of the existing bridge is located within a man-made fill area
adjacent to Biscayne Bay. The east approach is on a partially man-made fill area.
Watson Island is hydraulically filled with material from the dredging of the Turning
Basin and Port of Miami main channel.
The average elevation of the ground surface of the project ranges from +2.0 to -11
feet. The overburden soils generally exist down to an elevation of -12 to -27 feet (MSL),
which is the top of the limestone formation. The overburden soils generally consist of
very loose to very dense fine sands and clayey fine sands with some zones of very soft
clay. The limestone is highly variable, cemented and sandy, as well as fossiliferous. The
limestone formation is typically 10 to 20 feet thick.
2.9 Venetian Causeway Bridge
Spanning some 2-1/2 miles, and joining 11 islands, the Venetian Causeway is an
important link between the cities of Miami and Miami Beach, in Dade County. The
Causeway may serve as an evacuation route for residents of Miami Beach and the islands
during a hurricane. The existing Causeway includes some 12 bridges and is open to 2lane traffic with one sidewalk running along the north site. The existing roadway was
completed in 1926, is 36 feet wide with a 4-foot sidewalk, and is on the National Register
of Historic Places.
The elevation of the bottom of Biscayne Bay ranges from -1.4 to -10.3 feet. The
upper soils consist mostly of sands down to an elevation -10 to -20 feet. Next there is a
transition zone of limestone and calcareous sandstone layers, frequently combined with
15
pockets of sands down to an elevation -28 to -31 feet. Underlying this are harder layers
of limestone and calcareous sandstone layers with sporadic sand pockets down to an
elevation -31 to -55 feet.
2.10 Victory Bridge
The Victory Bridge crosses the flood plain of the Apalachicola River about one
mile west of Chattahoochee and is on U.S. 90. The Jim Woodruff dam is located
approximately 0.6 miles north (upstream) of the bridge. The original bridge was
completed shortly after the end of World War I and is supported on steel H-piles. The
bridge was subsequently designated as an historic structure to prevent its demolition. The
new bridge is located approximately 50 feet south of the old bridge and supported on
drilled shafts.
The soil profile at the Victory Bridge is quite variable, ranging from silt and clay
to sand with gravel over limestone. The ground surface occurs at an elevation of +48 to
+58 feet with weathered limestone at surface at some locations. The overburden soils
generally consist of very loose to very dense fine sands and clayey fine sands with some
zones of very soft clay. A cemented limestone formation is encountered between
elevations of +40 to 20 feet. The limestone formation was typically 10 to 50 feet thick.
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW: METHODS OF LOAD TESTING
3.1 General
Load tests are generally performed for two reasons: 1) as a proof test to verify
design, i.e. ensure that the test shaft is capable of sustaining twice the design load; and 2)
validate that the contractors construction approach is acceptable. Generally, the shafts
are instrumented (strain gauges are generally installed at equal spacing along the shaft) to
assess skin and tip resistances in the shaft.
It is critical that the test shaft be founded in the same formation and by the same
construction procedures as the production shafts. Generally more than one load test is
scheduled for major bridge projects.
According to the FDOT, the failure of a drilled shaft is defined as either 1)
plunging of the drilled shaft, or 2) a gross settlement, uplift or lateral deflection of 1/30 of
the shaft diameter in an axial loading test.
Until recently, the only feasible way of performing a compressive load test on a
drilled shaft was the conventional method, which requires large reaction frames. The
conventional method also has a limited capacity (about 1500 tons, Justason et al., 1998)
with significant installation and testing time. Recently, two new alternative methods for
conducting drilled shaft load testing have been developed that do not require reaction
systems. These methods have higher capacity (about 3000 to 6000 tons) and shorter
testing time than the conventional load test. These are the Osterberg and Statnamic
16
17
testing methods. Osterberg and Statnamic tests are ordinarily less expensive than
conventional tests because reaction systems are not required.
While the Osterberg test is a statically loaded system, the Statnamic is considered
to be a semi-dynamic system. The following section describes the difference between
static, Statnamic, and dynamic load testing followed by sections describing each test in
detail.
3.2 Comparison of Axial Load Testing: Static, Statnamic, and Dynamic Load Testing
The main differences between static, Statnamic, and dynamic load testing can be
seen from the comparisons of stresses, velocities and displacements along the pile. The
comparisons between these factors are shown Figure 3.1 (Middendorp and Bermingham,
1995).
In dynamic load testing, a short duration impact is introduced to the pile head by a
drop hammer or a pile driving hammer (shown in Figure 3.1). A stress wave travels
along the pile resulting in large differences in stresses from pile level to pile level. While
some pile levels experience compression, other pile levels experience tension. This
pattern is constantly fluctuating during the test. The same pattern occurs in the velocities
and the displacements along the pile. These factors (stress states, velocities, and
displacements) vary strongly from pile level to pile level.
In Statnamic load testing, the load is gradually introduced to the pile (shown in
Figure 3.1). Compression stresses change gradually along the pile, and all pile parts
remain under compression. Along the pile, the compression stresses are reduced by the
skin resistance. Pile levels move with almost similar velocities, and displacements
change gradually.
18
In static load testing, the load is introduced to the pile in successive steps (shown
in Figure 3.1). Each step is maintained over a period of time ranging from minutes to
hours. Compression stresses change gradually along the pile and all pile parts remain
under compression. Along the pile, the compression stresses are reduced by the skin
resistance. The pile levels move with almost zero velocity, and displacements change
gradually.
This comparison shows that the Statnamic load testing is closer to static load
testing than dynamic load testing. The major difference between the Statnamic and static
load testing is the velocities. While the velocities are considered close to zero for the
static test, they can be in the range of 0.1 to 2 m/s for the Statnamic test. The long
duration of the Statnamic loading results in a pile behavior similar to that obtained from
the static test (Middendorp et al., 1992, Matsumoto and Tsuzuki, 1994).
The following sections briefly explain each axial test (Conventional, Osterberg,
and Statnamic load tests), and a lateral load test.
19
Dyanmic load test

Statnamic load test
LOAD
Static load test
TIME
Displacement
Depth
Velocity
Depth
Depth
stress
Displacement
Depth
Velocity
Depth
Depth
stress
Displacement
Depth
Velocity
Depth
Depth
stress
Dynamic Load Testing

Statnamic Load Testing
Static Load Testing
Figure 3.1 Comparison of Stresses, Velocities and Displacements for Dynamic,

Statnamic, and Static load Testing (after Middendorp and Bielefeld, 1995)
20
3.3 Conventional Load Testing

The load is successively introduced to the shaft by means of a hydraulic jack.
Several arrangements can be used including reaction shafts, load platforms, or highstrength anchors. The most frequently used arrangement is the use of reaction shafts.
The load is applied by a hydraulic ram that reacts against a beam supported by two
additional shafts that are adjacent to the test shaft. The typical setup is shown in Figure
3.2.
Load Beam
Hydraulic Jack
Load Dial
Movement
Dial
Reaction
shaft
Test
shaft
Reaction
shaft
Figure 3.2 Schematic of Typical Conventional Load Test
There are several procedures for testing listed by ASTM D 1143-81. A load is
applied in successive steps. Each step is maintained over a period of minutes to hours
(generally 10 minutes). In every step, the load, settlement, and time are recorded. The
test continues until a settlement of at least 5 percent of the base diameter is achieved or
the shaft plunges with no additional load applied (Reese and ONeil, 1999).
21
The advantage of the static test is that it simulates the real load case. However,
the disadvantages of the static test are that:
1. When reaction shafts are used, the test shaft can be influenced by the reaction shafts.
2. The reaction frame and reaction anchors are ordinarily quite significant structures.
3. The maximum capacities are limited, generally limited to 1000 tons.
4. The standard procedure might take several days to complete.
5. The test is generally more expensive than the Osterberg or Statnamic load tests.
3.4 Osterberg Load Testing
The Osterberg cell, developed by Osterberg (1989), is basically a hydraulic jack
that is cast into a shaft. Since the O-cell (Osterberg cell) can produce up to 3,000 tons of
force acting in both the upward and downward directions, the Osterberg cell
automatically separates the skin friction from the bearing resistance. As mentioned
above, the Osterberg test does not need a conventional jack, reaction frame or reaction
anchor system. As a result, the Osterberg test requires much less time to complete than a
conventional test. A schematic diagram of the Osterberg cell loading system is shown in
Figure 3.3.
22
Dial Gages
Reference Beam
Tell-tale to
bottom cell
Concrete
Pressure Source
Hydraulic
Supply Line
Skin Friction
Osterberg Cell
(Expands)
Shaft End Bearing
Figure 3.3 Schematic of Osterberg Load Test (after Reese and O'Neil, 1999)
23
The Osterberg cell consists of two plates of prescribed diameter. Between the
plates, there is an expandable chamber that can hold pressurized fluid. The upper and
lower plates on the cell can be field welded to the steel plates. The diameters of the steel
plates are approximately equal to that of the test shaft. The Osterberg cell is calibrated in
a test frame so that the load versus applied pressure relationship is obtained. When the
load is applied to the cell, the load is equally distributed at both top and bottom.
The movement of top cell and bottom cell can be measured by dial gauges
connected to telltales. In addition, the movement of the top and bottom of the cell can be
measured by means of sacrificial electronic movement sensors attached between the top
and bottom plates. With such an arrangement, it is possible to obtain relations of side
resistance versus side movement and base resistance versus base movement until either
the base or side resistance reach failure.
Test shafts are manually instrumented with pairs of strain gauges, which are
generally equally distributed from just above the top of the load cell to the ground
surface. By analyzing load distribution from the stain gauges, the load transfer can be
calculated for the various soil and rock layers.
End bearing provides reaction for the skin friction, and skin friction provides
reaction for the end bearing. This unique mechanism makes the placement of the cell
critical. If the cell is placed too high (see Figure 4.1), the shaft would most likely fail in
skin friction on the shaft above the O-cell. If the O-cell is placed too deep in the shaft,
the portion of shaft below the cell will likewise fail too soon. If either occurs too soon,
the information about the other is incomplete. As a consequence, it is not easy to get
both the ultimate side and tip resistances with just one Osterberg cell. If only the ultimate
tip resistance is desired, the cell should be installed at the bottom of the shaft. On the
24
other hand, if the ultimate side resistance is needed, the cell should be installed upward
from the tip of the shaft.
Osterberg tests are typically performed in accordance with ASTM D1143 (Quick
Load Test Procedures). The loads are applied during each stage in increments of 5% of
the estimated maximum applied load. The shafts are unloaded in increments of about
25% of the maximum applied load.
Numerous other configurations are possible including a multi-level setup (see
Figure 3.4: used in Apalachicola Bridge and Fuller Warren Bridge), that is capable of
fully mobilizing both side and tip resistances. Nine thousand tons of combined side and
base resistances have been achieved with this arrangement. Obviously, this configuration
permits significantly higher loads than the conventional test.
25
Upper O-cell
Lower O-cell
Physical Arrangement
Side Shear
Failure
Locked
Bearing resistance
is obtained.
Upper portion side

resistance is obtained.
Active
Locked
Active
Bearing Failure
Step 1
Step 2
Lower portion side

resistance is obtained
(reverse order).
Lower portion side

resistance is obtained.
Open
Active
Side Shear
Failure
Active
Side Shear Failure

(Reverse Direction)
Open
Step 3
Step 4
Figure 3.4 Multi-level Osterberg Testing Setup Configuration (after Reese and O'Neil,
1999)
26
In summary, the Osterberg load test provides the following advantages when
compared to the conventional static load test and the Statnamic load test:
1. Requires no external frames and is constructed in conjunction with the shaft, reducing
setup time.
2. Multiple load cells placed at the base of the shaft can be used to test shafts to capacities
above 9000 tons.
3. Load cells placed at different levels in the shaft can be used to test both end bearing
and skin friction, separately.
4. Ability to reload test shafts to obtain residual side shear strength.
5. Ability to perform on shafts in water (river or channel).
6. Ability to perform on inclined piles or shafts on land or over water.
7. Cost effective compared to Conventional test (about 50 60% for situations in which
conventional loading tests can be used)
However, the Osterberg test has the following disadvantages:
1. Single cell tests generally fail by either mobilizing the full skin friction or end bearing
which limits the information on the other component.
2. Since the shaft is being pushed upward, several physical effects may be different as
compared to conventional loads.
3.5 Statnamic Load Testing
Statnamic load testing, jointly developed in Canada and the Netherlands
(Middendorp et al., 1992), is an innovative testing method, which is capable of loading
high capacity piles to failure in both skin and end bearing resistances simultaneously.
Statnamic devices have been constructed that are capable of applying loads of
approximately 4000 tons. The cost of a Statnamic test is usually similar to that of an
Osterberg cell test at the same magnitude of loading.
The principle of the Statnamic test is shown in Figure 3.5. Dead weights (reaction
masses) are placed upon the surface of the test shaft. Small propellants and a load cell
27
are placed underneath the dead weights. Solid fuel pellets in a combustion chamber
develop large pressures, which act upward against the shaft and dead weights (reaction
masses). The pressure acts against the top of the shaft, inducing a load-displacement
response that is measured with laser and load cell devices. The pre-determined load is
controlled by the size of the reaction mass and propellants. The duration of the applied
load is typically 120 milliseconds. Pile/shaft acceleration and velocity are typically on
the order of 1g and 1m/s respectively. Displacement is monitored directly using a laser
datum and an integrated receiver located at the center axis of the pile/shaft. In addition,
displacement may be calculated by integrating the acceleration measured at the top of the
shaft. Force is monitored directly using a calibrated load cell.
A Statnamic graph of settlement (movement) versus load is shown in Figure 3.5.
Since there are some dynamic forces (i.e. damping and inertia), some analysis is
necessary. Currently, the Unloading Point Method (UPM) (Middendorp et al., 1992) is
the standard tool for assessing the damping inertial forces and determining the static
capacity as shown in Figure 3.5.
28
Reaction
Masses
Laser sight
(movement)
Load Cell / Fuel
Skin Friction
End Bearing
Load
Statnamic
Movement
Static
Zero velocity point
Figure 3.5 Schematic of Statnamic Load Test
29
The UPM analysis consists of two parts: 1) determination of static resistance at
maximum displacement (Unloading Point), and 2) construction of the static loaddisplacement diagram. The following describes the step-by-step procedures for the UPM
method. The Schematic of Unloading point method is shown in Figure 3.6.
1. It is assumed that the pile can be modeled as a concentrated mass and spring due to a
long duration Statnamic load.
2. Fstatnamic = Fstatic + Cv + Ma (C: damping factor, v: velocity, M: mass,
a: acceleration, therefore Cv: damping force, Ma: inertial force), see Figure 3.6.
3. At the maximum displacement (Unloading Point), the velocity equals zero (v = 0).
4. At the Unloading Point, since Fstatnamic and the acceleration are known (measured by
devices), Fstatic can be calculated.
Fstatic = Fstatnamic Ma, (v = 0 at the Unloading Point)
5. It is assumed that the soil is yielding over the range Fstatnamic(max) to Funloading
, so Fstatic = Funloading.
Funloading = Fstatnamic Ma --------------------------------- from step 4
6. Since Fstatic is known (Fstatic = Funloading) over the range Fstatnamic(max) to Funloading, a mean
C (damping factor) can be calculated over this range.
Cv = (Fstatnamic - Fstatic - Ma) ------------------------------ from step 2
Cmean = (Fstatnamic Funloading - Ma) / v --------------------- from step 5
7. Now static resistance Fstatic can be calculated at all points.
Fstatic = (Fstatnamic - Cmeanv - Ma)
8. Draw the static load-movement diagram, shown in Figure 3.5.
30
Fstatnamic
Fstatnamic
Fstatnamic = Fstatic + Cv + Ma
Fsoil
Max. Statnamic Force

Load
(Fstatnamc)
Unloading Point (v = 0)
Yielding Range
(Fstatic = Funloading)
Time
Time
Displacement
Velocity
(v)
Time
Acceleration
(a)
Time
Figure 3.6 Schematic of Unloading Point Method (after Middendorp et al., 1992)
31
In summary, the Statnamic load test provides the following advantages when
compared to both conventional and Osterberg load testing:
1. Propellants are safe and a reliable way to produce a predetermined test load of desired
duration. Loading is repeatable and is unaffected by weather, temperature, or
humidity.
2. Since the Statnamic requires no equipment to be cast in the shaft, it can be performed
on a drilled shaft for which a loading test was not originally planned.
3. The Statnamic device can be reused on multiple piles/shafts
4. The Statnamic test has little or no effect on the integrity of the shaft (non-destructive).
5. The Statnamic is a top-down test simulating a real load case, while the Osterberg
generates an up-lifting force.
The main disadvantage of the Statnamic test is its dynamic nature and the need to
assess the dynamic forces (inertia and damping) that are developed during the test. The
dynamic forces can be computed using the Unloading Point Method (UPM) (Middendorp
et al., 1992). AFT (Applied Foundation Testing, Inc.) has recently developed the
segmental approach (Segmental Unloading Point Method) based on variable
instrumentation placed along the side of the pile/shaft. The derived static loads presented
in this thesis were calculated using the UPM method since this method was the only
available method at the time of testing.
32
3.6 Lateral Load Testing

When drilled shafts are used for the support of bridges, the shafts are generally
subject to both lateral and axial loads. Lateral load tests are performed to validate design
(tip cut-off elevation), as well as to ensure good construction practices. The lateral tests
are also used to evaluate the response of the test shafts to lateral load applications and to
determine proper soil parameters that arrow matching of the test results. Such parameters
can then be used to further evaluate the bridge foundation design under different load and
scour conditions or to analyze other shaft sizes and load conditions in similar soil
profiles. Even though large diameter drilled shafts are capable of sustaining very large
lateral loads due to their moment of inertia (i.e. r4/4), their behavior under lateral
loading is very dependent upon the type of the soil or rock in which they are founded (i.e.
p-y curves). Hydraulic jacks (conventional), Osterberg cells, or Statnamic devices can be
used to apply the lateral load. For all of these load test methods, the test shafts should be
as nearly full-size as possible. Based on the pairs of strain gauges along the length of the
pile/shaft, moments and shears can be computed. The change in shear between any two
points on the shaft is the soils resistance. The load test data can be used to validate p-y
curves, and these p-y curves can then be used to design the production shafts with more
confidence than without having lateral load tests.
Since this research includes only conventional lateral load tests, the conventional
lateral load tests are briefly described next. The two common configurations are shown
in Figure 3.7. Conventional lateral load tests are commonly conducted by either pushing
two piles against each other or pulling two piles/shafts toward each other. The load is
applied by either a jack that pushes (compression) two piles or by a jack that pulls
33
(tension) two test piles/shafts using an attached cable or tie. The applied load is
measured by a load cell that is installed adjacent to the jack.
The nature of loading employed in the loading test should duplicate the loading in
service as closely as possible. For example, if the primary design is static, the applied
load should be increased slowly. If the primary loadings are wind loading, one-way
cyclic loading would be appropriate. If the primary loading is wave or seismic loading,
two-way cyclic loading may be appropriate. The two-way cyclic load can be simulated
by repeatedly pushing and pulling the shaft through its initial position.
The p-y curves can be directly derived from load tests when test shafts are
installed with strain gauges because the bending moment is measured as a function of
depth and lateral load.
34
Lateral Load Test by Pulling Piles toward each other
Tensioned Rod
Soil or Limestone
Lateral Load Test by Pushing Piles against each other
Pusing Jack
Soil or Limestone
Maximum Deflection of the Shaft
Figure 3.7 Schematic of Conventional Lateral Load Test
CHAPTER 4
MEASURED SKIN AND TIP RESISTANCE ANALYSIS
4.1 General
A total of forty shafts were analyzed: 25 Osterberg, 12 Statnamic and 3
Conventional tests. As shown in Figure 2.1, all the projects are located near coastal areas
of Florida. All the reported data were obtained from the load test reports sent to the
FDOT by the consultants who performed the tests.
Since the clear failure status of the load tests for skin and end bearing resistance
was generally unknown, the T-Z curves (skin friction vs. displacement) and Q-Z curves
(tip resistance vs. tip displacement) had to be generated. Based on T-Z and Q-Z curves,
the ultimate (where displacement become excessive without increasing load) and
mobilized (skin friction and end bearing less than ultimate) skin friction could be
established. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 at the end of sections 4.2 and 4.3 summarize the end
bearing results.
For Osterberg tests, the skin friction distribution along the shaft was evaluated
using strain gauge data, while the end bearing was evaluated using the load-movement
response at the O-cells bottom plate. To evaluate skin friction along the shaft, the
measured strain was used to calculate the axial loads at each gauges elevation based on
Hooks Law:
= E
(Eq. 4.1)
P = AE ------- from P = A
(Eq. 4.2)
35
36
fs = P/(LD)
(Eq. 4.3)
where:
: compressive stress
P: compressive load
A: cross sectional area of the pile
E: elastic modulus of the pile material
: compressive strain
L: distance between two adjacent strain gauges
P: load difference between two adjacent strain gauges
fs: unit skin friction between two adjacent strain gauges
The load transferred to the soil between two gauges is the difference in the
compressive loads between the two gauges. The unit skin friction used in the T-Z curves
is obtained by dividing the transferred load by the surface area of the shaft within the two
gauges locations. As shown in Equations 4.2 and 4.3, the calculated unit skin friction is
dependent on the diameter and modulus of elasticity of the shaft. The assumed diameter
was determined from the measured concrete volume used to construct the shaft. The
modulus of elasticity for the shaft was calculated in the portion of the shaft above the
ground surface using a composite area of both the steel and concrete in the shaft. The
composite modulus of elasticity used for the equation was generally about 4,000,000 psi.
Typical skin friction T-Z curves are shown in Figure 4.2. As seen in the top
figure, an ultimate skin friction is found where the curve flattens. However, in the lower
figure, the shaft hasnt settled enough for the latter to occur, and the mobilized skin
friction is recorded, which is less than the ultimate skin friction.
37
For the end bearing, failure was usually defined using a settlement criteria (i.e.
FDOT defines failure as settlement equal to 1/30 of the diameter of the shaft),which may
occur prior to excessive settlement. Consequently, these different unit end bearings were
designed: mobilized (settlement less than 1/30 of shaft diameter), FDOT failure
(settlement 1/30 of shaft diameter), and Maximum failure (settlement larger than 1/30 of
shaft diameter). The difference between them is shown in Figure 4.3. The end bearing
for Osterberg was calculated using the following equation:
Qs = P / A
(Eq. 4.4)
Qs: unit end bearing

P: applied load at O-cell
A: cross sectional shaft area at the tip
Note: the above equation is only valid when the O-cell is installed at the tip of the
shaft.
If there is a certain distance between the O-cell and the tip of the shaft (noted as
Unknown Friction in Table 4.1) as shown in Figure 4.1, the skin friction values for the
zone beneath the Osterberg cell must be computed (only possible when extra stain gauges
are installed beneath the O-cell) or it must be assumed to be equal to the skin friction
value above the O-cell. The load at the tip can be calculated using the following
equation:
Qs = (P fs Afs ) / A
Qs: unit end bearing
P: applied load at O-cell
fs: assumed or calculated skin friction below the O-cell
Afs: surface area of the shaft below the O-cell
(Eq. 4.5)
38
A: cross sectional shaft area at the tip
Note: the equation above is valid when there is a certain distance (i.e. larger than
6 ft.) between the O-cell and the tip.
The unit end bearings for Osterberg and Statnamic tests are summarized in Tables
4.1 and 4.2. A summary of test type, location, dimensions, elevations and other
configurations are provided in Appendix A. Appendix B tabulates corresponding unit
skin frictions, Appendix C shows the generated T-Z curves for each level along the shaft,
and Appendix D tabulates the information used in lateral load tests.
39
Dial Gages
Reference Beam
Tell-tale to
bottom cell
Concrete
Pressure Source
Hydraulic
Supply Line
Skin Friction
Osterberg Cell
(Expands)
If strain gages are not installed

below the O-cell, the skin
fricton is not known.
Shaft End Bearing
Figure 4.1. Osterberg Setup When the O-cell is Installed above the Tip
40
t - z curve
(69-7, Apalachicola, elevation -34.4 to -29.9)
Unit Skin Friction (tsf)
6
5
4
3
Fully Mobilized
2
1
0
0
0.5
1.5
Deflection (inches)
An example of fully mobilized t -z curve
t - z curve
(26-2, Gandy, elevation -18.8 to -16.7)
8
7
6
5
4
Partially Mobilized
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Deflection (inches)
An example of partially mobilized t -z curve
Figure 4.2 Examples of Fully and Partially Mobilized Skin Frictions
0.6
41
Unit End Bearing vs. Deflection (46-11A, Apalachicola, Osterberg)

5 ft diameter
Unit End Bearing (tsf)
100
80
60
FDOT Failure (1/30 of
diameter)
40
Maximum Failure
20
0
0
2
3
Bottom Deflection (inch)
Unit End Bearing vs. Deflection (59-8, Apalachicola, Osterberg)

9 ft diameter
Unit End Bearing (tsf)
300
FDOT Failure (1/30 of diameter)
250
200
150
100
50
Mobilized bearing
0
0
Bottom Deflection (inch)
Figure 4.3 Examples of Mobilized, FDOT Failure, and Maximum End Bearing
42
4.2 Static (Osterberg & Conventional) Load Testing

4.2.1 General
A total of 27 Osterberg and 3 conventional load tests have been performed among
42 axial load tests (conventional, Osterberg and Statnamic tests). All the projects are
located in coastal areas of Florida, and all the shafts were installed in Florida limestone.
While 10 of 27 Osterberg tests failed in either skin or end bearing resistance, the
other 17 Osterberg tests failed in both skin and end bearing resistances. Table 4.1 shows
how each shaft failed.
Q-Z (tip resistance vs. tip displacement) curves are generated to analyze the unit
end bearing for each shaft. When the O-cell was located at the tip of shaft, the end
bearing resistance was easily calculated: the applied load on the O-cell divided by the
area of the bottom. However, when the O-cell was located a certain distance from the tip,
the end bearings could not be calculated unless the skin frictions below the O-cell was
assumed (see Figure 4.1). In this case, the end bearing values were quoted from the
testing companys report and verified.
Unit skin frictions (ultimate and mobilized when not failed) are computed along
the shaft and displayed in Figures 4.7 to 4.13 for each project. A brief discussion about
test results for each site follows.
4.2.2 17th Street Bridge
A total of four Osterberg tests were performed at 17th Street Bridge: Pier 6, Shaft
10 (LTSO1); Pier 7, Shaft 3 (LTSO 2); Pier 5, Shaft 3 (LTSO 3); and Pier 10, Shaft 1
(LTSO 4). All four shafts were constructed using the wet method with water. As
described below, all load-tested shafts were four feet in diameter.
43
A breakdown by Pier, Shaft tested, and type of test is shown below:
Pier
Shaft
Type of Test
Pier 6 (4ft. diameter)
Shaft 10 (LTSO1)
Osterberg & Statnamic
Shaft 3 (LTSO2)
Shaft 3 (LTSO3)
Shaft 1 (LTSO4)
Shaft 1 (LT1)
Statnamic
Shaft 3 (LT2)
Statnamic
From the test results, LTSO1 and LTSO3 failed in both side and end resistances,
whereas, LTSO2 and LTSO4 failed in end bearing. Since almost no movement was
measured above the O-cell in LTSO2 and LTSO 4, the information regarding unit skin
friction was considered of minimal use. Even though all four Osterberg tests failed in
end bearing (LTSO 1 and LTSO 3 failed in both skin and tip), the unit end bearing was
difficult to assess. This is due to the unknown magnitude of side friction below the
Osterberg cell (no instrumentation to back compute skin friction below the O-cell).
When the O-cell is located above the tip of the shaft (shown in Figure 4.1), it is assumed
that the side resistance below the cell is equal to the unit resistance just above the cell.
This side resistance below the O-cell was subtracted (force) from the applied load in the
O-cell since the applied load consists of side and end bearing resistances. For
comparison purposes, the end bearing values obtained from the load test report are
presented in Table 4.1.
Based on both the geotechnical report and the drilled shaft boring logs, it was
observed that the elevation of the top of the limestone formation varied considerably
within the site. The skin friction also varied considerably along the lengths of the shafts
44
and from one shaft to another. The variability of the limestone formation and unit skin
friction along the shafts is shown in Figure 4.7. Since the strength of the limestone was
very different on each side of the channel, the site was divided into soft limestone and
hard limestone areas shown in Figure 4.5. The soft limestone area includes LT1
(Statnamic) and LTSO3 (Statnamic and Osterberg), and the hard limestone area includes
the remaining load test shafts. Note that both ultimate and mobilized unit skin frictions
are presented in solid lines and dashed lines, respectively.
4.2.3 Acosta Bridge
A total of four Osterberg tests (provided by Schmertmann & Crapps, Inc.) were
performed at the site: Test 1, 2, 4, and 5A. All of the tested shafts were three feet in
diameter, and all failed in bearing with at least 3 inches of bottom movement.
Test Site1
(3ft. diameter)
Osterberg
Test Site 2
(3ft. diameter)
Osterberg & Conventional
Test Site 4
(3ft. diameter)
Test Site 5A (3ft. diameter)
Osterberg
Test Site 2 and 4 had conventional top down tests performed after running the
Osterberg test on each shaft. For these conventional tests, the tests were conducted with
the Osterberg cells open to eliminate end bearing resistance in an attempt to mobilize the
full skin friction. For the conventional top down tests, 250 tons were applied. The
applied load was capable of fully mobilizing the skin resistance for Test 2, but not for
Test 4.
Unfortunately, none of the Osterberg tests mobilized the ultimate skin friction on
the shafts; all of the Osterberg tests reached failures in end bearing. Only Test 2 was very
45
close to the ultimate skin resistance as reported in the companys report for the
conventional top down test. The variability of the top of limestone formation and
computed unit skin frictions (mobilized and ultimate) along each of the shafts are shown
in Figure 4.8.
Since all four test shafts failed in end bearing, both the FDOT failure and the
maximum tip resistance were determined (see Table 4.1). Note that the reduced FDOT
and maximum tip resistances differ based on tip settlement as explained in Figure 4.3.
4.2.4 Apalachicola Bridge
A total of six Osterberg tests (provided by Dames & Moore) were performed: Pier
46, Shaft 11A (46-11A); Pier 53, Shaft 2 (53-2); Pier 57, Shaft 10 (57-10); Pier 59, Shaft
8 (59-8); Pier 62, Shaft 5 (62-5); and Pier 69, Shaft 7 (69-7). For the six test shafts, two
were 5-foot diameter shafts, two were 6-foot diameter shafts, one was a 7-foot diameter
shaft, and one was a 8-foot diameter shaft.
Pier
Shaft
Type of Test
Shaft 11A (41-11A)
Osterberg
Shaft 2 (53-2)
Osterberg
Shaft 10 (57-10)
Osterberg
Shaft 8 (59-8)
Osterberg & Lateral
Shaft 5 (62-5)
Osterberg
Shaft 7 (69-7)
Osterberg
For two of the six tests, shafts 57-10 and 69-7, multi-level Osterberg testing was
performed in order to effectively isolate both end bearing and side resistance. The
sequence of loading in multi-level Osterberg testing was described earlier in Figure 3.4.
46
Both ultimate and mobilized unit skin friction for each shaft along with the limestone
formation elevation are shown in Figure 4.9.
The end bearings computed at each shaft is tabulated in Table 4.1. These end
bearings are relatively consistent over the whole site.
4.2.5 Fuller Warren Bridge
A total of four Osterberg tests (provided by Law, Inc.) were performed: LT-1, LT2, LT-3a, and LT-4. The tested shafts consist of one 3-foot diameter shaft, one 4-foot
diameter shaft, and two 6-foot diameter shafts.
Shaft Tested
Type of Test
Shaft LT-1 (3ft. diameter)
Osterberg
Osterberg
Shaft LT-3a (6ft. diameter)
Osterberg
Osterberg
Shaft LLT-1 (6ft. diameter)
Conventional Lateral
Shaft LLT-2 (6ft. diameter)
While LT-1 and LT-4 were performed on land, LT-2 and LT-3 were conducted
over water. Multi-level Osterberg testing was performed on LT-2, LT-3a and LT-4 in
order to isolate both ultimate end bearing and side shear resistance (see Figure 3.4).
The unit skin frictions along the shafts are shown in Figure 4.10. It should be
noted that the decrease in skin friction in the lower portions of the shafts is due to the
presence of sandy clayey silt and clayey silty fine sand near the tip of the shafts. This
material is locally termed Marl and has SPT blow counts in the 20s. Also note that the
top of the limestone formation varies in the same fashion as the ground surface.
47
According to the end bearing data given in Table 4.1, LT-1 and LT-2 have the
highest end bearings. These high end bearings well agree with the observed high skin
frictions as shown in Figure 4.10; the unit skin friction at the bottom of LT-3a and LT-4
is clearly lower than those of LT-1 and LT-2 indicating that weaker geomaterials exist at
the base of LT-3a and LT-4.
4.2.6 Gandy Bridge
A total of six shafts were load tested. One O-cell was installed at each test shaft.
These tests were performed by Load Test, Inc.: Pier 26, shaft 2(26-2); Pier 52, shaft 4
(52-4); and Pier 91, shaft 4 (91-4).
Pier
Shaft Tested
Type of Test
Shaft 1 (26-1)
Statnamic
Shaft 2 (26-2)
Osterberg
Shaft 1 & 2
Shaft 3 (52-3)
Statnamic
Shaft 4 (52-4)
Osterberg
Shaft 3 & 4
Shaft 3 (91-3)
Statnamic
Shaft 4 (91-4)
Osterberg
Shaft 3 & 4
This project is located over the Tampa Formation and has had numerous
foundation construction problems. The site is very karastic with very erratic surface
elevations and variable strength characteristics. The top of the limestone formation and
unit skin frictions along the shafts is presented in Figure 4.11.
48
The unit end bearing for the test shafts 51-4 and 91-4 was computed assuming
that the unit skin friction below the O-cell was equal to the unit skin friction above the Ocell. The unit end bearing values presented in Table 4.1 are the values recommended by
Load Test, Inc. in their Gandy load test report.
4.2.7 Hillsborough Bridge
One Osterberg (provided by Load Test, Inc.) and two Statnamic (provided by
Berminghammer Foundation Equipment) tests were performed at this test site: Pier 4,
shaft 14(4-14); and Pier 5, shaft 10 (5-10). All test shafts were four feet in diameter.
Pier
Shaft Tested
Type of Test
Shaft 14 (4-14)
Shaft 10 (5-10)
Statnamic
The Osterberg test at 4-14 failed in skin friction above the cell and consequently,
the end bearing and skin friction for the portion of the shaft below the O-cell were not
fully mobilized. Moreover, since there was 9.8 feet of shaft beneath the cell and the
lowest strain gauge was located 7.3 feet above the bottom of the shaft, it was very
difficult to assess the unit skin friction value along the shaft below the last strain gauge.
Consequently, due to the unknown skin friction below the cell, the end bearing could not
be computed from the Osterberg test. The top of the limestone formation and unit skin
frictions along the shaft are shown in Figure 4.12.
4.2.8 MacArthur Bridge
One conventional top down load test (provided by Law Engineering, Inc.) was
performed on a 30-inch diameter shaft. Four 42-inch diameter reaction shafts were
installed using steel casing and slurry. The capacity of the loading frame was 1250 tons.
49
The load was applied in 60-ton increments until a test load of 1080 tons was reached. At
this load applied, 0.361 inch of top head deflection was recorded. Unfortunately, the test
shaft did not reach failure according to the top-of-shaft load vs. deflection curve (based
on Davissons failure criteria). Given the magnitude of movement, the unit skin friction
and end bearing were not used for this research.
4.2.9 Victory Bridge
A total of five Osterberg load tests (provided by Load Test, Inc.) and one
Statnamic test (provided by Berminghammer Foundation Equipment) were performed at
this site. The tested shafts were all four-foot diameter shafts.
Pier
Shaft Tested
Type of Test
Bent 3
(4ft. diameter)
Shaft 1 (3-1)
Osterberg
Bent 3
(4ft. diameter)
Shaft 2 (3-2)
Osterberg
Bent 10
(4ft. diameter)
Shaft 2 (10-2)
Osterberg
Bent 19
(4ft. diameter)
Shaft 1 (19-1)
Osterberg
Bent 19
(4ft. diameter)
Shaft 2 (19-2)
Osterberg
Test Hole 1 (4ft. diameter)
Conventional Lateral Load
Conventional Lateral Load
Statnamic & Lateral
All of the test holes and test shafts were constructed using casings and wet
methods (water). All the Osterberg tests failed in side shear, and one (10-2) reached the
FDOT bearing failure criterion.
The top of the limestone formation and the unit skin friction on the shafts are
shown in Figure 4.13. Note that solid lines are fully mobilized skin frictions, whereas the
50
dashed are partially mobilized frictions. It is evident that the unit skin frictions are
uniform over the site. This is reflected in the low standard deviation and the low
coefficient of variability (29%), shown in Figure 4.5.
Three Osterberg cells at Shafts 3-2, 10-2 and 19-2 were placed above the tip to
insure sufficient bearing resistance in order to fully mobilize the skin resistance above the
cells. The other two tests (3-1 and 19-1) had the Osterberg cell at the bottom of the shaft
to obtain a direct measure of end bearing. In the case of end bearing at shaft 10-2, it was
computed assuming that the unit skin friction below the O-cell was equal to friction
above the O-cell. The end bearing values presented in Table 4.1 are recommended values
given in the Victory load test report.
4.2.10 Analysis and Summary
4.2.10.1 Skin friction analysis and summary
To investigate the range of mobilized versus ultimate unit skin frictions, a
frequency distribution for the all sites is plotted in Figure 4.4. The figure shows two
distributions: the fully mobilized (ultimate) unit skin frictions and the partially mobilized
(before ultimate) unit skin frictions. As expected the peak of ultimate unit skin frictions
distribution is to the right of that of partially mobilized skin frictions. Strangely, the
average of mobilized skin frictions is higher than that of ultimate skin frictions.
However, the median of ultimate deviation is higher than that of mobilized deviation.
The medians should be used for comparison purposes since the mean is highly affected
by extreme values. The ultimate unit skin friction shows a mean range of 3 to 9 tsf and
standard deviation of 3.8 tsf. A comparison between Statnamic and Osterberg unit skin
friction will be presented in Chapter 5.
51
A breakdown of the average unit skin friction by site (Figures 4.7 to 4.13) is given
in Figure 4.5. The mean values in this figure include the combination of both mobilized
and ultimate values. The combination was necessary due to the insufficient ultimate
values for some of the sites. Therefore, Figure 4.5 would represent a lower bound of unit
skin friction. 17th Street Bridge is divided into two areas (soft and hard) since the
strength property of limestone is distinctly different on each side of the channel.
The coefficients of variability of the unit skin friction by site are also shown in
Figure 4.5. As expected, each site has a high variability in the range of 30 to 90%. It can
be concluded that the limestone in Florida typically has high variability in terms of skin
frictions.
To see how much movement is necessary to fully mobilize the shaft, all the fully
mobilized T-Z curves from the Osterberg tests are plotted in Figure 4.6. Both the x and y
axes have been normalized. The unit skin friction is divided by the ultimate value (fully
mobilized failure) in the y-axis, and the vertical deflection is divided by the diameter of
the shaft in the x-axis. The deflection is divided by the diameter of the shaft because a
bigger shaft has a wider zone of stress influence (larger radius from the center of the
shaft).
It is evident from Figure 4.6 that at a deflection of 0.5% of the diameter,
approximately 80% of the ultimate skin friction is mobilized. In the case of a 4-ft
diameter shaft, the necessary vertical movement to reach 80% of ultimate failure is
approximately 0.25 inches.
52
Partially & Fully Mobilized Unit Skin Friction Probabilty Distribution
(Osterberg)
12
No. of Partially Mobilized Unit Skin Friction: 28

No. of Fully Mobilized Unit Skin Friction: 35
10
Frequency
Mean (Fully): 6.98

Median (Fully): 6.36
Standard Dev. (Fully):3.83
Mean (Partially): 7.98

Median (Partially): 5.83
Standard Dev. (Partially): 7.27
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

Partially Mobilized
Fully Mobilized
Figure 4.4 Osterberg Unit Skin Friction Probability Distribution
Osterberg Unit Skin Friction with Standard Deviation

40
35
30
fs (tsf)
25
Coefficient of Variance, Mean

17th (Hard)
Apalachicola
Fuller Warren
Gandy
Hillsborough
Victory
: 83%, 6.2tsf
: 55%, 4.3tsf
: 45%, 14.2 tsf
: 88%, 10.6tsf
: 60%, 7.9tsf
: 29%, 7.4tsf
20
15
10
1.64 tsf (single value)
5
0
17th (Soft)
17th (Hard)
Standard Deviation
Apalachicola
Fuller Warren
Min - fs
Gandy
Max - fs
Figure 4.5 Osterberg Unit Skin Friction with Standard Deviation
Hillsborough
Victory
Mean - fs
LTSO1
Normalized T-Z Curve
LTSO3
46-11A
(All data from the fully mobilized Osterberg unit skin friction)
57-10
57-10
1.2
57-10
57-10
59-8
59-8
59-8
59-8
59-8
69-7
0.8
69-7
69-7
LT-1
0.6
AAtotal
of Number
33 fully of
mobilized
skin frictions
from
Total
33 Fullyunit
Mobilized
Osterberg's
Osterberg tests (normalized)
Normalized Unit Skin Friction
4-14
4-14
3-1
3-1
0.4
3-1
3-2
3-2
10-2
0.2
10-2
10-2
e.g.) 4ft. diameter shaft with 0.25 inches

movement
equalwith
to 0.52
the x-axis:
(0.25/48)*100
= 0.52.
e.g.) 4ft.
diameterisshaft
0.25ininches
movement
is equal to
0.52
This mobilizes 80% of ultimate skininfriction.
x-axis: (0.25/48)*100=0.52).
19-1
19-1
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
(Deflection/Diameter)*100
2.0
2.5
General Trend
3.0
19-1
19-2
19-2
19-2
Figure 4.6 Normalized T-Z Curves with General Trend (Osterberg)
53
fs/fs(ultimate)
69-7
54
4.2.10.2 End bearing analysis and summary
The end bearings for each project are tabulated in Table 4.1. The unit end
bearings are categorized into three different criteria: mobilized, FDOT failure, and
Maximum failure. The difference between them is explained in Figure 4.3.
As discussed earlier if the Osterberg cell is located at the shafts tip, the tip
resistance can generally be fully mobilized. However, if the O-cell is located a certain
distance above the shafts tip, the end bearing and skin friction for the portion of the shaft
below the cell may not be fully mobilized, and the failure generally occurs on the portion
of the shaft above the cell. In this case, the skin friction value for the zone below the
Osterberg cell has to be computed (if strain gauges were installed below O-cell) or
assumed in order to estimate the amount of end bearing since the load applied at the Ocell includes both skin and end bearing resistances. If the length of the shaft below the
cell is relatively long (more than 6ft.), assuming the skin friction below the cell is not
recommended. In this case, many of the testing reports did not report end bearings,
which is indicated as x in Table 4.1. Most of the values in Table 4.1 are quoted from
load test reports and verified. Ten of twenty seven Osterberg tests failed in either skin or
end bearing resistance instead of failing in both at the same time.
Based on the values given in Table 4.1, 13 out of 27 tests reached the FDOT
failure criteria. The 10 test shafts that failed in end bearing failed by both the FDOT and
maximum failure criteria. For these shafts, the mean of maximum unit end bearings was
about 25% higher than the mean of FDOT failures. The average of all the FDOT failures
is 44.6 tsf, and the average of the maximum failures is 55.8 tsf.
55
Table 4.1 Summary of Unit End Bearing from Osterberg Load Tests
Shaft
th
17 Street
Bridge
Name
LTSO 1
LTSO 2
LTSO 3
LTSO 4
Test 1
Acosta
Bridge
Test 2
Test 4
Test 5A
Apalachicola 46-11A
Bridge
53-2
57-10
59-8
62-5
69-7
LT-1
Fuller Warren
Bridge
LT-2
LT-3a
LT-4
26-2
Gandy
Bridge
52-4
91-4
Hillsborough
4-14
Bridge
3-1
Victory
3-2
Bridge
10-2
19-1
19-2
Shaft
Length
(ft)
119.4
Unknown
Friction
(ft)
5.2
Tip
Movement
(in)
0.624
Failure
142.0
100.1
77.5
64.2
101.2
113.9
87.8
85.0
72.0
84.0
134.0
89.2
99.1
41.0
27.9
120.7
66.8
38.4
54.5
74.7
9.1
11.1
2.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.8
4.33
6.7
70.8
33.2
38.6
46.6
45.0
50.7
7.33
0
9.66
7.7
0
12.14
Status
Both
Mobilized
Bearing
(tsf)
x
FDOT
Failure
(tsf)
x
Maximum
Failure
(tsf)
x
1.95
1.89
3.53
4.41
2.97
3.2
5.577
5.977
2.1
1.7
1.3
2.69
4.46
0.23
2.56
2.94
3.12
0.4
2.9
2.5
Tip Failure
Both
Tip Failure
Tip Failure
Tip Failure
Tip Failure
Tip Failure
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Skin Failure
Both
Both
Both
Skin Failure
Both
Both
x
41.5
x
x
x
x
x
x
70
60**
65
x
x
87
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
61.7
28
22.4
18.5
72.6
x
x
x
38
36
x
80.8
34
54
x
139.2
42.9
x
x
66.4
90.3
39
30.2
29.4
92
x
x
x
40
44
x
89.5
34
70
x
x
x
1.74
0.5
0.4
2.367
0.528
0.4
Both
Both
Skin Failure
Both
Both
Skin Failure
x
109
x
x
124.4
x
x
x
x
45
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Note:
1) *Unknow Friction: Distance from the tip to the lowest strain gage.(Side skin friction is unknown)
2) **: Ultimate unit end bearing due to plunging.
3) x: Not determined.
4) Shaft Length: Distance from the top to the tip of the shaft.
5) Failure Status: Both means that the shaft fails in both side and end resistance.
6) Mobilized: The mobilized unit end bearing when the bottom movement is less than 1/30 of the shaft diameter.
7) FDOT Failure: The unit end bearing when the bottom movement is 1/30 of the shaft diameter.
8) Maximum Failure: The unit end bearing when the bottom movement is larger than 1/30 of the shaft diameter.
17th Street - Unit Skin Friction(tsf) along the Shaft & Generalized Subsurface Condition
40
20
-40
-60
56
Elevation (feet)
-20
-80
-100
-120
0
0
LT 1
LTSO 3
Statnamic
-140
3250
3350
3450
(O-cell)
Statnamic
10
1 0
15 0
1 5
tsf
LTSO 1
(O-cell)
Statnamic
3550
10
1 0
tsf
15
1 5
LT 2
LTSO 2
(O-cell)
Statnamic
LTSO 4
Statnamic
3650
3750
(O-cell)
Statnamic
3850
Station Number (feet)

Ground Surface
Last Strain Gage
Top of Rock
Bottom of Shaft
Bottom of Casing
Scour (100 yr.)
th
Figure 4.7 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Osterberg Load Test, 17 Bridge
Osterberg
Osterberg
(Partially mobilized)
(Fully mobilized)
Acosta - Unit Skin Friction(tsf) along the Shaft & Generalized Subsurface Condition
0
-20
Elevation (feet)
-40
-60
tsf
57
-80
-100
0
0
tsf
Test 1
(O-cell)
-120
13500
Test 2
(O-cell, Conventional)
14000
Test 4
14500
Ground Surface
Top of Rock
Bottom of Casing
Last Strain Gage
Bottom of Shaft
Scour (100 yr.)
Figure 4.8 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Osterberg Load Test, Acosta Bridge
Test 5
(O-cell)
Osterberg
Conventional15000
(Fully mobilized)
(Fully mobilized)
Osterberg
Conventional
Apalachicola - Unit Skin Friction(tsf) along the Shaft & Generalized Subsurface Condition
60
40
20
Elevation (feet)
-20
12
12
tsf
0
0
44
8
8
-60
tsf
58
-40
12
12
00
-80
12
12 tsf
0
0
0
0
53-2
(O-cell)
46-11A
(O-cell)
-100
62400
62900
63900
12
12
tsf
44
62-5
(O-cell)
64400
69-7
(O-cell)
64900
65400

Ground Surface
Last Strain Gage
Top of Rock
Bottom of Shaft
Bottom of Casing
Scour (100 yr.)
Figure 4.9 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Osterberg Load Test, Apalachicola Bridge
88
12
12 tsf
59-8
(O-cell)
57-10
(O-cell)
63400
Osterberg
Osterberg
(Fully mobilized)
1212
tsf
Fuller Warren - Unit Skin Friction(tsf) along the Shaft & Generalized Subsurface Condition
30
10
-10
Elevation (feet)
-30
0
0
5
5
10
10
15
15
20
20
25
25
tsf
-50
0
0
5
5
10
1 0
15
1 5
20
2 0
25
2 5
tsf
0
0
5
5
10
10
15
15
20
20
25
25
59
-70
tsf
-90
-110
-130
28000
LT-1
(O-cell)
LT-2
(O-cell)
29000
30000
31000
1 0
1 5
10
2 0
2 5
15
20
25 tsf
LT-3a
(O-cell)
32000
LT-4
(O-cell)
33000
34000
35000

Ground Surface
Top of Rock
Bottom of Casing
Osterberg
Osterberg
Last Strain Gage
Bottom of Shaft
Scour (100 yr.)
(Fully mobilized)
Figure 4.10 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Osterberg Load Test, Fuller Warren Bridge
Gandy - Unit Skin Friction(tsf) along the Shaft & Generalized Subsurface Condition
Two adjacent shafts are "12 feet apart".
(two shafts are the same station, but different offset)
0
-40
0
0
10
20
0
30
3
tsf
40
0
60
Elevation (feet)
-20
-60
10
0
20
2 0
30
40
3 0
4 0
10
10
20
20
tsf
26-2
26-1
(O-cell) Statnamic
-80
6000
8000
52-4 52-3
(O-cell) Statnamic
91-3
91-4
(O-cell) Statnamic
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000

Ground Surface
Last Strain Gage
Top of Rock
Bottom of Shaft
Bottom of Casing
Scour (100 yr.)
Figure 4.11 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Osterberg Load Test, Gandy Bridge
Osterberg
Osterberg
(Fully mobilized)
30
30
tsf
40
40
Hillsborough - Unit Skin Friction(tsf) along the Shaft & Generalized Subsurface Condition
20
Elevation (feet)
-20
-40
61
-60
0
0
5
5
10
1 0
15
1 5
20tsf
2 0
4-14
(O-cell) Statnamic
-80
138700
138720
5-10
Statnamic
138740
138760
138780
138800
138820

Ground Surface
Last Strain Gage
Top of Rock
Bottom of Shaft
Bottom of Casing
Scour (100 yr.)
Figure 4.12 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Osterberg Load Test, Hillsborough Bridge
Osterberg
Osterberg
(Fully mobilized)
Victory - Unit Skin Friction(tsf) along the Shaft & Generalized Subsurface Condition
TH 5 is "16 feet apart" from both 19-1 and 19-2.
60
Elevation (feet)
40
20
00
5
5
10
10
15
15
20
20
00
tsf
5
5
10
10
15
15
tsf
20
20
62
0
0
3-1
(O-cell)
-20
8700
3-2
(O-cell)
9200
5
5
10
10
15
15
tsf
20
20
10
10
15
15
20tsf
20
10
10
19-1
TH5
19-2
(O-cell) Statnamic (O-cell)
10-2
(O-cell)
9700
5
5
10200
10700
11200

Ground Surface
Last Strain Gage
Top of Rock
Bottom of Shaft
Bottom of Casing
Scour (100 yr.)
Figure 4.13 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Osterberg Load Test, Victory Bridge
Osterberg
Osterberg
(Fully mobilized)
15
15
20
tsf
20
63
4.3 Statnamic Load Testing

4.3.1 General
Twelve of the 42 axial load tests performed were Statnamic tests. Judging by the
shape of the load vs. displacement curves obtained from the load test companies, most of
the tests did not reach ultimate failure in skin resistance. That is, the load vs.
displacement curves did not exhibit plunging at or near their peak, with the exception of
Shaft 14-4 in Hillsborough.
Each Statnamic test was analyzed with the Unloading Point Method (UPM)
(Middendorp et al., 1992) to determine the static load-displacement response of the
shafts. The UPM method is described in Section 3.5 (Fstatnamic = Fstatic + Cv + Ma).
However, as most of the test shafts did not exhibit failure, the derived static
capacity was relatively similar to the measured Statnamic force (see Figure 4.16). Some
of the companys load test reports stated that the shafts, which were installed in stiff
soil/rock materials, had small damping and inertial forces. In such cases, it was observed
that there was no big difference between the Statnamic force and the derived static force,
and the companys load test reports generally used the lower capacity for conservatism;
generally the Statnamic capacities are lower than the derived static capacities. However,
when shafts are installed in soft materials (LTSO3 and LT1 at 17th bridge), there was a
big difference between the Statnamic force and the derived static force due to high
damping and inertial forces. The comparison of Statnamic and derived static load are
shown in Figure 4.16.
Q-Z (tip resistance vs. tip displacement) curves are generated to analyze unit end
bearings for each shaft. Due to the small displacement at the tip, the reported end
64
bearings in Statnamic tests were small. This small displacement can be explained by the
mechanism of the test. Since the load is applied at the top of the shaft (shown in Figure
3.5), a considerable shortening occurs along the total length of the shaft. Consequently,
most of the applied load at the top is transferred to skin resistance with very little
reaching the tip. Both the displacements and reported end bearings for each test are given
in Table 4.2.
4.3.1 17th Street Bridge
A total of six Statnamic tests were performed at 17th Street Bridge: Pier 6, Shaft
10 (LTSO1); Pier 7, Shaft 3 (LTSO2); Pier 5, Shaft 3 (LTSO3); Pier 10, Shaft 1
(LTSO4); Pier 2, Shaft 1 (LT1); and Pier 8, Shaft 3 (LT2). The unit skin frictions along
the shafts in Figure 4.17 are all drawn with dashed lines (all mobilized skin frictions).
LTSO 4 is not drawn in this figure since the data were provided in the load test
companys report. In the Statnamic load test report (provided by Applied Foundation
Testing, Inc.), only LTSO3 and LT1 had a derived static capacity much smaller than its
Statnamic capacity. It was believed that because the soil conditions at LTSO3 and LT1
were considerably softer than other shafts, high damping and inertial forces were
generated.
The summary of maximum Statnamic load, derived static load, and movement are
tabulated in Table 4.2. The end bearings are very low since most of the load applied at
the top is transferred to side resistance.
4.3.2 Gandy Bridge
A total of three Statnamic tests (Berminghammer Corporation Limited) were
conducted to validate design and to compare to the Osterberg results. The tests were
performed at the following locations: Pier 26, shaft 1 (26-1); Pier 52, shaft 3 (52-3); and
65
Pier 91, shaft 3 (91-3). The unit skin friction along the shaft is shown in Figure 4.18.
Since the data for 91-3 were not provided in the load test report, the unit skin frictions
were drawn.
As indicated in Table 4.2, the end bearing at 91-3 shows relatively high values
compared to the other tested shafts. The summary of maximum Statnamic load, derived
static load, and movement are also tabulated in Table 4.2.
The computed static loads from the unloading point method (UPM) were very
similar to the Statnamic forces, shown in Table 4.2and Figure 4.16.
4.3.3 Hillsborough Bridge
A total of two Statnamic tests were performed on Pier 4, Shaft 14 (4-14) and Pier
5, Shaft 10 (5-10). The Statnamic test at 4-14 had a maximum applied load of 3287 tons
with a maximum top displacement of 1.63 inches, but it did not exhibit plunging (large
displacement with little load increase). However, 4-14 was considered very close to the
ultimate failure in skin resistance due to a large net displacement, 1.06 inches. A
maximum load of 3243 tons with a total top movement of 0.57 inches was measured at 550. This test mobilized a net displacement of 0.18 inches.
The derived static forces using the UPM are shown in Figure 4.16. The unit skin
friction along the shaft is shown in Figure 4.19.
4.3.4 Victory Bridge
A single 30 MN Statnamic test was performed at Test Hole 5(TH5) at Victory
Bridge. The applied dynamic load, 3600 tons, was a world record at that time. The static
resistance using the Unloading Point Method was 3,430 tons. Based on the loadsettlement response, the test did not fully mobilize in both skin friction and end bearing.
66
An average skin friction of 0.8 tsf in the upper soils (clay & sands) and a
maximum of 18.5 tsf in the hard limestone formation were reported and shown in Figure
4.20. The average unit skin friction in the medium dense sand to weathered limestone
was 2.8 tsf. The unit end bearing was estimated to be over 45 tsf.
4.3.5 Analysis and Summary
4.3.5.1 Skin friction analysis and summary
The statistical analysis of the Statnamic results compared to the Osterberg results
shows similar results in terms of average skin friction and standard deviation, shown in
Figure 4.14. However, the majority of the Statnamic unit skin frictions were slightly
higher than that of the Osterberg test. The median of the Statnamic unit skin friction
(partially mobilized) was 7.31 tsf, and the median of the Osterberg unit skin (partially
mobilized) was 5.83 tsf. The median was used for comparison instead of mean, because
means are highly affected by extreme values. The statistical analysis of the Osterberg
result is shown in Figures 4.4 and 4.5.
Statnamic tests showed high variability (coefficient of variance) in unit skin
frictions as evident in Figure 4.15. It shows the max, min, mean, and standard deviation
of each project. It should be noted that most of the Statnamic load tested shafts were not
fully mobilized. Only one shaft, 4-14 in Hillsborough, was fully mobilized. However,
according to the normalized T-Z curves (see Figure 4.6), 80% of ultimate skin frictions
are mobilized with 0.25 inches movement (for a 4 foot diameter shaft). It indicates that
the 3000 ton Statnamic tests performed are close to failure since the Middle Rock
Movement (the movement at the middle of rock socket shown in Table 4.2) are
generally more than 0.25 inches. The percentage of ultimate skin failure (fs/fsultimate)
67
comes from the Normalized T-Z curve (Figure 4.6) and is shown as Skin Failure
Status in Table 4.2.
The load test reports provided by the load test company generally present both
UPM static capacity as well as the dynamic loads (Statnamic loads). Figure 4.16
provides both Statnamic (dynamic) and derived static forces for comparison purposes.
In general, the derived static capacities are relatively similar to the measured
Statnamic force. It is believed that when test shafts are installed in stiff soil/rock
materials, small damping and inertial components are generated. However, there is a big
difference between the Statnamic force and the derived static force when shafts are
installed in soft soil/rock materials (LTSO3 and LT1 at 17th bridge). This is likely due to
high damping and inertial components.
68
Partially & Fully Mobilized Unit Skin Friction Probabilty Distribution
(Statnamic)
9
No. of Partially Mobilized Unin Skin Friction: 29
No. of Fully Mobilized Unit Skin Friction: 2
8
7
Frequency

5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
15
20
25

Partially Mobilized
Fully Mobilized
Figure 4.14 Statnamic Unit Skin Friction Probability Distribution
Statnamic Unit Skin Friction with Standard Deviation

30
25
fs (tsf)
20
15
Coefficient of Variance, Mean

17th (total) : 69%, 5.0 tsf
17th (soft)
: 42%, 1.7 tsf
17th (hard)
: 47%, 6.6 tsf
Gandy
: 30%, 8.7 tsf
Hillsborough : 67%, 9.0 tsf
18.5 tsf (single value)
10
5
0
17th (Soft)
Standard Deviation
17th (Hard)
Gandy
Min - fs
Hiisborough
Max - fs
Figure 4.15 Statnamic Unit Skin Friction with Standard Deviation
Victory
Mean - fs
69
Comparison of Statnamic and Derived Satic (using UPM) Load

4500
4000
Applied Top Load (tons)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
LTSO 1 LTSO 2 LTSO 3
LT 1
Max Statnamic Load
LT 2
26-1
52-3
91-3
4-14
5-10
TH 5
Derived Static Load (using UPM)
Figure 4.16 Comparison of Statnamic and Derived Static (using UPM) Load in tons
70
4.3.5.2 End bearing analysis and summary
The unit end bearing from Statnamic testing, as given in Table 4.2, is typically
small (exception of Gandy 91-3) due to the limited tip movement (also shown in Table
4.2). This small displacement is due to the test process. Since the load is applied at the
top of the shaft (shown in Figure 3.5), a considerable shortening occurs along the shaft.
Consequently, most of the applied load at the top is transferred to skin resistance with
very little reaching the tip. Moreover, since the shafts did not move much (typically 0.5
to 1 inch), the FDOT failure criterion was not reached (see Table 4.2). It should be
noted that the end bearing failure occurs only after the side resistance failure occurs;
much more deflection is needed to fail the end bearing than side resistance.
It is concluded that the end bearing cannot be sufficiently generated using the
current Statnamic test capacity (about 3000 tons).
71
Table 4.2 Summary of Unit End Bearing from Statnamic Load Tests
Shaft
Shaft
Max
Derived
Statnamic Static
Length
Load
Load
Name
(ft)
(ton)
(ton)
LTSO 1 119.4
3450
3912
17th Street
Bridge
LTSO 2 142.0
3428
3765
LTSO 3 100.1
3512
1353
LT 1
72.1
3718
2665
LT 2
61.3
3584
3765
26-1
33.4
3375
3307
Gandy
52-3
55.6
3430
3372
Bridge
91-3
70.7
3436
3068
4-14
70.8
3287
3125
Hillsborough
75.3
3243
3573
5-10
Bridge
Victory
TH 5
43.1
3600
3430
Bridge
Top
(in)
0.87
0.94
1.26
1.49
0.55
0.53
0.52
0.74
1.63
0.57
Middle
Rock
Movement
(in)
0.27
0.58
0.78
1.27
0.19
0.44
0.46
0.65
1.24
0.22
0.54
0.28
Movement
Tip
Skin
Mobilized FDOT
Movement
Failure
Bearing
Failure
(in)
0.22
0.39
0.73
1.04
0.11
0.42
0.44
0.62
1.16
0.11
Status
81%
90%
95%
100%
79%
87%
88%
92%
100%
80%
(tsf)
52.6
2.6
27
65
0
46.9
x
103.5
x
x
(tsf)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
0.25
83%
45
Note:
1) x: Not determined.
2) Derived Static Load: Equivalent static soil resistance calculated using the Unloading Point Mehod (UPM).
3) Top Movement: The movement at the top of the shaft.
4) Middle Rock Movement: The movement at the middle of the rock socket.
5) Failure Status: Percentage of ultimate skin failure based on the "Normalized T-Z Curve" in Figure 4.6.
6) Mobilized: The mobilized unit end bearing when the bottom movement is less than 1/30 of the shaft diameter.
7) FDOT Failure: The unit end bearing when the bottom movement is 1/30 of the shaft diameter.
40
20
-40
-60
72
Elevation (feet)
-20
-80
0
0
5
5
10
1 0
15
1 5
tsf
10
0
15
tsf
-100
-120
-140
3250
10
1 0
15 00
1 5
tsf
LT 1
LTSO 3
LTSO 1
Statnamic
(O-cell)
Statnamic
(O-cell)
Statnamic
3350
3450
3550
55
10
10
tsf
15
0
15
0
5
5
10
10
tsf
15
15
(O-cell)
Statnamic
LTSO 4
LT 2
LTSO 2
(O-cell)
Statnamic
Statnamic
3650
3750
3850

Ground Surface
Last Strain Gage
Top of Rock
Bottom of Shaft
Bottom of Casing
Scour (100yr.)
Figure 4.17 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Statnamic Load Test, 17th Bridge
Statnamic
Statnamic
(Fully mobilized)
0
-40
0 .
0 0
10
0 .
0 0
20
0
.
0 0
30
0
.
0 0
tsf
40
0 .
0
73
Elevation (feet)
-20
-60
0
0
10
1
20
2
30
3
40
tsf
26-2
26-1
(O-cell) Statnamic
-80
6000
8000
52-4 52-3
(O-cell) Statnamic
91-3
91-4
(O-cell) Statnamic
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000

Ground Surface
Last Strain Gage
Top of Rock
Bottom of Shaft
Bottom of Casing
Scour (100 yr.)
Figure 4.18 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Statnamic Load Test, Gandy Bridge
Statnamic
Statnamic
(Fully mobilized)
20
-20
-40
74
Elevation (feet)
-60
5
5
10
10
15
15
20tsf
20
10
15
20
tsf
4-14
(O-cell) Statnamic
-80
138700
5-10
Statnamic
0
138720
138740
138760
138780
10
138800
15
20
138820

Ground Surface
Last Strain Gage
Top of Rock
Bottom of Shaft
Bottom of Casing
Scour (100 yr.)
Figure 4.19 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Statnamic Load Test, Hillsborough Bridge
Statnamic
Statnamic
(Fully mobilized)
60
20
75
Elevation (feet)
40
0
0
0
3-1
(O-cell)
-20
8700
3-2
(O-cell)
9200
10
10
15 20tsf
15
20
19-1
TH5
19-2
10-2
(O-cell)
9700
10200
10700
11200

Ground Surface
Last Strain Gage
Top of Rock
Bottom of Shaft
Bottom of Casing
Scour (100 yr.)
Figure 4.20 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Statnamic Load Test, Victory Bridge
Statnamic
Statnamic
(Fully mobilized)
76
4.4 Analysis of Combined Data Using Osterberg and Statnamic

4.4.1. Skin Friction Analysis and Summary
The frequency distribution of the unit skin frictions for all the reduced Osterberg
and Statnamic data (Figures 4.23 to 4.29) is shown in Figure 4.21. It should be noted that
the mean of fully mobilized unit skin frictions is biased toward the Osterberg data since
the majority of data is from the Osterberg tests (number of Osterberg data: 35, number of
Statnamic data: 2). On the other hand, the mean of partially mobilized unit skin frictions
is equally influenced by Osterberg and Statnamic data (number of Osterberg data: 28,
number of Statnamic data: 29).
According to Figure 4.21, the mean and median of fully mobilized skin frictions
are close to those of the partially mobilized skin frictions. However, the standard
deviation for fully and partially mobilized is different by 2 tsf: the standard deviation for
fully mobilized friction is 3.98 tsf and the standard deviation for partially mobilized
friction is 6.00 tsf. The difference indicates that once skin friction reaches failure, the
majority of ultimate unit skin frictions will likely be between 3 and 11 tsf (one standard
deviation from the mean).
The mean unit skin friction and the standard deviation by site are shown in Figure
4.22. In this figure, six projects (17th bridge is divided into two areas due to the
considerable variability on each side of the channel) are shown. Some of the sites had
only either Osterberg or Statnamic tests and others had both tests (see Figure 2.1). Due to
lack of data, all the partially mobilized and fully mobilized unit skin frictions are
combined and analyzed. Again, the mean in Figure 4.22 is biased toward the Osterberg
results due to the number of data: 63 unit skin frictions values for Osterberg (including
77
fully and partially mobilized frictions) and 31 Statnamic values (including fully and
partially mobilized frictions).
An average unit skin friction for each shaft is calculated. These average skin
frictions are shown in Figure 4.22 as dash points. It should be noted that the dash points
represent only average skin friction for each test shaft that is considered to be close to
ultimate skin failure. When the test shafts are not fully mobilized, Figure 4.6 is used to
quantify how close they are to ultimate failure. The test shafts, which are equal to or
higher than 80% of ultimate skin friction in Figure 4.6 (y-axis, fs/fsultimate), are considered
to be close to ultimate failure. The number of shafts that reached more than 80% of
ultimate failure is shown above the dash points as a number out of total number of load
tests performed. The dash points represent the variability of the site in terms of an
average skin friction for each shaft.
The combinations of the Osterberg and Statnamic unit skin fictions along the shaft
are shown in Figures 4.23 to 4.29.
4.4.2 End Bearing Analysis and Summary
Since most of the Statnamic tests did not reach the FDOT failure criterion, a
direct comparison of Osterberg and Statnamic unit end bearings was not possible. In
general, the comparison of Tables 4.1 and 4.2 shows that the unit end bearing from the
Statnamic test are smaller than the Osterberg due to the small tip displacements.
Partially Mobilized & Fully Mobilized Probabilty Distribution

(Combination of unit skin frictions from Statnamic and Osterberg)
14
12
No. of Partially Mobilized: Osterberg: 28, Statnamic: 29

No. of Fully Mobilized
: Osterberg: 35, Statnamic :2
Mean (Fully): 7.14

Median (Fully): 6.36
Standard Dev. (Fully): 3.98

78
Frequency
10
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
Partially Mobilized
Figure 4.21 Combined Unit Skin Friction Probability Distribution
Fully Mobilized
30
35
40
Combined Unit Skin Friction with Standard Deviation

(Combination of unit skin frictions from Statnamic and Osterberg)
20
18
16
14
17th (soft)
17th (hard)
Apalachicola
Fuller Warren
Gandy
Hillsborough
Victory
3 of 4 tests
: 38%, 1.7 tsf

: 57%, 6.5 tsf
: 55%, 4.4 tsf
: 45%, 14.2 tsf
: 72%, 9.8 tsf
: 62%, 8.7 tsf
: 43%, 8.1 tsf
4 of 6 tests
3 of 3 tests
6 of 6 tests
79
fs (tsf)
12
Coefficient of Variance, M ean
10
3 of 7 tests
6 of 6 tests
8
6
3 of 3 tests
4
2
0
17th (Soft)
17th (Hard)
Standard Deviation
Apalachicola
Fuller Warren
Mean - fs
Figure 4.22 Combined Unit Skin Friction with Standard Deviation
Ave. fs per shaft
Gandy
Hiisborough
Victory
Standard Deviation for Ave. fs per shaft
40
20
Elevation (feet)
-20
-40
\
-60
80
-80
0
0
5
5
10
1 0
15
1 5
tsf
10
0
15
tsf
-100
-120
-140
3250
5
5
LT 1
LTSO 3
Statnamic
(O-cell)
Statnamic
3350
3450
10
10
0
15
0
15
tsf
LTSO 1
(O-cell)
Statnamic
10
10
tsf
15
15
5
5
10
10
tsf
3550
LTSO 4
(O-cell)
Statnamic
Statnamic
3650
Ground Surface
Top of Rock
Bottom of Casing
Last Strain Gage
Bottom of Shaft
Scour (100yr.)
Figure 4.23 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Combined Data, 17th Bridge
15
LT 2
LTSO 2
(O-cell)
Statnamic
15
3750
3850
Osterberg
Statnamic
(Fully mobilized)
(Fully mobilized)
Osterberg
Statnamic
Acosta - Unit Skin Friction(tsf) along the Shaft & Generalized Subsurface Condition
0
-20
-60
tsf
81
Elevation (feet)
-40
-80
-100
0
0
tsf
Test 1
(O-cell)
-120
13500
Test 2
14000
Test 4
14500
Ground Surface
Top of Rock
Bottom of Casing
Last Strain Gage
Bottom of Shaft
Scour (100 yr.)
Figure 4.24 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Combined Data, Acosta Bridge
Test 5
(O-cell)
Osterberg
Conventional15000
(Fully mobilized)
(Fully mobilized)
Osterberg
Conventional
Apalachicola - Unit Skin Friction(tsf) along the Shaft & Generalized Subsurface Condition
60
40
20
-20
-40
82
Elevation (feet)
12
12
tsf
0
0
44
8
8
-60
tsf
12
12
00
-80
12
12 tsf
0
0
0
0
53-2
(O-cell)
46-11A
(O-cell)
-100
62400
62900
63900
12
12
tsf
44
62-5
(O-cell)
64400
69-7
(O-cell)
64900
65400

Ground Surface
Last Strain Gage
Top of Rock
Bottom of Shaft
Bottom of Casing
Scour (100 yr.)
Figure 4.25 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Combined Data, Apalachicola Bridge
88
12
12 tsf
59-8
(O-cell)
57-10
(O-cell)
63400
Osterberg
Osterberg
(Fully mobilized)
1212
tsf
Fuller Warren - Unit Skin Friction(tsf) along the Shaft & Generalized Subsurface Condition
30
10
-10
0
0
5
5
10
10
15
15
20
20
25
25
tsf
-50
0
0
5
5
10
1 0
15
1 5
20
2 0
25
2 5
tsf
83
Elevation (feet)
-30
-70
0
0
5
5
10
10
15
15
20
20
25
25
tsf
-90
-110
-130
28000
LT-1
(O-cell)
LT-2
(O-cell)
29000
30000
31000
1 0
1 5
10
2 0
2 5
15
20
25 tsf
LT-3a
(O-cell)
32000
LT-4
(O-cell)
33000
34000
35000

Ground Surface
Top of Rock
Bottom of Casing
Osterberg
Osterberg
Last Strain Gage
Bottom of Shaft
Scour (100 yr.)
(Fully mobilized)
Figure 4.26 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Combined Data, Fuller Warren Bridge
0
-40
00
10
10
20
20
30
30
tsf
40
40
84
Elevation (feet)
-20
-60
26-2
26-1
(O-cell) Statnamic
-80
6000
8000
10
10
20
30
20
30
40
tsf
52-4 52-3
(O-cell) Statnamic
10000
Top of Rock
Bottom of Shaft
10
10
20
20
91-3
91-4
(O-cell) Statnamic
12000
14000

Ground Surface
Last Strain Gage
40
Bottom of Casing
Scour (100 yr.)
Figure 4.27 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Combined Data, Gandy Bridge
16000
18000
Osterberg
Statnamic
(Fully mobilized)
(Fully mobilized)
Osterberg
Statnamic
30
30
tsf
40
40
20
-20
-40
85
Elevation (feet)
-60
00
55
10
10
15
15
20
20
tsf
10
15
20
tsf
5-10
Statnamic
4-14
(O-cell) Statnamic
-80
138700
138720
138740
138760
138780

Ground Surface
Last Strain Gage
Top of Rock
Bottom of Shaft
Bottom of Casing
Scour (100 yr.)
Figure 4.28 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Combined Data, Hillsborough Bridge
10
138800
15
20
138820
Osterberg
Statnamic
(Fully mobilized)
(Fully mobilized)
Osterberg
Statnamic
60
20
00
5
5
10
10
15
15
tsf
20
20
00
5
5
10
10
15
15
tsf
20
20
86
Elevation (feet)
40
0
0
3-1
(O-cell)
-20
8700
3-2
(O-cell)
9200
5
5
10
10
15
15
tsf
20
20
10200
Top of Rock
Bottom of Shaft
10
20tsf
15
15
20
5
5
0
0
10 15 20
10
tsf
15
10
15
10
20
19-1
TH5
19-2

Ground Surface
Last Strain Gage
10
10-2
(O-cell)
9700
5
5
Bottom of Casing
Scour (100 yr.)
Figure 4.29 Unit Skin Friction along the Shaft for Combined Data, Victory Bridge
10700
11200
Osterberg
Statnamic
(Fully mobilized)
(Fully mobilized)
Osterberg
Statnamic
15
20
tsf
20
CHAPTER 5
COMPARISON BETWEEN OSTERBERG AND STATNAMIC LOAD TESTS
5.1 General
A total of six shafts were load tested with a combination of Osterberg and
Statnamic: LTSO1 at 17th Street Bridge; LTSO3 at 17th Street Bridge; 26-1 at Gandy
Bridge; 54-3 at Gandy Bridge; 4-14 at Hillsborough Bridge; and TH5 at Victory Bridge.
Both Osterberg and Statnamic tests were performed at Shafts LTSO1, LTSO3, and 4-14.
On the other hand, two load tests were performed at the separate shafts: Shaft 26-1 vs.
26-2; 54-3 vs. 54-4; 91-3 vs. 91-4; and TH5 vs. 19-1&2. The distance between two
compared shafts was about 20 ft (the configurations are shown in Figure 5.1 and 5.2).
A logical trend was observed that skin frictions were higher at the top of the shaft
for the Statnamic test and higher at the bottom of the shaft for the Osterberg tests due to
the method of loading (top-down vs. bottom up). However, only 17th and Gandy
exhibited this phenomena (see Figures 5.7 and 5.8), while Hillsborough did not exhibit
this. The Statnamic skin friction for Victory was extremely high and could be erroneous.
To compare between Osterberg and Statnamic, two different approaches were
used: comparing unit skin frictions and comparing total skin capacities. In the
comparison using unit skin frictions, the unit skin frictions (tsf) at the same elevation
were compared as a paired data set. In the comparison using total skin capacities, the
total capacities (tons) along the same length of the shaft were compared. The following
sections describe each site. The two comparisons are presented after these site
descriptions.
87
88
Even though both Osterberg and Statnamic tests were performed at LTSO1,
LTSO2, LTSO3, and LTSO4, only LTSO1 and LTSO3 were compared. In the cases of
Osterberg tests at LTSO2 and LTSO4, very little vertical shaft movement was recorded.
This very little movement did not develop skin frictions along the shaft, and these shafts
were not used for the analysis. The unit skin frictions along the shafts for LTSO1 and
LTSO3 from the Osterberg and Statnamic tests are shown in Figure 5.7. While Statnamic
and Osterberg unit skin frictions at the same elevations are different at LTSO1, they are
similar at LTSO3.
5.3 Gandy Bridge
The Osterberg and Statnamic tests were conducted at Pier 26, 52, and 91, and
illustrated in Figure 5.1. Three 3000 ton Statnamic tests were performed on shafts
adjacent (12 feet north) to the Osterberg test shafts.
The unit skin frictions along the shaft from the Osterberg and Statnamic tests are
shown in Figure 5.8. From the plot, the unit skin frictions at the same elevation agree in
some areas but not in others. The Statnamic skin frictions at 91-3 are not drawn since the
Statnamic data on this shaft were not provided in the companys load test report. Evident
from Figure 4.27, the Osterberg transfers a large portion of load to the rock just above the
cell. This might be a unique feature of Osterberg (up lifting force instead of top-down
force).
89
Existing W. B. Gandy Bridge

Pinellas
County
Pier 26
Statnamic
(26-1)
Pier 52
Shaft 1
Shaft 3
Shaft 2
Hillsborough
County
Proposed W. B. Gandy Bridge
12'
Osterberg
(26-2)
Pier 91
12'
Shaft 4
Figure 5.1 Gandy Load Test Location Plan
5.4 Hillsborough Bridge

Both the Osterberg and Statnamic tests were performed on Pier 4, shaft 14. The
Statnamic test had a maximum applied load of 3,287 tons with a maximum top
displacement of 1.63 inches. The permanent displacement was 1.06 inches, and both
tests reached ultimate failure. Consequently, the unit skin frictions at the same elevations
were very similar. The unit skin frictions for both tests in solid lines (ultimate skin
friction values) are shown in Figure 5.9.
5.5 Victory Bridge
While two Osterberg tests were performed at 19-1 and 19-2, only one Statnamic
test was performed at TH5, illustrated in Figure 5.2. As shown in this figure, the distance
between Osterberg and Statnamic test is about 16 feet. Both Osterberg and Statnamic
unit skin frictions along each shaft are shown in Figure 5.10. It is evident that the
Osterberg unit skin friction for shafts 19-1 and 19-2 are smaller than the Statnamic values
90
for TH5. According to the Statnamic load test companys report, the discrepancy
between the Osterberg and Statnamic was due to the different soil properties near the test
shafts. This extremely high skin friction could be erroneous, too.
Osterberg
(19-1)
Statnamic / Lateral
(TH5)
12' - 3"
Shaft 1
Bent 19
Lateral
(TH4)
Test Hole 4
12' - 3"
10' - 0"
11' - 0"
Test Hole 5
Shaft 2
Bent 19
Osterberg
(19-2)
Bent 19
Station 111+10.105
Figure 5.2 Victory Load Test Location Plan
91
5.6 Analysis and Summary of Comparison

5.6.1 General
Two different analyses were undertaken to compare Osterberg and Statnamic: 1)
the comparison using the unit skin friction along the shafts (see Figure 5.4), and 2) the
comparison using the total skin capacity (see Figure 5.6). In the comparison using the
unit skin friction, a series of the unit skin frictions (tsf) at the same elevation are
compared. In the comparison using the total skin capacity, the capacities applied to the
shafts in tons are compared.
While any good relationship was not found (correlation coefficient: 8.8%) in the
comparison using the unit skin friction, the comparison of the total skin capacity
generated a strong linear relationship (correlation coefficient: 83%). Even though the
correlations are different, one similar trend is observed from both comparisons; the
Statnamic generally develops higher skin resistance than the Osterberg.
5.6.2 Comparison Using Unit Skin Frictions (tsf)
In this comparison, the Osterberg and Statnamic loads are converted to average
unit skin frictions between two strain gauges. The unit skin friction is achieved by
dividing the difference in load by the effective surface area between two adjacent gauges.
Only the unit skin frictions from the limestone (rock socket) are compared. This
procedure is shown in Figure 5.3 for Pier 26, Shaft 2 in Gandy Bridge. A total of 19
ratios are generated from four different sites, 17th Street, Gandy, Hillsborough, and
Victory Bridges. The 19 generated ratios are plotted in Figure 5.4. Data points above the
45-degree line (10 points) identify that the Statnamic unit skin frictions are higher than
Osterberg unit skin frictions at the same elevations. The points falling below the 45degree line (6 points) represent the opposite (Osterberg unit skin friction > Statnamic unit
92
skin friction). Four points fall on the line indicating that both tests developed the same
unit skin frictions at the same elevation. As shown in Figure 5.4, the 19 points are
scattered resulting in a coefficient of correlation of 8.8 %.
It is concluded that this approach does not show any relationship between the
Osterberg and Statnamic load tests. This could be due to two possible reasons:
1) Spatial variability in limestone when two adjacent shafts are used, one for the
Osterberg and the other for the Statnamic test: Gandy and Victory (configurations are
shown in Figure 5.1 and 5.2, respectively). Examples are shown in Figure 5.8 and
5.10.
2) A different corresponding strain response to the different testing mechanisms; while
the Osterberg test generates up-lifting force, the Statnamic test generates top-down
force. It has been generally observed that the Osterberg tests develop relatively
higher strain (skin friction) than the Statnamic tests near the tip of the shaft. While
the applied load is gradually shed from the O-cell for Osterberg tests, the load is shed
from the top for Statnamic tests. Examples are shown in Figures 5.7 and 5.8.
Lastly, the 19 unit skin frictions from the Statnamic and Osterberg tests are
averaged separately. As shown in Figure 5.4, the average of Statnamic unit skin frictions
is 8.91 tsf, whereas the average of Osterberg unit skin frictions is 8.15 tsf. The average
of Statnamic tests is higher than that of Osterberg tests.
93
Gandy, 26-2, O-cell vs. Statnamic (unit skin friction, tsf)

10
Elevation(ft)
0.2
0.2
2.6
2.6
5.4
5.46.1
-10
5.8
6.1
Soil
2.4
0.6
2.4
3.2
5.8
0.6
Statnamic:Osterberg = 3.2 : 7.5
7.5
7.4
7.5
Limestone
3.2
14.6
14.6
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.5
-30
0
5
O-cell
10
Statnamic
Figure 5.3 Ratio of Unit Skin Friction
15
20
Skin friction(tsf)
Statnamic:Osterberg = 7.4 : 14.6
94
Statnamic unit skin friction (tsf)
Comparison of Unit Skin Friction on Limestone

20
Osterberg fs < Statnamic fs
Number of points : 10
15
10
5
Osterberg fs > Statnamic fs
45o
0
0
10
Osterberg unit skin friction (tsf)
Figure 5.4 Comparison of Unit Skin Friction in Limestone
15
Statnamic Ave: 8.91tsf
Osterberg Ave: 8.15 tsf
Correlation: 8.8 %
20
95
5.6.3 Comparison Using Total Skin Capacity (tons)
In this approach, the total skin capacities (force in tons) are compared. Since the
unit skin frictions along the tested shafts were known, these unit frictions were converted
to forces by multiplying by their surface area and summed up to the total skin capacities
in tons. It should be noted that the capacities were computed using the same lengths of
the shafts if the lengths of shafts are different between the Statnamic and Osterberg tests.
Since the unit skin frictions are known along the shaft, the capacities were computed
down to the same elevations for both tests.
This approach should be less sensitive to spatial variability than comparing unit
skin frictions because the unit skin frictions along the shafts are averaged to a capacity:
Gandy and Victory (configurations are shown in Figure 5.1 and 5.2, respectively). This
approach is also less sensitive to the different corresponding strain gauge responses,
described in the previous section, because the different strains along the shaft are
averaged to a capacity. The total skin capacity for the Osterberg tests was obtained at the
point of failure. Since the Osterberg test automatically separates the skin capacity from
the end bearing, the maximum load applied at the O-cell is the total skin capacity above
the O-cell. In the Statnamic test, the end bearing can be subtracted from the top load (top
load includes both skin and tip resistance) using the strain gauge data along the shaft. It
should be noted that the Statnamic forces presented in this comparison are not the derived
static force but the Statnamic force (except LTSO3 at 17th Bridge; LTSO3 was an
exception because there was a big discrepancy between the derived static and Statnamic
forces). The reduced total skin capacities are shown in a histogram (see Figure 5.6), and
the comparison is shown in Figure 5.5.
96
As shown in Figure 5.6, the capacities from Statnamic tests are generally either
similar or higher than the capacities of the Osterberg tests. A strong linear relationship
was observed using this approach in Figure 5.5, correlation coefficient of 83 %. It can be
concluded that the Osterberg and Statnamic load tests produce similar capacities.
97
Comparison of Skin Capacity on Limestone and Soil
Statnamic Skin Capcity (tons)
3000
Osterberg < Statnamic

2000
1000
Osterberg > Statnamic
0
0
1000
2000
3000
Osterberg Skin Capacity (tons)
Figure 5.5 Comparison of Skin Capacity in Limestone and Soil

Summary of Osterberg and Statnamic Skin Capacity Comparison
(tons)
3000
2559 2616
Skin Capcity (tons)
2500
2325
2056
2000
1628
1500
1628
1323
1284
960
1000
582
708
747
700
838
500
0
17th LTSO 1
17th LTSO 3
Gandy 26-1,2
Gandy 52- 3,4
Hillsborough
(Distance = 0 ft)
(Distance = 0 ft)
(Distance = 12 ft)
(Distance = 12 ft)
(Distance = 0 ft)
Statnamic
Osterberg
Victory 1
(Distance = 16 ft)
Victory 2
(Distance = 16 ft)
Statnamic Ave: 1618 tons

Osterberg Ave: 1232 tons
Correlation: 83 %
Figure 5.6 Summary of Osterberg and Statnamic Skin Capacity Comparison
40
20
Elevation (feet)
-20
-40
\
-60
98
-80
-100
-120
-140
3250
LTSO 3
Statnamic
(O-cell)
Statnamic
3350
Ground Surface
Last Strain Gage
3450
10
LT 1
10
15 00
15
tsf
LTSO 1
(O-cell)
Statnamic
5
5
10
10
tsf
15
15
LTSO 2
(O-cell)
3550
Statnamic 3650
Top of Rock
Bottom of Shaft
Bottom of Casing
Scour (100yr.)
th
Figure 5.7 Unit Skin Friction along the shaft for comparison, 17 Bridge
LT 2
LTSO 4
Statnamic
(O-cell)
Statnamic
3750
3850
Osterberg
Statnamic
(Fully mobilized)
(Fully mobilized)
Osterberg
Statnamic
0
Elevation (feet)
-20
-40
00
10
10
20
20
30
30
40
40
tsf
99
-60
26-2
26-1
(O-cell) Statnamic
-80
6000
8000
10
10
20
30
20
30
tsf
40
40
52-4 52-3
(O-cell) Statnamic
10000
91-3
91-4
(O-cell) Statnamic
12000
14000

Ground Surface
Last Strain Gage
Top of Rock
Bottom of Shaft
Bottom of Casing
Scour (100 yr.)
Figure 5.8 Unit Skin Friction along the shaft for comparison, Gandy Bridge
16000
18000
Osterberg
Statnamic
(Fully mobilized)
(Fully mobilized)
Osterberg
Statnamic
20
Elevation (feet)
-20
-40
100
-60
00
55
10
10
15
15
20
20
tsf
4-14
(O-cell) Statnamic
-80
138700
138720
5-10
Statnamic
138740
138760
138780

Ground Surface
Last Strain Gage
Top of Rock
Bottom of Shaft
Figure 5.9 Unit Skin Friction along the shaft for comparison, Hillsborough Bridge
Bottom of Casing
Scour (100 yr.)
138800
138820
Osterberg
Statnamic
(Fully mobilized)
(Fully mobilized)
Osterberg
Statnamic
60
Elevation (feet)
40
20
101
0.00
-20
8700
3-1
(O-cell)
3-2
(O-cell)
9200
10
15
20tsf
0.00
5.00
10
15
10200
Ground Surface
Top of Rock
Bottom of Casing
Last Strain Gage
Bottom of Shaft
Scour (100 yr.)
Figure 5.10 Unit Skin Friction along the shaft for comparison, Victory Bridge
10700
20
10.00 15.00 20.00
19-1
TH5
19-2
10-2
(O-cell)
9700
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
11200
Osterberg
Statnamic
(Fully mobilized)
(Fully mobilized)
Osterberg
Statnamic
tsf
CHAPTER 6
LATERAL RESISTANCE ANALYSIS
6.1 General
A total of 13 lateral load tests was performed at five sites: 17th Street Bridge (2
tests); Apalachicola Bridge (1 test); Fuller Warren Bridge (2 tests); Gandy Bridge (6
tests); and Victory Bridge (2 tests). For all tests, hydraulic jacks were used to apply the
lateral load (see Figure 3.7). Lateral load tests are generally conducted at sites where
significant lateral loads are expected (i.e. ship impact).
The purpose of the lateral tests is to validate design (tip cut-off elevation) and
ensure good construction practices. The response of the tested shaft to lateral load
applications is also used to obtain soil strength parameters, such as friction angle, soil
unit weight, subgrade modulus, cohesion, and E50. The obtained parameters are used to
further evaluate the bridge foundation design under different load, scour conditions, shaft
sizes, and load conditions in the similar soil conditions.
FB-Pier (Hoit and McVay, 1996) was used to estimate soil parameters; the
parameters that most closely match the measured deflections were suggested as the
proper parameters. The suggested soil parameters are tabulated in Appendix D. The
computed deflections and measured deflections at the maximum load are shown in Figure
6.2.
An attempt to find the shaft tip cut-off elevations was made. The shear and
bending moment along the shaft were compared with and without a superstructure. The
102
103
superstructure was simulated using a rotational spring at the top of the shaft. Figure 6.2
also shows the deflections with and without superstructure (fixed and nonfixed head
conditions)
A total of two lateral load tests were performed on May 21, 1998: LLT-1 at Pier
7, Shaft (TH-2); and LLT-2 at Pier 7, Shaft (TH-3). These lateral tests were used to
evaluate whether the drilled shafts minimum tip elevations could be raised. This was
accomplished by looking at the points on the shaft where zero shear and moment
occurred. Due to the lack of data from the companys load test, the back-analysis using
FB-Pier was not made.
6.3 Apalachicola Bridge
A single lateral load test was performed at Pier 59, Shaft 8. The load was applied
near the top of the test shaft using horizontal jacks pushing against another shaft at Pier
59. The test shaft was a 9-foot diameter shaft constructed near the main pier. Its tip
elevation was at 78.5 feet and its top elevation was at 55.5 feet resulting in an overall
shaft length of 134 feet. The shafts unsupported length above the mudline was 37.5 feet.
In an effort to partially simulate the anticipated scour condition, an excavation was made
around the test shaft elevation 5 feet (about 22 feet below the mudline).
The maximum movement of the test shaft was 12 inches at the maximum load of
325 tons.
104
6.4 Fuller Warren Bridge
A total of two lateral load tests were performed at shafts LLT-1 (station 323+72
75LT) and LLT-2 (station 323+72, 99LT). The test shafts were each 6-foot diameter
with lengths of 113.2 feet (LLT-1) and 114.8 feet (LLT-2), respectively. LLT-2 was
spaced approximately 24 feet center-to-center from the test shaft LLT-1. A hydraulic
jack acting between the two test shafts applied the lateral load. Lateral shaft movements
were measured by dial gauges mounted on an independently supported reference beam
structure. The maximum test load applied was 36.5 tons resulting in the maximum shaft
top movement of 8.5 inches for LLT-1 and 9.3 inches for LLT-2. According to Figure
6.2, most of the deflection occurred above the ground surface since both shafts had 74
feet of unsupported length from the ground surface. Since the deflections of LLT-1 and
LLT-2 are relatively close, the deflections of LLT-1 and LLT-2 are averaged and shown
as LLT-1 in Figure 6.2.
6.5 Gandy Bridge
A total of six lateral load tests were performed at the test site: Pier 26, Shaft 1
against Shaft 2 (26-1 against 26-2); Pier 52, Shaft 3 against Shaft 4 (52-3 against 52-4);
and Pier 91, Shaft 3 against Shaft 4 (91-3 against 91-4). As shown in Figure 5.1, the two
adjacent shafts were used as reaction shafts (12 feet apart). The test shafts were 4-foot
diameter with casings extending down to the scour elevation for each shaft. The
designed lateral load was 20 tons. The following describes the maximum load and
deflection for each shaft:
105
Max. load (tons)
Max. deflection (inches)
26-1
23.9
0.2
26-2
23.9
0.7
52-3
60.6
3.7
52-4
60.6
3.3
91-3
40.4
4.0
91-4
40.4
3.6
As shown in Figure 6.2, the deflections for each pair of shafts at a pier are
averaged and shown as 26-1, 52-3, and 91-3.
6.6 Victory Bridge
A total of four lateral load tests were performed at Test Sites 1 (TH-1 against TH2) and Site 3 (TH-4 against TH-5). The lateral load tests were performed on two adjacent
4-foot diameter shafts (11 feet apart). The location of Test Site 3 (TH-4 & TH-5) is
illustrated in Figure 5.2. The maximum applied loads were 141.5 tons for Test Site 1 and
84.6 tons for Site 3. The corresponding average defection at the top was 3.2 inches for
Test Site 1 (TH-1 is an average of TH-1 and 2) and 6.9 inches for Test Site 2 (TH-4 is an
average of TH-4and 5).
The two test shafts were loaded toward each other using a center hole jack and a
single tension rod (see Figure 6.1). It is concluded from this figure that TH-5 was
somewhat stiffer than TH-4, even though TH-4 extended to a greater depth into the
limestone. The deflected shafts (dashed line) in Figure 6.1 suggest that the displacements
within the hard limestone are exceedingly small and thus most of the load transfer
occurred within the overlying sands. Therefore, the additional length of the rock socket
106
for TH-4 did not contribute to additional stiffness; very little of the lateral load goes this
deep. The different behaviors of the two test shafts were due to stronger soil and rock
conditions at TH-5. Figure 6.1 also suggests that bending stresses are the highest just
above the hard limestone.
107
Victory Bridge Load Test on TH-4 and TH-5
Max. Top Deflection:
8.2 in.
Max.
Load:
60ft
84.6 tons
Max. Deflection:
5.5 in.
Max. Load:
84.6 tons
Tensioned Rod
TH-5
TH-4
Elevation (ft)
50 ft
40 ft
Max. Mudline Deflection:

1.2 in.
Max. Mudline Deflection:

1.5 in.
s: 130 pcf
Silt and Sand

(loose to medium dense)
12 ft
: 38
k: 50 pci
28 ft
20 ft
s : 130 pcf
C : 25000 psf
Limestone
50: 0.0001
10ft
s :
k:
G:
Maximum Deflection of the Shaft

Unit Weight
Subgrade Modulus
Shear Modulus
Figure 6.1 Lateral Test Setup, Condition, and Maximum Deflection
108
6.7 Back-Analysis of Lateral Load Test Data and Summary
The back-analysis of the load tests was carried out using FB-Pier (Hoit and
McVay, 1996). The soil and rock parameters, such as friction angle, soil unit weight,
subgrade modulus, cohesion, and E50, used to generate p-y curves were varied to obtain
the best-match between the actual and computed displacement at the maximum load. The
computed deflections were also considerably dependent on the stiffness of test shafts:
thickness of casing, modulus of steel and concrete, and yield stress of steel and concrete.
A large number of analyses, changing soil properties and shaft stiffness, were performed,
and relatively good agreements were obtained between computed (computed-nonfixed
condition) and measured displacements as shown in Figure 6.2. It should be noted that
all the analyses were performed as non-linear pile models; piles behave nonlinearly in
reality. The suggested soil/rock and shaft parameters are tabulated in Appendix D.
In FB-Pier, Florida limestone is modeled as soft clay with rock strength
parameters since no p-y models have been developed for rock. Appendix D shows the
parameters used in FB-Pier. While computing displacements using FB-Pier, it was
observed that the displacements of limestone are mainly dependent on undrained shear
strength (C), strain at 50 (50: strain at half of the maximum compressive stress). For the
best matches, the following ranges of limestone parameters are suggested:
Undrained shear strength (Cu): 18000 ~ 35000 psf
Strain parameter e50 (50): 0.0001 ~ 0.0009
Note: the computer program, LPILE, suggests that the strain parameters e50 for
weak rock is about 0.00005 to 0.0005, and the undrained shear strength for hard clay is
about 4000 to 8000 psf.
109
It was also observed that because of relatively small displacements in the
competent limestone, the computed deflections were relatively insensitive to the values
beyond the specified ranges (Cu 35000 psf, E50 0.0001); no deflections were
observed 7 feet below the rock surface. It is concluded that once a sufficient length of
rock socket is installed (10 ft of rock socket), additional socket length appears to be
insignificant with respect to lateral load response.
The shaft tip cut-off elevation was taken as the elevation where the shear and
moment become zero. The shear and moment were analyzed with and without
superstructure. To simulate the superstructure, namely fixed head condition, a rotational
spring of 5,000,000 kips was attached at the top of each test shaft. The results with and
without the spring are shown in Table 6.1. In Table 6.1, the maximum shear, maximum
bending moment, zero shear elevation, and zero moment elevation were compared
between two models, the model without the spring (non-spring) and with the spring
(rotational spring). The maximum shear and the maximum moment decreased with the
spring as shown in Table 6.1. The elevations of zero shear and moment went up toward
the rock surface about 5 ft. It can be explained that the spring at the top restrains the
shaft and reduces the displacement in the limestone. The reduced displacement generates
less shear and bending moment and brings up the elevations of zero shear and moment in
the limestone. This suggests that that the model without the spring is more conservative
than the model with the spring. The deflections with the fixed head conditions are shown
in Figure 6.2.
110
Measured vs. Computed Deflection
(59-8, Apalachicola)
(LLT-1, Fuller Warren)
80
30
60
10
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
40
20
0
-20
-40
-10
-30
-50
-70
-90
-60
-110
-80
0
12
15
12
Deflection (in)
Measured
Computed-free head
Computed-fixed head
Top of ground
Top of rock
Measured
Computed-free head
Computed-fixed head
Top of ground
Top of rock
15
(52-3, Gandy)
(26-1, Gandy)
10
Deflection (in)
10
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
0
-5
-10
-15
-10
-20
-30
-20
-40
-25
-50
-30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Deflection (in)
Measured
Computed-free head
Computed-fixed head
Top of ground
Top of rock
Figure 6.2 FB-Pier: Measured vs. Computed Lateral Deflection
Deflection (in)
Measured
Computed-free head
Computed-fixed head
Top of ground
Top of rock
111
(TH-1, Victory)
80
70
-10
60
-20
50
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
(91-3, Gandy)
10
-30
-40
40
30
-50
20
-60
10
-70
0
0
Deflection (in)
Deflection (in)
Measured
Computed-free head
Computed-fixed head
Top of ground
Top of rock
Measured
Computed-free head
Computed-fixed head
Top of ground
Top of rock
(TH-3, Victory)
80
70
Elevation (ft)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Deflection (in)
Measured
Computed-free head
Computed-fixed head
Top of ground
Top of rock
Figure 6.2 FB-Pier: Measured vs. Computed Lateral Deflection (continued)
112
Table 6.1 Summary of Shear and Moment for Lateral Load Test
Max. shear (kips)

Max. shear ele. (ft)
Zero shear ele. (ft)
Max. moment (kips)
Max. moment ele. (ft)
Zero moment ele. (ft)
Y rotation (rad)
Max. shear (kips)

Min. shear ele. (ft)
Max. moment (kips)
Y rotation (rad)
Max. shear (kips)

Max. moment (kips)
Y rotation (rad)
59-8 (Apalachicola)
Rotational spring
Non-spring
(5,000,000kips)
3152
2127
-30
-30
-59
-54
LLT-1 (Fuller Warren)

Rotational spring
Non-spring
(5,000,000kips)
773
405
-74
-71
-86
-83
44853
-25
-59
26140
-25
-54
5439
-69
-86
2681
-69
-76
-0.0185
-0.0042
-0.0124
-0.0006
26-1 (Gandy)
Rotational spring
Non-spring
(5,000,000kips)
114
53
-16
-16
-25
-22
52-3 (Gandy)
Rotational spring
Non-spring
(5,000,000kips)
759
405
-26
-25
-35
-33
686
-10
-23
249
-11
-18
3394
-23
-34
1428
-23
-28
-0.0022
-0.0001
-0.0115
-0.0004
91-3 (Gandy)
Rotational spring
Non-spring
(5,000,000kips)
817
467
-43
-43
-53
-51
3640
-41
-51
1717
-41
-46
-0.0080
-0.0004
113
Table 6.1 Summary of Shear and Moment for Lateral Load Test (continued)
Max. shear (kips)

Max. moment (kips)
Y rotation (rad)
TH 1 (Victory)
Rotational spring
Non-spring
(5,000,000kips)
706
327
36
36
25
26
TH 3 (Victory)
Rotational spring
Non-spring
(5,000,000kips)
782
449
26
26
16
19
4186
40
25
283
40
33
3733
32
17
1464
30
23
-0.0190
-0.0005
-0.0262
-0.0005
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS
7.1 Summary
Drilled shaft foundations are generally employed to support heavy axial and
lateral loads and minimize settlement. Drilled shafts are constructed by placing fluid
concrete in a drilled hole. The hole can be drilled using wet or dry methods. Reinforcing
steel is usually installed in the drilled hole. To gain more resistance in skin and end
bearing resistances, the diameter and length of the shaft can be increased. The loads are
transmitted to the underlying soil or rock through skin and tip resistances. Drilled shaft
foundations for bridges and other highway structures were popularized in the issue of
economics. Employing high capacity drilled shafts can eliminate the use of pile groups
and can support more axial and lateral load than pile groups.
Since drilled shafts were introduced, computer techniques, analytical methods,
and load-testing programs have been consistently developed to understand their behavior.
Load tests are especially helpful for determining the distribution of the skin friction along
the shaft and the end bearing resistance. This provides engineers with a certain degree of
confidence. Until recently, the only feasible way of performing a compressive load test
on a drilled shaft was the conventional method, which requires large reaction frames.
The conventional method also has a limited capacity (about 1500 tons, Justason, 1999)
with a significant installation and testing time. Recently, two new alternative methods
for conducting drilled shaft load testing have been developed that do not require reaction
114
115
systems. These methods also allow higher testing loads (about 3000 to 6000 tons) and
shorter testing times than the conventional load tests. These are the Osterberg and
Statnamic testing methods. The Osterberg and Statnamic tests are usually less expensive
than conventional tests because a reaction system is not required.
However, since these tests are relatively new, not much study has been done. A
total of 42 full scale axial and 15 conventional (using hydraulic jack) lateral load tests
have been performed on 11 studied bridge projects. Using the load test data, unit skin
frictions along the shafts and end bearing resistances are computed, and soil properties
for lateral load tests are back analyzed using FB-Pier.
7.2 Conclusion
The following conclusions are made based on the results of analysis:
1. Florida limestone generally has high spatial variability horizontally and vertically.
The reduced skin frictions vary significantly along the shaft, from pier to pier, and
from site to site. The coefficients of variability in terms of unit skin friction for
each site range from 40 to 70 %.
2. The typical range of ultimate unit skin frictions in Florida limestone is from 3 to
11 tsf. The combined unit skin frictions from Osterberg and Statnamic load tests
have a mean of 7.14 tsf and a standard deviation of 3.98 tsf.
3. To get end bearing resistances, Statnamic load tests are not appropriate unless
they are performed with very high loads. In the cases studied, 3000 tons of
Statnamic loads did not develop sufficient end bearing resistances. After the load
is applied at the top of the shaft, a considerable shortening occurs along the shaft.
Consequently, most of the applied load at the top is transferred to skin resistance
with very little reaching the tip.
4. End bearing can be effectively generated in Osterberg tests. When the O-cell is
located near the tip, the side and end bearing resistances are automatically
separated unless the side resistance fails earlier than the end bearing.
5. Big discrepancies between the Statnamic and derived static forces are observed
when the shafts are installed in very soft limestone. This is likely due to high
damping and inertial components. However, the derived static capacities are
relatively similar to the measured Statnamic force when the shafts are installed in
116
stiff soil/rock materials. It is believed that when test shafts are installed in stiff
soil/rock materials, small damping and inertial components are generated.
6. According to the normalized deflection-unit skin friction graph, approximately
80% of the ultimate skin frictions are mobilized when the deflection is 0.5% of
the diameter. A vertical movement of 0.25 inches at the middle of two strain
gauges mobilizes approximately 80% of the ultimate skin friction at the given
location (between two gauges) in 4-ft diameter shafts.
7. The placement of the O-cell in the Osterberg test is critical in order to get side
resistance and/or end bearing resistance. End bearing provides reaction for the
skin friction, and skin friction provides reaction for the end bearing. If the cell is
placed too high, the shaft would most likely fail too early in skin friction above
the cell. If the cell is placed too near the tip, the portion of shaft below the cell
will likewise fail too soon. If either occurs too soon, the information about the
other is incomplete. As a consequence, it is not easy to get both the ultimate side
and tip resistances with just one Osterberg cell.
8. Much less deflection is required to fully mobilize skin friction than end bearing
resistance. According to the normalized T-Z curve, approximately 0.25 inches of
deflections mobilize 80% of the ultimate skin friction for the 4 foot diameter
shafts. However, 3 inches of tip deflections did not mobilize the ultimate end
bearing.
9. Even though most of the Statnamic tests did not reach ultimate skin failure, these
tests are close to failure since the movements at the rock socket are generally
more than 0.25 inches. According to the normalized T-Z curves (Figure 4.6),
80% of the ultimate skin frictions are mobilized with 0.25 inches of movement for
the 4 foot diameter shafts.
10. A logical trend was observed that skin frictions were higher at the top of the shaft
for the Statnamic test and higher at the bottom of the shaft for the Osterberg tests
due to the method of loading (top-down vs. bottom up).
11. Statnamic load tests generally develop higher skin capacities than Osterberg tests.
12. In lateral load test analysis, relatively small displacements are observed within the
competent limestone socket. According to the installed inclinometer data, the
deflections of all tested shafts reduced to zero 7 ft below the rock surface.
13. The model without a spring (free head condition) is more conservative than the
model with a spring (fixed head condition or with superstructure). The spring at
the top of the shaft restrains the shaft top movement and reduces the displacement
in the limestone. The reduced displacement generates less shear and bending
moment and brings up the elevations of zero shear and moment in the limestone.
117
7.3 Recommendation
Based on the results of this research, the following recommendations are made:
1. When comparing ultimate skin frictions and FDOT end bearing failures from
different load tests, test shafts should be loaded until the ultimate skin frictions are
obtained. If load tests stop before reaching failure, it is hard to ascertain the ultimate
unit skin frictions.
2. More study is suggested on derived static loads obtained from Statnamic load tests
when performed in soft soil/rock materials. Due to high damping and inertial
components, big discrepancies were observed between the Statnamic and derived
static forces.
APPENDIX A
SHAFT DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS
Note:
Length: total length of the shaft.
Date of Test: the date in which load test was performed.
Ground Level: the elevation of the ground surface.
Bottom of Casing: the elevation of the bottom of casing in the test shaft.
Last Strain Gauge Elevation: the elevation of the lowest stain gauge that measures the
load transfer. For Osterberg, commonly the Osterberg cell
is located at the lowest location.
Top of Rock Elevation: the top elevation of rock socket.
Total Rock Socket: the length of the shaft from the top of rock elevation to tip elevation.
Top Elevation: the elevation of the top of the shaft.
Tip Elevation: the elevation of the tip of the shaft.
Embedded Length: the length of the shaft from the ground elevation to the tip of the
shaft.
Soil type: general soil profile along the shaft.
Casing length: the length of casing.
118
119
Name
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)
Bottom of casing
Last strain gauge Elevation
Top of Rock Elevation
Test Rock Socket (ft)
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation
Tip Elevation
Embedded Length
Soil type
Casing length
Method Used
LTSO1, 17th
35+46.49 13.73(m) LT
BB-7
119.392
48
4/28/98
1.64
-16
-67
-108.3
-90
18.3
23.5
6.6
-113.5
97.48
Sand/lime
11.8
Wet (Sea water)
Name
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
Embedded Length (ft)
Soil type
Casing length (ft)
Method used (ft)
LTSO2, 17th
36+15.15 13.73(m) LT
BB-10
142
48
5/12/98
1.64
-17.94
-75
-121.4
-40
46.4
55.5
11.5
-130.5
112.6
Sand/lime
85.87
Wet (Sea water)
120
Name
LTSO3, 17th
Type
Station No
34+82.495 11.865(m) LT
Nearest boring
BB-4
Length (ft)
100.1
Diameter (in)
48
Date of Test
6/22/98
Water Level (ft)
1.64
Ground Level (ft)
5
Bottom of casing
-6.8
-84
-76.19
7.81
Total Rock Socket
18.91
Top Elevation (ft)
5
Tip Elevation (ft)
-95.1
100.1
Soil type
Sand/lime
Casing length (ft)
11.8
Method used
Wet (Sea water)
Name
LTSO 4, 17th
Type
Station No
38+04.145 11.865(m) LT
Nearest boring
No info
Length (ft)
77.47
Diameter (in)
48
Date of Test
6/26/98
Ground Level (ft)
17.48
Bottom of casing
-10.7
-59.7
No info
No info
Total Rock Socket
No info
Top Elevation
15.1
Tip Elevation
-62.3
Embedded Length
79.78
Soil type
Sand/lime
Casing length
32.47
Method used
Wet (Sea water)
121
Name
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation
Tip Elevation
Embedded Length
Soil type
Casing length
Method used
LT 1, 17th
Statnamic Test
32+91.395, 10.11LT
BB-1, N-6
72.12
48
7/10/98
No info
9.8
-3
-62.32
9.8
59.32
59.32
9.8
-62.32
72.12
Sand/lime
No info
Wet (Sea water)
Name
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation
Tip Elevation
Embedded Length
Soil type
Casing length
Method used
LT 2, 17th
Statnamic Test
36+82.745, 10.11LT
N-19, BB-3, BB-5
61.27
48
7/11/98
No info
-3.23
No info
No info
No info
No info
No info
-3.23
-64.5
61.27
Sand/lime
No info
Wet (Sea water)
122
Name
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Test 1, Acosta
Osterberg Test
136+39.86
No info
64.19
36
4/13/90
Water Level (ft)

Ground surface (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
Soil type
Casing length (ft)
Method used (ft)
0
-22.3
-30.17
-53.86
-22.3
7.87
32.89
9
-55.19
32.89
Sand/clay/rock
39.17
Wet (Slurry)
Name
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Test 2, Acosta
138+27
No info
101.2
36
4/26/90
Water Level (ft)

Ground surface (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
Soil type
Casing length (ft)
Method used (ft)
0
-24
-31.38
-90.86
-95
0
0
9
-92.2
68.2
Rock/salty sand
40.38
Wet (Slurry)
123
Name
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Test 4, Acosta
145+35.75
No info
113.92
36
5/12/90
Water Level (ft)

Ground surface (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
Soil type
Casing length (ft)
Method used (ft)
0
-28.4
-32.72
-103.57
-105
0
0
9
-104.92
76.52
Rock/salty sand
41.72
Wet (Slurry)
Name
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Test 5A, Acosta

Osterberg Test
147+90, 8'RT
No info
87.83
36
5/16/90
Water Level (ft)

Ground surface (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
Soil type
Casing length (ft)
Method used (ft)
0
-25.5
-28.57
-77.49
-79
0
0
9
-78.83
53.33
Rock/salty sand
37.57
Wet (Slurry)
124
Name
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
Soil type
Casing length (ft)
Method used (ft)
46 -11A, Apalachicola
Osterberg Test
624+03, 2.5'RT
TH-46A, 46B
85
60
8/26/96
37
45
45
-37
-13
24
24
48
-37
82
Sand/Soft Li/Hard Li
50
Wet
Name
53-2, Apalachicola
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
Soil type
Osterberg Test
631+79, 17.5'RT
TH-53A, 53B
89.5
72
7/17/96
34
46.4
46.4
-40.2
-14.87
25.33
25.33
47.8
-40.2
88.1
Casing length (ft)
50
Method used (ft)
Wet
125
Name
Type
Station No
57-10, Apalachicola
Osterberg Test
636+12, 2.5'RT
Nearest boring
P57-1, 2,3,4
Length (ft)
103.7
Diameter (in)
84
Date of Test
8/19/96
Water Level (ft)
37
Ground Level (ft)
47.5
Bottom of casing
-21
-52
-20
32
Total Rock Socket
35.2
Top Elevation (ft)
48.5
Tip Elevation (ft)
-55.2
102.7
Soil type
Casing length (ft)
69.5
Method used (ft)
Wet
Name
59-8, Apalachicola
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
Soil type
Osterberg Test
641+38, 62.5'RT
P59-3, 4
134
108
2/18/97
46
17
-28
-69.3
-20
49.3
58.5
55.5
-78.5
95.5
Casing length (ft)
47
Method used (ft)
Wet
126
Name
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
62-5, Apalachicola
Osterberg Test
645+97, 17.5'RT
TH-62A, 62B
89.2
72
12/6/96
32
45.9
47
-42.2
-24
18.2
18.2
47
-42.2

Soil type
Casing length (ft)
Method used (ft)
88.1
50
Wet
Name
69-7, Apalachicola
Type
Osterberg Test
Station No
653+41+17.8'RT
Nearest boring
TH-69A, 69B
Length (ft)
99.1
Diameter (in)
60
Date of Test
12/4/96
Water Level (ft)
35
Ground Level (ft)
45.3
Bottom of casing
45.3
-49
-27
22
Total Rock Socket
25.1
Top Elevation (ft)
47
Tip Elevation (ft)
-52.1
97.4
Soil type
Casing length (ft)
50
Method used (ft)
Wet
127
Name
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
Soil type
Casing length (ft)
Method used (ft)
LT-1, Fuller Warren

Osterberg Test
283+05 50'LT
LT-1
41.01
36
9/11/96
3
5.44
5.44
-28.5
-18
10.5
17.1
5.91
-35.1
40.54
Sand/lime
36
Wet
Name
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Water Level (ft)
Mud line (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
Soil type
Casing length (ft)
Method used (ft)
LT-2, Fuller Warren

Osterberg Test
313+21 66'RT
LT-2
27.85
72
10/30/96
0.5
-21
(-41.38) Double casing
-62.55
-41.38
21.17
22.47
-36
-63.85
22.62
Sandy silt/fine sand
47.89
Wet
128
Name
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Water Level (ft)
Mud line (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
Soil type
Casing length (ft)
Method used (ft)
LT-3a, Fuller Warren

Osterberg Test
323+45 19'RT
LT-3a
120.73
72
12/9/96
0.5
-56
-85.4
-111
-85.4
25.6
27.33
8
-112.73
27.58
Salty fine sand
99
Wet
Name
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Water Level (ft)
Ground surface (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
Soil type
Casing length (ft)
Method used (ft)
LT-4, Fuller Warren

Osterberg Test
341+25 78'RT
LT-4
66.75
48
9/24/96
8
20
20(Temporary)
-44.5
-11.2
33.3
34.55
21
-45.75
65.75
Sand/lime/silt
46.5
Wet
129
Name
26-1, Gandy
Type
Statnamic Test
Station No
68+66.75
Nearest boring
No info
Length (ft)
33.4
Diameter (in)
48
Date of Test
12/17/94
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)
-7.4
Bottom of casing
-8.94
-24.7
-16.7
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
8.7
Tip Elevation (ft)
-24.7
Soil type
Sand/lime
Casing length (ft)
1.54
Method used (ft)
Wet
Name
26-2, Gandy
Type
Osterberg Test
Station No
68+66.75 RT 6'
Nearest boring
SB-21
Length (ft)
38.4
Diameter (in)
48
Date of Test
About 11/28/94
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)
-7.4
Bottom of casing
-11.5
-20.6
-16.7
3.9
Total Rock Socket
13.7
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
-30.4
23
Soil type
Sand/lime
Casing length (ft)
19.5
130
Method used (ft)
Wet
Name
52-3, Gandy
Type
Statnamic Test
Station No
93+62.75
Nearest boring
No info
Length (ft)
55.6
Diameter (in)
48
Date of Test
12/13/94
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)

Bottom of casing
-11
-24
-46.3
-23
22.3
Total Rock Socket
23.5
Top Elevation (ft)
9.1
Tip Elevation (ft)
-46.5

Soil type
23.5
Sand/lime
Casing length (ft)

Method used (ft)
13
Wet
Name
52-4, Gandy
Type
Osterberg Test
Station No
93+62.75
Nearest boring
SB-36
Length (ft)
54.5
Diameter (in)
48
Date of Test
About 11/21/94
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)
-11
Bottom of casing
-20.33
-42
-20
21.67
Total Rock Socket
27.7
Top Elevation (ft)
6.8
Tip Elevation (ft)
-47.7
36.7
Soil type
Sand/lime
Casing length (ft)
27.1
131
Method used (ft)
Wet
Name
91-3, Gandy
Type
Statnamic Test
Station No
174+21.25
Nearest boring
No info
Length (ft)
70.68
Diameter (in)
48
Date of Test
12/8/94
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)
-14
Bottom of casing
-40.5
-61.6
-40.5
Rock Socket (ft)
21.1
Total Rock Socket
21.1
Top Elevation (ft)
9.08
Tip Elevation (ft)
-61.6
-21.1
Soil type
Sand/lime
Casing length (ft)
26.5
Method used (ft)
Wet
Name
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
Soil type
Casing length (ft)
Method used (ft)
91-4, Gandy
Osterberg Test
174+21.25
SB-91
74.7
48
About 11/11/94
0
-14
-43
-59.6
-40.5
19.1
27.2
7
-67.7
53.7
Sand/lime
50
Wet
132
Name
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
4-14, Hillsborough
1387+05.73, 9.1LT
P4-S14
70.83
48
6/26/96
No info
3
-41.5
-52
-34
18
28.83
8
-62.83

Soil type
65.83
Sand/lime
Casing length (ft)
40
Method used
Wet
Name
5-10, Hillsborough
Type
Statnamic Test
Station No
1388+03.73, 2'-3"LT
Nearest boring
P5-5, P5-15
Length (ft)
75.33
Diameter (in)
48
Date of Test
6/30/96
Water Level (ft)
No info
Ground Level (ft)
-6.86
Bottom of casing
-45.33
-64.5
-35
19.17
Total Rock Socket
22
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
-67.33
60.47
Soil type
Sand/lime
Casing length (ft)
53.33
Method used
Wet
133
Name
Macarthur
Type
Station No
Nearest boring
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Date of Test
Water Level (ft)
Ground Level (ft)
Bottom of casing
Total Rock Socket
Top Elevation (ft)
Tip Elevation (ft)
Soil type
Conventional test
1069+06, 82.24' RT
B-34, B-35
93
30
10/13/93
0
5.69
-35
-81.83
-69
12.83
16
8
-85
90.69
Sand/lime
Casing length (ft)

Method used (ft)
43
Wet slurry
Name
3-1, Victory
Type
Osterberg Test
Station No
90+15.605, 12.25LT
Nearest boring
TB-3
Length (ft)
33.2
Diameter (in)
48
Date of Test
1/5/95
Water Level (ft)
56
Ground Level (ft)
54.56
Bottom of casing
38
24.05
38.56
14.51
Total Rock Socket
14.76
Top Elevation (ft)
57
Tip Elevation (ft)
24.1
30.76
Soil type
Sand/rock
Casing length (ft)
21
Method used (ft)
Wet (Clean water)
134
Name
3-2, Victory
Type
Osterberg Test
Station No
90+15.605, 12.25RT
Nearest boring
TB-3
Length (ft)
38.56
Diameter (in)
48
Date of Test
12/15/94
Water Level (ft)
47
Ground Level (ft)
54.4
Bottom of casing
Last strain gauge
Elevation
37.37
39.4
9.27
Total Rock Socket
18.93
Top Elevation (ft)
57
Tip Elevation (ft)
18.44
35.96
Soil type
Sandy clay/rock
Casing length (ft)
22.23(permanent casing)
Method used (ft)
Wet (Clean water)
Name
10-2, Victory
Type
Osterberg Test
28.1
Station No
99+31.949, 12.25RT
Nearest boring
TB-8, 9
Length (ft)
46.64
Diameter (in)
48
Date of Test
8/9/95
Water Level (ft)
51
Ground Level (ft)
51
Bottom of casing
Last strain gauge
Elevation
31.42
9.98
7.18
Total Rock Socket
20.68
Top Elevation (ft)
57.34
Tip Elevation (ft)
-10.7
61.7
Soil type
Sandy clay/rock
Casing length (ft)
25.92
2.8
135
Name
19-1, Victory
Type
Osterberg Test
Station No
111+10.105, 12.25LT
Nearest boring
TB-18
Length (ft)
45.03
Diameter (in)
48
Date of Test
1/3/95
Water Level (ft)
50
Ground Level (ft)
55.8
Bottom of casing
Last strain gauge
Elevation
28.64
25.71
13.61
Total Rock Socket
13.57
Top Elevation (ft)
57
Tip Elevation (ft)
12.14
43.66
Soil type
Sand/rock
12.1
Casing length (ft)
29
Method used (ft)
Wet (Clean water)
Name
19-2, Victory
Type
Osterberg Test
Station No
111+10.105, 12.25RT
Nearest boring
TB-18
Length (ft)
50.73
Diameter (in)
48
Date of Test
12/6/94
Water Level (ft)
47
Ground Level (ft)
55.76
Bottom of casing
28.64
17.9
25.71
7.81
Total Rock Socket
19.95
Top Elevation (ft)
55.76
Tip Elevation (ft)
5.76
50
Soil type
Sandy clay / rock
Casing length (ft)
28.42
Method used (ft)
Wet (Clean water)
136
Name
Shaft 5, Victory
Type
Statnamic test
Station No
111+00.105
Nearest boring
TB-18
Length (ft)
43.12
Diameter (in)
48
Date of Test
11/23/94
Water Level (ft)
50
Mud Level (ft)
55.46
Bottom of casing
No info
19
31
12
Total Rock Socket
15.01
Top Elevation (ft)
59.11
Tip Elevation (ft)
15.99
39.47
Soil type
Sandy clay/rock
Casing length (ft)
22.23
Method used (ft)
Wet (Clean water)
APPENDIX B
COMPUTED UNIT SKIN FRICTION IN THE ROCK SOCKET
Unit Skin Friction along the Rock Socket, 17th Street Bridge
From(ft)
-108.3
-103.7
-99.1
-95.8
-93.5
LTSO 1 (Hard), 17th Street Bridge

Osterberg (Rock layers)
Elevation
Skin friction
To(ft)
Length(ft)
fs(tsf)
Status
-103.7
4.6
14.02
fully
-99.1
4.6
8.36
partially
-95.8
3.3
5.17
partially
-93.5
2.3
1.69
partially
-82.0
11.5
1.90
partially
From(ft)
-108.2
-95.8
-93.5

Statnamic (Rock layers)
Elevation
Skin friction
To(ft)
Length(ft)
fs(tsf)
Status
-95.8
12.5
5.43
partially
-93.5
2.3
5.90
partially
-82.0
11.5
7.19
partially
Elevation
From(ft)
-121.4
-113.5
-106.6
-98.4
-90.2

Skin friction
To(ft)
Length(ft)
fs(tsf)
-113.5
7.9
1.24
-106.6
6.9
4.43
-98.4
8.2
11.21
-90.2
8.2
6.81
-77.1
13.1
4.02
137
Status
partially
partially
partially
partially
partially
138
From(ft)
-84.0
LTSO 3 (Soft), 17th Street Bridge

Osterberg(Rock layers)
Elevation
Skin friction
To(ft)
Length(ft)
fs(tsf)
Status
-77.2
6.8
1.64
fully
From(ft)
-95.1
LTSO 3 (Soft), 17th Street Bridge

Elevation
Skin friction
To(ft)
Length(ft)
fs(tsf)
Status
-83.9
11.2
0.99
partially
From(ft)
-60.0
-55.8
-13.6
-5.9
LT 1 (Soft), 17th Street Bridge

Elevation
Skin friction
To(ft)
Length(ft)
fs(tsf)
Status
-55.8
4.3
1.29
partially
-13.6
42.1
2.22
partially
-5.9
7.7
2.73
partially
9.8
15.7
1.43
partially
From(ft)
-53.7
-46.7
LT 2 (Hard), 17th Street Bridge

Elevation
Skin friction
To(ft)
Length(ft)
fs(tsf)
Status
-46.7
6.9
10.37
partially
-35.9
10.8
9.25
partially
Unit Skin Friction along the Rock Socket, Acosta Bridge
From (ft)
-41.6
Test 1, Acosta Bridge

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-36.6
5.0
4.42
partially
139
From (ft)
-58.6
-53.6
Test 2, Acosta Bridge

Conventional (Rock layers)
Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-53.6
5.0
6.74
fully
-48.6
5.0
5.78
fully
Unit Skin Friction along the Rock Socket, Apalachicola Bridge
From (ft)
-34.0
-29.0
-25.0
46-11A, Apalachicola Bridge

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-29.0
5.0
7.91
fully
-25.0
4.0
3.65
partially
-16.0
9.0
2.01
partially
From (ft)
-37.9
-31.9
-26.9
53-2, Apalachicola Bridge

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-31.9
6.0
3.30
partially
-26.9
5.0
2.53
partially
-14.9
12.0
2.48
partially
From (ft)
-52.0
-42.0
-32.0
-26.0

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-42.0
10.0
4.84
fully
-32.0
10.0
4.44
fully
-26.0
6.0
3.57
fully
-20.0
6.0
2.33
fully
140
From (ft)
-69.3
-60.0
-52.9
-46.0
-40.0

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-60.0
9.3
11.36
fully
-52.9
7.1
4.19
fully
-46.0
6.9
4.54
fully
-40.0
6.0
4.03
fully
-33.1
6.9
5.15
fully
From (ft)
-38.9

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-32.9
6.0
3.77
partially
From (ft)
-49.0
-42.9
-36.4
-29.9

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-42.9
6.1
1.72
fully
-36.4
6.5
1.63
fully
-29.9
6.5
5.28
fully
-25.7
4.2
7.44
fully
Unit Skin Friction along the Rock Socket, Fuller Warren Bridge
From (ft)
-28.5
-25.0
LT -1, Fuller Warren Bridge

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-25.0
3.5
19.00
fully
-21.0
4.0
8.20
partially
141
From (ft)
-49.8
-46.2
LT-2, Fuller Warren Bridge

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-46.2
3.6
21.78
partially
-43.7
2.5
7.48
partially
From (ft)
-29.5
LT -4, Fuller Warren Bridge

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-25.6
3.9
14.48
partially
Unit Skin Friction along the Rock Socket, Gandy
From (ft)
-24.7
-24.2
-21.2
26-1, Gandy Bridge

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-24.2
0.5
7.50
partially
-21.2
3.0
7.38
partially
-17.9
3.3
7.38
partially
From (ft)
-20.6
-18.8
26-2, Gandy Bridge

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-18.8
1.8
14.55
partially
-16.7
2.1
7.45
partially
142
From (ft)
-46.3
-39.5
-36.5
-33.5
-30.5
-27.5
52-3, Gandy Bridge

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-39.5
6.8
8.40
partially
-36.5
3.0
15.13
partially
-33.5
3.0
10.03
partially
-30.5
3.0
7.64
partially
-27.5
3.0
8.51
partially
-19.5
8.0
6.35
partially
From (ft)
-42.0
-39.1
-36.1
-33.1
-30.1
-27.1
52-4, Gandy Bridge

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-39.1
2.9
34.65
partially
-36.1
3.0
8.7
partially
-33.1
3.0
10.95
partially
-30.1
3.0
5.31
partially
-27.1
3.0
2.7
partially
-19.1
8.0
3.09
partially
From (ft)
-59.6
-56.8
-52.8
91-4, Gandy Bridge

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-56.8
2.8
18.27
partially
-52.8
4.0
6.34
partially
-48.8
4.0
4.93
partially
143
Unit Skin Friction along the Rock Socket, Hillsborough
From (ft)
-52.0
-48.6
Pier 4 Shaft 14, Hillsborough Bridge

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-48.6
3.4
11.24
fully
-42.7
5.9
4.56
fully
From (ft)
-55.5
-48.6

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-48.6
6.9
15.01
fully
-42.7
5.9
4.56
fully
From (ft)
-64.5
-60.5
-56.5
-52.5

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-60.5
4.0
7.31
partially
-56.5
4.0
1.38
partially
-52.5
4.0
8.47
partially
-48.5
4.0
17.11
partially
Unit Skin Friction along the Rock Socket, MacArthur
From (ft)
-55.0
MacArthur Bridge
Conventional (Rock layers)
Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
-50.5
4.5
8.40
partially
144
Unit Skin Friction along the Rock Socket, Victory
From (ft)
24.1
27.8
32.3
Shaft 3-1, Victory Bridge

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
27.8
3.7
7.79
fully
32.3
4.5
8.63
fully
37.3
5.0
7.10
fully
From (ft)
28.1
31.8

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
31.8
3.7
5.00
fully
37.8
6.0
9.57
fully
From (ft)
2.8
8.5
16.5
24.5

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
8.5
5.7
10.57
fully
16.5
8.0
8.93
fully
24.5
8.0
2.77
fully
30.0
5.5
6.75
partially
From (ft)
12.1
15.9
19.4

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
15.9
3.8
10.79
fully
19.4
3.5
6.20
fully
24.7
5.4
7.71
fully
145
From (ft)
17.9
21.6
25.1

Elevation
Skin friction
To (ft)
Length (ft)
fs (tsf)
Status
21.6
3.7
6.53
fully
25.1
3.5
5.41
fully
27.1
2.0
7.29
fully
From(ft)
19.0
TH 5, Victory Bridge
Elevation
Skin friction
To(ft)
Length(ft)
fs(tsf)
Status
26.0
7.0
18.50
partially
APPENDIX C
UNIT SKIN FRICTION, T-Z CURVES
LTSO 1 (Osterberg), 17th Street Bridge
LTSO 1, 17th
(-108.3to -103.7)
Unit Skin Friction (tsf))
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
LTSO 1, 17th
(-95.8 to -93.5)
Fully
fs = 14.02 tsf
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Deflection (inches)
0.8
0
0.00
10
8
Partially
fs = 8.36 tsf
2
0
0.00
0.05
0.02
0.04
Deflection (inches)
0.06
LTSO 1, 17th
(-93.5 to -82.5)
LTSO 1, 17th
(-103.7 to -99.1)
Partially
fs = 1.69 tsf
0.10
0
0.00
Deflection (inches)
Partially
fs = 1.90 tsf
0.02
0.04
0.06
Deflection (inches)
0.08
LTSO 3 (Osterberg), 17th Street Bridge

LTSO 3, 17th
(-84.0 to -77.2)
LTSO 1, 17th
(-99.1 to -95.8)
5
4
3
Partially
fs = 5.17 tsf
2
1
0
0.00
0.05
Deflection (inches)
0.10
Fully
fs = 1.64 tsf
0
0.0
146
0.2
0.4
0.6
Deflection (inches)
0.8
147
Test 1 (Osterberg), Acosta Bridge
46-11A (Osterberg), Apalachicola Bridge

46-11A, Osterberg, Apalachicola
(-34.0 to -29.0)
5
4
3
Partially
fs = 4.42 tsf
2
1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Test 1, Osterberg, Acosta

(-41.6 to -36.6)
10
8
6
Fully
fs = 7.91 tsf
4
2
0
0.0
Deflection (inches)
0.5
Deflection (inches)
1.0
Test 2 (Conventional), Acosta Bridge

(-29.0 to -25.0)
Test 2, Conventional, Acosta

(-58.6 to -53.6)
6
4
Fully
fs = 6.74 tsf
2
0
0
0.02
0.04
4
3
Partially
fs = 3.65 tsf
2
1
0
0.0
Deflection (inches)
Deflection (inches)
0.04
0.02
0.6
0.8
1.0

(-25.0 to -16.0)
Fully
fs = 5.78 tsf
0.4
Deflection (inches)
Test 2, Conventional, Acosta

(-53.6 to -48.6)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.2
3
2
Partially
fs = 2.01 tsf
1
0
0.0
0.5
Deflection (inches)
1.0
148
53-2 (Osterberg), Apalachicola Bridge

57-0, Osterberg, Apalachicola
(-52.0 to -42.0)

(-37.9 to -31.9)
4
3
Partially
fs = 3.30 tsf
2
1
0
0.0
1.0
Deflection (inches)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Fully
fs = 4.84 tsf
0.0
2.0
3
2
Partially
fs = 2.53 tsf
1
0
0.0
1.0
Deflection (inches)
2.0
5
4
3
Fully
fs = 4.44 tsf
2
1
0
0.0
3
2
Partially
fs = 2.48 tsf
0
0.0
1.0
Deflection (inches)
1.0
Deflection (inches)
2.0

(-32.0to -26.0)

(-26.9 to -14.9)
0.6

(-42.0 to -32.0)

(-31.9 to -26.9)
0.2
0.4
Deflection (inches)
2.0
4
3
Fully
fs = 3.57 tsf
2
1
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Deflection (inches)
2.0
149

(-52.9 to -46.0)

(-26.0 to -20.0)
2
Fully
fs = 2.33 tsf
1
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Deflection (inches)
5
4
Fully
fs = 4.54 tsf
3
2
1
0
0.0
2.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Deflection (inches)

(-46.0 to -40.0)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Fully
fs = 11.36 tsf
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5

(-69.3 to -60)
4
3
Fully
fs = 4.03 tsf
2
1
0
0.0
Deflection (inches)
6
5
4
Fully
fs = 4.19 tsf
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
Deflection (inches)
1.5

(-40.0 to -33.1)

(-60.0 to -52.9)
0.5
1.0
Deflection (inches)
1.5
6
5
4
Fully
fs = 5.15 tsf
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
Deflection (inches)
1.5
150

(-36.4 to -29.9)
4
3
2
Partially
fs = 3.77 tsf
1
0
0
1
Deflection (inches)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

(-38.9 to -32.9)
Fully
fs = 5.28 tsf
Deflection (inches)

(-29.9 to -25.7)

(-49.0 to -42.9)
Fully
fs = 1.72 tsf
0
0
8
6
Fully
fs = 7.44 tsf
4
2
0
0
Deflection (inches)
Deflection (inches)
LT-1 (Osterberg), Fuller Warren Bridge

LT-1, Osterberg, Fuller Warren
(-28.5 to -25.0)
Fully
fs = 1.63 tsf
0
0
1
Deflection (inches)

(-42.9 to -36.4)
20
15
Fully
fs = 19.0 tsf
10
5
0
0.0
0.5
Deflection (inches)
1.0
151

(-25.0 to -21.0)

(-29.5 to -25.6)
Unit Skin Friction

(tsf)
10
8
6
Partially
fs = 8.2 tsf
4
2
0
0.0
0.5
20
15
10
Partially
fs = 14.48 tsf
5
0
1.0
Deflection (inches)
Unit Skin Friction

(tsf)
26-2, Osterberg, Gandy

(-20.6 and -18.8)
25
20
15
Partially
fs = 21.78 tsf
5
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
20
15
10
Partially
fs = 14.55 tsf
5
0
0.3
0.0
Deflection (inches)
8
6
4
Partially
fs = 7.48 tsf
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
Deflection (inches)
0.2
0.4
Deflection (inches)
0.6

(-18.8 and -16.7)
0.3
Unit Skin Friction

(tsf)

(-46.2 to -43.7)
0.3
26-2 (Osterberg), Gandy Bridge

(-49.8 to -46.2)
10
0.1
0.2
Deflection (inches)
8
6
Partially
fs = 7.45 tsf
4
2
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
Deflection (inches)
0.6
152

(-33.1 and -30.1)

(-42.0 and -39.1)
30
20
Partially
fs = 34.65 tsf
10
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.00
40
0.15
10
8
Partially
fs = 8.7 tsf
2
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
4
3
2
Partially
fs = 2.7 tsf
1
0
0.00
Deflection (inches)
Deflection (inches)
0.10

(-27.1 and -19.1)
Partially
fs =10.95 tsf
0.05
0.05
Deflection (inches)

(-36.1 and -33.1)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.00
0.10

(-30.1 and -27.1)

(-39.1 and -36.1)
0.05
Deflection (inches)
Deflection (inches)
Partially
fs = 5.31 tsf
0.10
4
3
2
1
0
0.00
Partially
fs = 3.09 tsf
0.05
Deflection (inches)
0.10
153
4-14 (Osterberg), Hillsborough Bridge

4-14 Osterberg, Hillsborough
(-52.0 and -48.6)

(-59.6 and -56.8)
20
15
Partially
fs = 18.27 tsf
10
5
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
12
10
Fully
fs = 11.24 tsf
8
6
4
2
0
0
Deflection (inches)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Partially
fs = 6.34 tsf
0.0
0.5
Deflection (inches)
1.0
0.0
Partially
fs = 4.93 tsf
0.5
Deflection (inches)
5
4
Fully
fs = 4.56 tsf
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
Deflection (inches)

(-52.8 and -48.8)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.6
4-14 Osterberg, Hillsborough

(-48.6 and -42.7)

(-56.8 and -52.8)
0.2
0.4
Deflection (inches)
1.0
0.6
154
Conventional, MacArthur Bridge

3-1, Osterberg, Victory
(32.3 to 37.3)
10
8
6
4
Partially
fs = 8.4 tsf
2
0
0
0.2
0.4
Conventional, MacArthur
(-55.0 and --50.5)
6
4
Fully
fs = 7.1 tsf
2
0
0.0
Deflection (inches)
3-1 (Osterberg), Victory Bridge

(28.1 to 31.8)
12
10
8
Fully
fs = 7.79 tsf
4
2
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Fully
fs = 5.0 tsf
Deflection (inches)
10
8
Fully
fs = 8.63 tsf
4
2
0
0.0
0.5
Deflection (inches)
0.5
Deflection (inches)

(31.8 to 37.8)

(27.8 to 32.3)
1.0

(24.1 to 27.8)
0.5
Deflection (inches)
1.0
12
10
8
6
Fully
fs =9.57 tsf
4
2
0
0
0.5
Deflection (inches)
155
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

(24.5 to 30.0)

(2.8 to 8.5)
Fully
fs = 10.57 tsf
0.0
0.5
1.0
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Partially
fs = 6.75 tsf
0.0
0.5
Deflection (inches)
Deflection (inches)
1.0

(12.1 to 15.9)

(8.5 to 16.5)
10
8
6
Fully
fs = 8.93 tsf
4
2
0
0.0
0.5
Deflection (inches)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
1.0
Fully
fs = 2.77 tsf
1
0
0.5
Deflection (inches)
1.0

(15.9 to 19.4)
0.0
0.5
Deflection (inches)

(16.5 to 24.5)
Fully
fs = 10.79 tsf
1.0
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Fully
fs = 6.2 tsf
0.0
0.5
Deflection (inches)
1.0
156

(25.1 to 27.1)
10

(19.4 to 24.7)
8
6
Fully
fs = 7.71 tsf
4
2
0
0.0
0.5
Deflection (inches)
1.0

(17.9 to 21.6)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Fully
fs = 6.53 tsf
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Deflection (inches)

(21.6 to 25.1)
6
5
4
Fully
fs = 5.41 tsf
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
Deflection (inches)
0.6
8
6
Fully
fs = 7.29 tsf
4
2
0
0.0
0.5
Deflection (inches)
1.0
APPENDIX D
LATERALLY TESTED SHAFTS INFORMATION
59-8 (Apalachicola)
Shaft Length
Shaft Diameter
Top of shaft
Loading elevation
Top of ground
Top of rock
134.0
9
55.5
53
-5
-20
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
Tip of shaft
Max load
-78.5 ft
325 tons
Max Movement
12.24 in
Cross section info

36 #18 Bars
#4 Spiral
6" Cover
#18 - Diameter (2.256")
#18 - Area (4in2)
#4 - Diameter (0.5")
#4 - Area (0.2in2)
Cased Shaft
Soil parameters
(Medium Dense Sand)
-5 ~ -20
Layer elevation (ft)
s
Subgrade Modulus
34 o
120 pcf
3
50 lb/in
Elevation (ft)
Length (ft)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Mild Steel's Yield stress
Mild Steel's Modulus
Concrete's f'c
Concrete's Modulus
Shell Thickness (in)
Shell's Yield Stress
Shell's Modulus
53 ~ -58
111
150
60 ksi
29000 ksi
5 ksi
4070 ksi
0.5
60 ksi
30000 ksi
Rock parameters
(Limestone)
-20 ~ continue
Cu
18000 psf
Uncased Shaft
Elevation (ft)
-58 ~ -78.5
Length (ft)
20.5
Unit Weight (pcf)
150
s
E50
Ave Qu
Ave Qt
130 psf
0.0005
20 tsf
2.3 tsf
60 ksi
29000 ksi
Concrete's f'c
Concrete's Modulus
5 ksi
4070 ksi
157
158
LLT-1 (Fuller Warren)

Shaft Length
Shaft Diameter
Top of shaft
Loading elevation
Top of ground
Top of rock
Tip of shaft
Max load
Max Movement
114.5
6
8
6
-68.5
-92
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
-106.5 ft
36.5 tons
8.5 in
Soil parameters
(Dense to Very Dense Clay)
-68.5 ~ -92
C
20000 psf
s
E50
130 pcf
0.0002
Rock parameters
(Medium dense to dense Marl)
-92 ~ continue
Cu(=qu/2)
30000 psf
s
E50
Ave Qu
Ave Qt
130 psf
0.0001
98 tsf
11 tsf
Cross section info

20 #14 Bars
#4 Spiral
6" Cover
#14 - Diameter (1.693")
#14 - Area (2.25in2)
#4 - Area (0.2in2)
Uncased Shaft
Elevation (ft)
Length (ft)
Unit Weight (pcf)
6 ~ -106
112
150
60 ksi
29000 ksi
Concrete's f'c
Concrete's Modulus
5 ksi
4000 ksi
159
26-1 (Gandy)
Shaft Length
Shaft Diameter
Top of shaft
Loading elevation
Top of ground
Top of rock
33.4
4
8.7
5
-11.5
-16.7
Tip of shaft
Max load
-24.7 ft
23.9 tons
Max Movement
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
0.39 in
Soil parameters
(Stiff Clay)
-8.5 ~ -16.7
Layer elevation(ft)
C
7000 psf
s
E50
130 pcf
0.002
Cross section info

20 #14 Bars
#4 Spiral
6" Cover
#14 - Diameter (1.693")
#14 - Area (2.25in2)
#4 - Area (0.2in2)
Cased Shaft
Elevation (ft)
Length (ft)
Unit Weight (pcf)
5 ~ -11.5
16.5
150
65 ksi
31000 ksi
Concrete's f'c
Concrete's Modulus
Shell's Modulus
5 ksi
5000 ksi
0.2
60 ksi
31000 ksi
Rock parameters
Layer elevation(ft)
-16.7 ~ continue
Cu
20000 psf
Elevation (ft)
s
E50
Length (ft)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Ave Qu
Ave Qt
110 psf
0.0009
70 tsf
8 tsf
Uncased Shaft

Concrete's f'c
Concrete's Modulus
-11.5 ~ -30.45
18.95
150
65 ksi
31000 ksi
5 ksi
5000 ksi
160
52-3 (Gandy)
Shaft Length
Shaft Diameter
Top of shaft
Loading elevation
Top of ground
Top of rock
Tip of shaft
Max load
Max Movement
55.6
4
9.1
5
-23
-23
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
-46.5 ft
60.6 tons
3.62 in
Rock parameters
Layer elevation (ft) -23 ~ continue
Cu
38000 psf
s
E50
Ave Qu
Ave Qt
110 psf
0.00015
70 tsf
8 tsf
Cross section info

20 #14 Bars
#4 Spiral
6" Cover
#14 - Diameter (1.693")
#14 - Area (2.25in2)
#4 - Area (0.2in2)
Cased Shaft
Elevation (ft)
Length (ft)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Concrete's f'c
Concrete's Modulus
Shell's Modulus
5 ~ -20.33
25.33
150
60 ksi
29000 ksi
5 ksi
4070 ksi
0.4
60 ksi
29000 ksi
Uncased Shaft
Elevation (ft)
-20.33 ~ -47.73
Length (ft)
27.4
Unit Weight (pcf)
150
60 ksi
29000 ksi
Concrete's f'c
5 ksi
Concrete's Modulus
4070 ksi
161
91-3 (Gandy)
Shaft Length
Shaft Diameter
Top of shaft
Loading elevation
Top of ground
Top of rock
70.7
4
9.08
5
-41.5
-41.5
Tip of shaft
Max load
-61.6 ft
40 tons
Max Movement
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
3.72 in
Rock parameters
-40.5 ~ -80
Cu
40000 psf
s
E50
Ave Qu
Ave Qt
120 psf
0.00024
70 tsf
8 tsf
Cross section info

20 #14 Bars
#4 Spiral
6" Cover
#14 - Diameter (1.693")
#14 - Area (2.25in2)
#4 - Area (0.2in2)
Cased Shaft
Elevation (ft)
Length (ft)
Unit Weight (pcf)
5 ~ -43
48
150
65 ksi

Concrete's f'c
Concrete's Modulus
Shell's Modulus
35000 ksi
6 ksi
6000 ksi
1.1
60 ksi
31000 ksi
Uncased Shaft
Elevation (ft)
Length (ft)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Concrete's f'c
Concrete's Modulus
-43 ~ -61.6
18.6
150
65 ksi
35000 ksi
6 ksi
6000 ksi
162
TH-1 (Victory)
Shaft Length
Shaft Diameter
Top of shaft
Loading elevation
Top of ground
Top of rock
Tip of shaft
Max load
Max Movement
33.6
4
58
56
53
40
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
24.4 ft
141.5 tons
2.16 in
Soil parameters
(Medium Dense Sand)
53 ~ 40
s
Subgrade Modulus
Rock parameters
(Limestone)
Cu
s
E50
Ave Qu
Ave Qt
23
105 pcf
3
50 lb/in
Cross section info

20 #14 Bars
#4 Spiral
6" Cover
#14 - Diameter (1.693")
#14 - Area (2.25in2)
#4 - Area (0.2in2)
Cased Shaft
Elevation (ft)
Length (ft)
Unit Weight (pcf)
56 ~ 38.3
17.7
150
60 ksi
29000 ksi
Concrete's f'c
Concrete's Modulus
Shell's Modulus
5 ksi
4000 ksi
0.05
60 ksi
29000 ksi
Uncased Shaft
40 ~ continue
20000 psf
105 psf
0.0009
83 tsf
11 tsf
Elevation (ft)
Length (ft)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Concrete's f'c
Concrete's Modulus
38.3 ~ 24.4
13.9
150
60 ksi
29000 ksi
5 ksi
4000 ksi
163
TH-3 (Victory)
Shaft Length
Shaft Diameter
Top of shaft
Loading elevation
Top of ground
Top of rock
Tip of shaft
Max load
Max Movement
49.1
4
59.11
57
40
28
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
10 ft
84.6 tons
6.9 in
Soil parameters
(Medium Dense Sand)
Layer elevation(ft)
40 ~ 28
o
Cross section info

20 #14 Bars
#4 Spiral
6" Cover
#14 - Diameter (1.693")
#14 - Area (2.25in2)
#4 - Area (0.2in2)
Uncased Shaft
Elevation (ft)
Length (ft)
Unit Weight (pcf)
58 ~ 10
48
150
130 pcf
Subgrade Modulus
3
120 lb/in
31000 ksi
Concrete's f'c
Concrete's Modulus
5 ksi
5000 ksi
38
Rock parameters
(Limestone)
Layer elevation(ft)
28 ~ continue
Cu
25000 psf
s
E50
Ave Qu
Ave Qt
110 psf
0.0001
83 tsf
11 tsf
65 ksi
LIST OF REFERENCES
Hoit, M.I., McVay, M.C. (1996). FB-Pier Users Manual, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Justason, M.D., Mullins, G., Robertson, D.T., Knight, W.F. (1998). A Comparison of
Static and Load Tests in Sand: A Case Study of the Bayou Chico Bridge in Pensacola,
Florida, Second International Statnamic Seminar, Canadian Embassy of Japan, Tokyo.
Matsumoto, T., Tsuzuki, M. (1994), Statnamic Tests on Steel Piles Driven in a Soft
Rock, International Conference on Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, U.S.
Federal Highway Administration, Orlando.
McClelland, M. (1996). History of Drilled Shaft Construction in Texas, Paper
presented before the 75th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D. C.
McVay, M.C., Townsend, F.C., and Williams, R.C. (1991). Design of Socket Drilled
Shafts in Limestone, Ninth Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vina del Mar, Chile.
Middendorp, P., Bermingham, P. & Kuiper, B. (1992). Statnamic Load Testing of
Foundation Piles, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Applications of
Stress Wave Theory to Piles, the Hague, Balkema, Rotterdam, 581-588.
Middendorp, P. & Bielefeld, M.W. (September 27-30, 1995). Statnamic Load Testing
and the Influence of Stress Wave, First International Statnamic Seminar, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada.
Osterberg, J. (1989). New Device for Load Testing Driven and Drilled shafts Separate
Friction and End Bearing, Proceedings of the International Conference on Piling and
Deep Founds, London, 421-427.
Reese, L. C., and ONeil, M. W. (1999). Drilled Shafts: Construction Methods and
Design Procedures, FHWA-IF-99-025, U.S. Department of Transportation, ADSC,
Dallas, Texas.
164
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Myoung-Ho (Michael) Kim was born in Youngdong, South Korea, in 1972, the
youngest of four sons and three daughters. Myoung-Ho attended elementary, middle and
high school in his small hometown, Youngdong.
In 1991, he moved to Teajon city to attend college. In March of 1999, he
received his Bachelor of Science degree in geology from Chungnam National University.
In his fourth year of college, one of his professors suggested that he combine his geology
background with geotechnical engineering. He decided to go to America and pursue his
Master of Engineering degree, entering the geotechnical engineering program at the
University of Florida, Gainesville, in the fall of 1999.
Shortly before he came to America, he married a lovely Japanese lady, Sachiko
Furuhashi. They met in 1993 in Vancouver, Canada, when they were studying English.
On October 3rd, 2000, their extremely adorable daughter, Julie Furuhashi Kim, was born.
He now feels confident in the mechanical and scientific aspects of geotechnical
engineering. His family will be moving to Miami, Florida, where he will begin to work
as a staff engineer for Langan Engineering.
165

Analysis of Osterberg and Statnamic Axial Load Testing and Conventional Lateral Load Testing MSC

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Analysis of Osterberg and Statnamic Axial Load Testing and Conventional Lateral Load Testing MSC

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ANALYSIS OF OSTERBERG AND STATNAMIC AXIAL LOAD TESTING

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

2.8.1 Site Description ................................................................................................ 13

5 COMPARISON BETWEEN OSTERBERG AND STATNAMIC LOAD TESTS ..... 87

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School

Figure 2.1 Project Locations with Number of Load Tests

2.2 17th Street Bridge

Dyanmic load test

Dynamic Load Testing

Figure 3.1 Comparison of Stresses, Velocities and Displacements for Dynamic,

3.3 Conventional Load Testing

Figure 3.2 Schematic of Typical Conventional Load Test

Upper portion side

Lower portion side

Lower portion side

Side Shear Failure

Load Cell / Fuel

Zero velocity point

Figure 3.5 Schematic of Statnamic Load Test

Max. Statnamic Force

3.6 Lateral Load Testing

Lateral Load Test by Pushing Piles against each other

Maximum Deflection of the Shaft

Figure 3.7 Schematic of Conventional Lateral Load Test

Qs: unit end bearing

If strain gages are not installed

Shaft End Bearing

Unit Skin Friction (tsf)

An example of fully mobilized t -z curve

Unit Skin Friction (tsf)

An example of partially mobilized t -z curve

Figure 4.2 Examples of Fully and Partially Mobilized Skin Frictions

Unit End Bearing vs. Deflection (46-11A, Apalachicola, Osterberg)

Unit End Bearing (tsf)

Unit End Bearing vs. Deflection (59-8, Apalachicola, Osterberg)

Unit End Bearing (tsf)

Bottom Deflection (inch)

4.2 Static (Osterberg & Conventional) Load Testing

Pier 6 (4ft. diameter)

Osterberg & Statnamic

Pier 7 (4ft. diameter)

Osterberg & Statnamic

Pier 5 (4ft. diameter)

Osterberg & Statnamic

Pier 10 (4ft. diameter)

Osterberg & Statnamic

Pier 2 (4ft. diameter)

Pier 8 (4ft. diameter)

Osterberg & Conventional

Osterberg & Conventional

Test Site 5A (3ft. diameter)

Pier 46 (5ft. diameter)

Shaft 11A (41-11A)

Pier 53 (6ft. diameter)

Pier 57 (7ft. diameter)

Pier 59 (7ft. diameter)

Osterberg & Lateral

Pier 62 (6ft. diameter)

Pier 69 (5ft. diameter)

Shaft LT-1 (3ft. diameter)

Shaft LT-2 (6ft. diameter)

Shaft LT-3a (6ft. diameter)

Shaft LT-4 (4ft. diameter)