Drilled

Shaft
Design, Construction Procedure and
Construction Inspection

Jay B. Patel, NJIT-Graduate Student

CE-645 Rock Mechanics II
Professor: Dr. Raghu Dorairaja, P.E.
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Spring 2014

ABSTRACT
Title: Drilled Shaft Design, Construction Procedure and Construction Inspection

Author: Jay B. Patel, NJIT Graduate Student

The author will demonstrate engineering design process, construction procedure and
inspection of drilled shafts.
The author will also discuss the following:

The Geomaterials Drilled Shaft Bear In.

How drilled shafts create capacity.

How drilled shafts are constructed with different methods of construction.

How to Calculating Shaft Friction resitance in Rock Sockets.

How to Calculate End Bearing capacity in Rock Sockets.

Concrete mix design, encountered construction challenges during concrete

placement under water and challenges achieving design compressive
strength of concrete.

Construction Sequence and Construction Inspection.

Design Project involving over 400 drilled shafts for a Mixed-Use

Development featuring 140 apartments, 22,000 square feet of retail space,
and a four-level underground parking garage with 376 spaces.

Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4
Description of Drilled Shafts ............................................................................................. 4
The Geomaterials Drilled Shaft Bear In ........................................................................... 5
How Drilled Shaft Create Capacity ................................................................................... 5
Shaft Friction in Rock Sockets ......................................................................................... 6
End Bearing in Rock Sockets ........................................................................................... 7
Types of Shaft Installation ................................................................................................ 8
Dry Construction method ........................................................................................................................ 8
Wet Construction method ....................................................................................................................... 9
Temporary Cased Method ....................................................................................................................... 9

Construction Sequence and Construction Inspection Procedure ..................................... 9

Concrete Mix Design ...................................................................................................... 10
Key Elements For Quality Concrete In Drilled Shafts .................................................... 11
Drilled Shaft Design ....................................................................................................... 11
Appendix A ..................................................................................................................... 13

Jay Patel
CE 645- Rock Mechanics II
Term Paper

Introduction
Drilled shafts are a type of substructure (deep foundation) that are typically
designed and constructed to support a variety of civil infrastructure projects.
Drilled shafts are deep foundation elements capable of carrying high axial
compression, uplift, and lateral loads and thus are ideal for certain unusual loading
conditions such as traffic breaking, wind and seismic forces on bridges and high
rises. Sometimes the loads required are very significant, and engineers seek to
found the base of the drilled shafts into rock where capacities are generally higher.
Drilled shafts can be designed and constructed in large sizes where capacitates
are higher.
The objective of this paper is to examine the elements of design, construction
methods and Construction Inspection factors that affect drilled shaft capacity.

Description of Drilled Shafts

Drilled Shafts are broadly described as a cast-in-place deep foundation whereby
the shaft is stabilized to permit the installation of reinforcing steel and concrete.
Drilled foundations are synonymous with Drilled Shafts, Drilled Piles and Drilled
Caissons. Drilled shafts generally have larger diameters as compared to drilled,
continuous flight, hollow stem auger piles or Augercast Piles, but this distinction
is changing as maximum Augercast pile diameters are upwards of 48 inches.
Drilled shafts are perhaps the most robust of deep foundation types, and they are
used for bridges, large buildings and major Civil infrastructure projects due to their
unique ability to resist high axial and lateral loads.
The design capacity of drilled shafts can vary between 50 to 5,000+ tons with
diameters from 12 to 120+ inches. The only limit on drilled shaft diameter is
equipment capability. Typical drilled shafts lengths are 20 to 90+ feet; however,
exceptions as deep as 400+feet.

Page 4

Jay Patel
CE 645- Rock Mechanics II
Term Paper

The Geomaterials Drilled Shaft Bear In

Shaft bear in what engineers categorize as three material types:

1. Soil, 2.

Weathered Rock (WR) and 3. Rock. Two types of Soils are cohesionless and
cohesive. Cohesionless materials include Sands and Gravels, and non-plastic
Silts. Cohesive materials are clays and sandy/gravelly clays.
This transition between soil and rock is generally vertical in the geologic lithology,
with the degree of weathering decreasing with depth. WR is stronger than soil and
weaker than rock and posses both soil and rocklike properties.
Lastly, rock, a material with no consensus definition in geology or geotechnics, is
defined by engineers in drilled shaft design as a cohesive, cemented geomaterial
that can be identified on the basis of geologic origin.

The National Highway

Institute (NHI) in their publication Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and

LRFD Design Methods dated May 2010 provided this definition of rock.

How Drilled Shaft Create Capacity

For this discussion, the author will subdivide the explanation into two categories:
shafts bearing in soil/WR and shafts bearing in rock. Shafts that bear in these two
groups of materials behave fundamentally different.
For shafts that bear in soil/WR, engineers sum the side shear resistance based on
differing soil/WR layers and then add the end bearing to determine capacity.
Figure 1 below provides a schematic describing how capacity is created.
For cohesionless materials, engineers calculate the side shear resistance (shaft to
soil/WR) by determining overburden pressures, converting these pressures into
horizontal pressures via earth pressure coefficients, and then determining the
shearing resistance between soil and the shaft concrete by estimating frictional
interface coefficients. Side shear in cohesive soils are estimated by determining
the undrained shear strength of the clay, determining the appropriate alpha factor
(a reduction coefficient), then multiplying the shear strength and the alpha factor
by the circumferential area of the shaft. End bearing for cohesionless or cohesive

Page 5

Jay Patel
CE 645- Rock Mechanics II
Term Paper
soils is calculated conventionally per Terzaghis original theories on bearing
capacity modified for deep foundation effects.
Drilled shafts with bases formed in rock sockets behave quite differently than
described for soil/IGM above. The primary differences are that the overburden
pressures do not affect the side shear of the concrete in the rock socket, and that
axial support from the soil overburden above the rock socket is ignored. Further
differences include ultimate capacity of the shaft being either from side shear in
the socket, or end bearing, but not the sum of both.

Shaft Friction in Rock Sockets

Drilled shafts are large, highly loaded elements that are difficult (and expensive) to
load test. As such, there is not frequent field testing of drilled shafts to confirm
design assumptions. What engineers are ultimately interested in is the frictional
resistance between the concrete and the shaft rock socket.

The engineering

design process results in some basic assumptions or characterizations:

roughness coefficient, jointing of the rock, and soil materials of in filled joints. The
drilling process itself can affect rock socket roughness and obviously the rock type
is a factor. Cleanliness of shaft sockets prior to placement of concrete is also a
concern. There are notable researches performed by several notable authors to
determine socket roughness. ONeill and Reese suggested that socket roughness
is directly proportional to RQD and qu. The weaker the rock is RQD and qu is, the
lower the socket friction.
ONeill and Reese Equation
for socket shaft resistance.
Pa = atmospheric pressure,
qu = unconfined
compressive strength of the
rock, aE is the reduction
0.5
factor.
Horvath and Kenney suggested socket friction, fSN = 2.5(q
u) , is related only to
the rocks unconfined compressive strength, qu, also an engineer property that is
often measured in the lab and reported on boring/coring log reports.
Page 6

Jay Patel
CE 645- Rock Mechanics II
Term Paper

End Bearing in Rock Sockets

There are several notable authors who have piloted research in calculating end
bearing in rock sockets. Prakoso and Kulhaway determined a relatively simple
empirical equation qBN = Nc* qu.
Nc=2.5 is
recommended
when qu alone is
used to
characterize
rock mass, Nc is
not a F.S.

This time relying on the engineering geology properties of Rock Mass Rating
(RMR) and qu the NHI/Federal Highway Administrations addresses came up with
the following:

NHI/FHWA Method for base

resistance in rock

Hoek and Brown have developed their own methodology for determining end
bearing resistance, but this time it relies on the Geologic Strength Index (GSI) as
the socket characterization tool. Hoek believes that GSI is a better method for
determining engineering properties of rock than is the RMR method. According to
Hoek, GSI is based upon an assessment of the lithology, structure and condition
Page 7

Jay Patel
CE 645- Rock Mechanics II
Term Paper
of discontinuity surfaces in the rock mass. What is appealing about Hoeks ideas
is that for the first time, the roughness of the rock mass (a characteristic of
mineralogy) and weathering are factors. The basic premise of Hoeks GSI theory
is shown graphically below in Figure 4.
Decreasing Surface
Quality
Decreasing
interlocking
of rock
pieces

100-
90
10-0
Fig. 4

A GSI of 100-90 would describe

a massive, widely jointed rock
with rough, fresh surfaces
whereas a GSI of 10-0 would
describe a rock that had
indistinguishable blockiness
and weathered, slickensided
surfaces.

Hoeks equations for end bearing:

S, a and mb
are Hoek
strength
parameters
based on GSI

Types of Shaft Installation

Dry Construction method
Use the dry construction method only at sites where the ground water table and
soil conditions, generally stiff to hard clays or rock above the water table, make it
Page 8

Jay Patel
CE 645- Rock Mechanics II
Term Paper
feasible to constrTeruct the shaft in a relatively dry excavation and where the sides
and bottom of the shaft are stable and may be visually inspected by the Engineer
prior to placing the concrete. In applying the dry construction method, drill the shaft
excavation, remove accumulated seepage water and loose material from the
excavation and place the shaft concrete in a relatively dry excavation Use the dry
construction method only when shaft excavations, as demonstrated in a test hole,
have 12 inches or less of seepage water accumulated over a four hour period, the
sides and bottom remain stable without detrimental caving, sloughing, or swelling
for a four hour period, and the loose material and water can be satisfactorily
removed prior to inspection and prior to placing concrete.
Wet Construction method
Use the wet construction method or the casing construction method for shafts that
do not meet the requirements for the dry construction method. Provide temporary
surface casings to aid shaft alignment and position and to prevent sloughing
unless the Engineer determines by demonstration that the surface casing is not
required.
Temporary Cased Method
Temporary casing is used to stabilize the shaft excavation, and prevent sloughing
or caving of materials, as the hole is advanced with either the Wet or Dry method
of excavation.

Construction Sequence and Construction Inspection Procedure

Construction sequence includes

Drilling concurrent with Drilling observation/ Drilling inspection

Bottom cleanliness and Shaft wall Inspection

Concrete Placement

Page 9

Jay Patel
CE 645- Rock Mechanics II
Term Paper

Concrete Mix Design

Drilled Shaft concrete should have high slump and is relatively fluid concrete that
should be placed with the tremie that would eliminate the possibility of segregation
when working with shallow ground water. A tremie is a long pipe typically 4 inches
to 12 inches in diameter; tremie pipes takes concrete from pump to the bottom of
the excavation. During concrete placement, the tremie tip elevation should be
maintained below the surface of rising concrete typically about 5 to 10 feet below
the top of rising concrete. However in dry conditions free-fall concrete placement
can be used although it is restricted by some State agencies.
The concrete mix design for drilled shafts should produce a sufficient slump
(typically between 6 and 9 inches) to ensure that lateral fluid concrete pressure will
develop against the excavation walls, the concrete must flow smoothly through the
reinforcing cage under its own buoyant weight without piling up near the tremie.
A mixture with desired workability will not result in more than a few inches of
difference in height between the top of the concrete surface near the tremie and
concrete on the outside of the reinforcement as shown in figure below. Further,
the concrete should maintain a slump no less than 4 inches (slump loss limit) for
several hours. This typically allows enough time to remove the tremie and any
temporary casing while the concrete is still fluid enough to replace the volume of
the tremie or casing and minimize suction forces (net negative lateral pressure)
during extraction. However, recent studies suggest that a final slump in the range
of 3.5 to 4 inches (or less) at the time of temporary casing extraction can
drastically reduce the side shear capacity of the shaft (Garbin, 2003).

Page 10

Jay Patel
CE 645- Rock Mechanics II
Term Paper

Key Elements For Quality Concrete In Drilled Shafts

The majority of construction problems which compromise the quality of drilled
shafts come from a failure to adequately consider one or more of the following
categories:

Workability of concrete

Maintaining workability for the duration of the pour

Compatibility of congested rebar and concrete mix

Cohesive paste to avoid segregation and bleeding

Control the sand content of the slurry and the stability of the hole during
excavation and concrete placement

Drilled Shaft Design

The author was fortunate enough to be one of several principal geotechnical
engineers involved with the design and construction inspection of Mixed-Use
Development featuring 140 apartments, 22,000 square feet of retail space, and a
Page 11

Jay Patel
CE 645- Rock Mechanics II
Term Paper
four-level underground parking garage with 376 spaces. The project included
completion of a secant-pile foundation wall (400 drilled shafts) due to site
geometry and shallow groundwater issues. Design calculations and specifications
are included in Appendix A.

Page 12

Jay Patel
CE 645- Rock Mechanics II
Term Paper

Appendix A
Drilled Shaft Design Calculations for a 22,000 square feet Mixed use
Development

Page 13

References
(1) Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods,
NHI Course 132014, FHWA-NHI-10-016, FHWA GEC 010, U.S. Dept. of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, May 2010
(2) Analysis and Design of Drilled Shaft Foundations Socketed into Rock,
prepared by Cornell University for the Electric Power Research Institute,
EPRI EL-5918, August 1988, by Authors Carter and Kulhaway
(3) Power point presentation, Determination of Unit Tip Resistance for
Drilled Shafts in Fractured Rock using the Global Rock Mass Strength,
by Truzman, Corley and Lipka (undated)
(4) Mullins, A.G. 2010, Thermal Integrity Profiling of Drilled Shafts, DFI
Journal, Dec 2010.
(5) Piscsalko, G. and Cotton, D. 2011, Non-Destructive Testing Methods for
Drilled Shaft and ACIP Piles, Proceedings from Deep Foundation Institute
36th Annual Conference.
(6) Brown, D., (2004). Zen and the Art of Drilled Shaft Construction,
GeoSupport 2004, ASCE, GSP 124, pp. 19-33.
(7) Brown, D. A. and Camp, W.M., 2002. Lateral Load Testing Program for
the cooper River Bridge, Charleston, SC Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 116, ASCE, pp. 95-109.
(8) Yao, S. and Gerwick, B. (2004). Underwater Concrete, Concrete Intl,
Feb., pp. 77-82.
(9) Federal Highway Administration, 1997. Drilled and Grouted Micropiles,
State-of-Practice Review. Report No. FHWA-RD-96-016/019, United
States Department of Transportation, July 1997. Four Volumes.
(10)

Bruce, D. A., 1992. Recent Progress in American Pin Pile

Technology, Proceedings, ASCE Conference, Grouting, Soil

Improvement, and Geosynthetics, New Orleans, Louisiana, Feb. 25-28.
(11)

NAVFAC, 1986. Soil Mechanics, Soil Dynamics, Foundations and

Earth Structures, and Deep Stabilization, and Special Geotechnical

Construction, Design Manual DM-7.02 Department of the Navy, Naval
Facility Engineering Command, Alexandria, Virginia, September.