proceedings of Ice

Civil Engineering 162 May 2009 Pages 3843 Paper 800030

doi: 10.1680/cien.2009.162.5.38 Keywords

failures; foundations

A systematic approach to forensic foundation engineering

DSc Eng, FAA, FTSE

Harry Poulos

is senior principal of Coffey Geotechnics in Australia and emeritus professor at Sydney University

Forensic geotechnical engineering is gaining increasing importance in many countries where foundation failures may lead to litigation and even criminal action. This paper sets out a framework for forensic geotechnical assessments of foundation failures, involving a systematic consideration of the various factors that may have influenced the failure. one or more credible hypotheses are then formulated and tested for consistency with the observed behaviour. A case study of a tilting office block in Indonesia is presented to illustrate the approach.

Forensic geotechnical engineering is gaining increasing importance in many countries where foundation failures may lead to litigation and even criminal action. Day1 has described various issues related to this emerging area of geotechnical practice while guidelines have been provided by Carper.2 This paper sets out a relatively simple but systematic approach for investigating the possible causes of foundation failures. Attention will be confined to foundation failures (ultimate failure conditions), although similar principles can be applied to cases involving excessive deformations of the foundation system (serviceability failures). An example is then presented to illustrate the application of the approach developed to a case in Java, Indonesia, involving failure of a piled foundation.

where Rg is ultimate geotechnical foundation resistance, or bearing capacity, and P is the sum of loads acting on the foundation. Similarly, for structural failure of the foundation to occur, the following condition will be satisfied

2.

Rs S

where Rs is ultimate structural foundation resistance, and S is the sum of loads or other structural actions, such as bending moments, acting on the foundation. Thus, in carrying out a forensic investigation of foundation failure, there are four broad possibilities n n the geotechnical resistance Rg may be inadequate to resist the applied loads the structural resistance Rs may be inadequate to resist the applied loads and structural actions the applied loads P may be larger than anticipated in design, or may contain some components not accounted for in design the applied loads or structural actions S may be larger than anticipated in design, or may contain some components not accounted for in design.

Conditions for failure

Foundation failures can occur either because of failure of the supporting soil (geotechnical failure), or failure of the material of which the foundation is made (structural failure). In terms of limit state design, for geotechnical failure to occur, the following condition will be satisfied

1.
C I V I L e n g I n e e r I n g

Rg P

A SYSTEMATIC APPRoACH To FoRENSIC FoUNDATIoN ENGINEERING

The assessment of each of the above possibilities is considered below.

Geotechnical foundation resistance

The geotechnical strength of a foundation, its bearing capacity, will depend on the following factors n n n n the geotechnical profile below the foundation the strength of the soils within the depth of influence the nature of the foundation for example whether it is a shallow or deep foundation the directions of applied loading such as the presence of lateral and moment loadings as well as vertical loads.

If relevant, has the cyclic or repeated nature of loading influenced the soil strength? In particular, when dealing with sand layers, is there the potential for liquefaction to have occurred under the loadings applied to the foundation?

Structural foundation resistance

Many foundations consist primarily of steel or concrete members. Among the possible areas of concern and relevant questions to be answered are the following. n Is the steel, or the concrete and its reinforcement, adequate to resist the structural actions within the foundation axial compressive and tensile stresses, bending moment, shear, torsion? Is there a possibility that some damage may have occurred to the foundation during installation, for example, damage to a driven pile because of over-driving or from tensile stresses induced in the pile when driving through a stiff layer into a softer layer? Is there a possibility of problems with durability of the steel or concrete in relation to the foundation environment? For example, in highly acidic soils, there is a distinct danger that some corrosion may occur in the upper parts of the foundation which are exposed both to the soil and to air. Is there a possibility that loading may have caused the concrete to crack and allow ingress of water to the steel, with subsequent corrosion?

In carrying out a forensic investigation, each of these factors should be examined to assess whether they were relevant to the failure. Geotechnical profile The geotechnical profile is generally assessed by some form of site investigation, consisting of drilling, in-situ probing, for example via cone penetration testing, and / or geophysical methods. Among the questions which may need to be asked during a forensic investigation are the following. n n Has the site been characterised appropriately? Is the geotechnical characterisation of the site consistent with the geological history of the site? Have any significant variations in the subsoil profile characteristics across the site been properly taken into account? Has the subsurface layering of the subsoil profile been considered and characterised appropriately? Have the groundwater and hydrogeological conditions been properly represented?

The question of undrained versus drained strength is a fundamental issue in soil mechanics. For sandy soils, this is generally not a concern, as the drained condition will generally be relevant unless earthquake or impact loading is to be considered. For clayey soils, both the possibility of short-term failure (using undrained strength parameters) and long-term failure (using drained strength parameters) should be considered. Unfortunately, many geotechnical engineers overlook the possibility that long-term conditions may be critical because of the traditional emphasis on undrained bearing capacity in clays which is generally the critical case. However, in problems involving earth retaining structures or excavations, the long-term drained condition may be critical. An example of the failure of a retaining structure in which the long-term condition was ignored has been described by Daniel and Olsen.3 Nature of the foundation The questions that may need to be explored in relation to the nature of a foundation include the following. n What are the foundation dimensions? These may often be unknown when dealing with old foundations for which there are no extant records. In such cases, it may be necessary to carry out drilling or geophysical investigations to estimate these dimensions. Is the as-built foundation the same as the as-designed foundation? For example, if the base of a bored pile has not been properly cleaned, and debris is left between the pile tip and the underlying soil, the actual base resistance may be less than that assumed in design. Another recent example is in relation to high-rise buildings in Hong Kong, where some bored piles were constructed as much as 20 m shorter than designed, and thus were not founded on sound rock but on completely weathered rock.4

To answer such questions, the prudent geotechnical engineer will engage the services of a structural engineer who can investigate and advise on the likelihood that the failure has been caused by deficiencies in the strength or durability of the structure itself.

applied loads
There are several forms of loading that may need to be considered in the original design and in the operation of a foundation system, and these are normally specified in the relevant loading code. In a forensic investigation, the following questions may need to be answered. n Were the loads acting on the foundation at the time of failure in excess of the design loads? Were all the relevant components of load acting on the foundation taken into account in the design? If applicable, was the dynamic nature of the loading taken into account in the design? If applicable, were the possible effects of repeated or cyclic loading, which may lead to a reduction in the strength of the supporting soil, taken into account in the design?

Soil strength There are a number of key questions with respect to soil strength that need to be asked. n What are the strength parameters of the various layers within the zone of influence of the foundation? Are short-term (undrained) or long-term (drained) conditions relevant? What were the pore water pressures within the soil; when the foundation strength was originally assessed? What were the pore pressures within the soil at the time of failure? To what extent is strain-softening likely to affect soil strength?

n n

n n

Directions of loading It is unusual for the applied loading to be purely vertical, as is sometimes assumed in foundation bearing capacity calculations. In general, there will be some components of horizontal and moment loading, both of which may reduce the bearing capacity of a foundation, especially a shallow foundation.

ISSN 0965 089 X

PRoCEEDINGS oF THE INSTITUTIoN oF CIVIL ENGINEERS CIVIL ENGINEERING, 2009, 162, No. CE5

39

PoULoS

Were there any circumstances under which soil movements could have been generated which would have then impacted on the foundation, and if so, were the resulting loads taken into account in the design? In considering the possible effects of earthquakes, was account taken of both the inertial effects the structural loads generated by the structure and the kinematic effects on the foundation, that is the loads induced by the ground movements generated by the earthquake?

Structural actions
n Structural actions include axial forces, lateral forces and shears, bending moments and torsional moments induced in the foundation, arising from the applied loadings and moments from the structure. The assessment of such structural actions will depend on a number of factors, including n n the method of calculation used the loads and moments assumed to act on

the foundation from the structure the strength of the soil supporting the foundation.

In assessing the appropriateness or otherwise of the structural actions for which the foundation was designed, a number of questions may be asked, including the following. n What was the basis of calculating the actions? It is customary for many structural engineers to make simplifying assumptions about the soil reactions acting on the foundation. For example, the soil can be represented by a Winkler or subgrade reaction model, in which the foundationsoil pressure is linearly related to the foundation deflection. Such a simplifying assumption may well lead to inaccurate, and underestimated, bending moments in a shallow footing. Were axial forces due to vertical ground movements taken into account in calculating axial stresses in the foundation, especially a pile or pier foundation? Were shear forces and bending moments due to lateral ground movements taken into account in calculating bending moments and shears in the foundation, especially for pile and pier foundations? Was the possibility of a reduction in strength of the supporting soil, such as due to potential liquefaction, taken into account?

Ground tank D S1 C Office B BH4 A 1 2 DB1 S2 3 4 5 6 7 8 S4 9 10 11 12 S3 Shopping centre BH3 S5

BH2 DB11 S7 Office building S6 13 BH1 14 15 S8 16

Newer boreholes

CPT locations

Original boreholes

Pile or pile group

Figure 1. Plan of hotel, shipping centre and office site in Indonesia showing locations of boreholes and conepenetration tests carried out prior to and after construction the office building foundations failed during uncontrolled excavation of the adjacent ground tank

SPT 0 Silt, very soft 0 40 80 0

su: kN/m2 50 100 150 0

Comparison index: Cc 1 2

Recompression Water Wet density: Preconsolidation index: Cc pressure: kPa content: % t/m3 3 0 0.3 0 100 1.2 2.0 0 400 800

10 Depth: m Silt, very soft stiff Silt and sand, hard

15

20

Sand, very dense, cemented

25

30

35 BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4 Natural W/C Approximate effective overburden pressure

Figure 2. Summary of ground engineering properties derived from boreholes

40

PRoCEEDINGS oF THE INSTITUTIoN oF CIVIL ENGINEERS CIVIL ENGINEERING, 2009, 162, No. CE5

ISSN 0965 089 X

A SYSTEMATIC APPRoACH To FoRENSIC FoUNDATIoN ENGINEERING

Testing of credible hypotheses

When the various factors have been considered, it is necessary to formulate hypotheses on the most likely or credible factors which may have contributed to the failure. When this has been done, each of the credible hypotheses should be tested by carrying out calculations or some form of laboratory or field testing to assess whether the observed failure can be demonstrated to be consistent with the calculations or tests carried out. Allowance should be made for the likely variations in ground characteristics in carrying out such calculations. It is possible that more than one hypothesis will be found to be consistent, and in that case, further hypothesis testing will need to be carried out to try and assess which of the hypotheses is most likely to have occurred.

of about 20 m, and founded in the cemented hard layers of silt, sand and silty sand. A total of 90 piles were used for the office building. Building settlements Settlements of both the hotel and office buildings were monitored during and after construction, and it appeared that no significant movements were observed until after about mid-October 1990, when the main superstructure of the building had been largely completed. At that time, an excavation sub-contractor started to make an excavation in the ground adjacent to the shopping centre for the installation of a ground tank (see Figure 1). The excavation was unsupported and was meant to have vertical sides, extending to a depth of about 4 m. Movement of the soft silty soil towards the excavation was noted, and it appears that it was not possible to complete the excavation, despite repeated attempts by the sub-contractor. It attempted to stabilise the excavation by driving bamboo poles, and then steel I-beams, but to no avail. It was also noted that some of the steel I-beams located near the attempted excavation had moved more than 1 m towards the excavation. It was clear then that the uncon-

trolled excavation had caused gross ground movements. By mid-February 1991, the average tilt of the office building floor was about 1:29, and the horizontal movement of the top of the building was about 1.2 m. Detailed settlement measurements were not available for the hotel building, but it was reported that no additional settlements had been recorded. In addition, there was no evidence of significant settlement of an apartment block on an adjoining site, although there were signs of some horizontal and vertical movements of the soil around this block towards the excavation, extending back about 7 m from the closest side of the excavation. Investigation of possible causes of failure The following possible causes of the observed settlements and subsequent failure of the office building were examined n n n n settlements due to compressible underlying layers geotechnical failure of the piles structural failure of the piles under the design loading applied loads on the foundations being in

Example of forensic investigation

The project A commercial project located on the island of Java, Indonesia, involved construction of three buildings an office block, hotel and shopping centre. Early in 1991, significant settlements started to develop in the nine-storey office block, which had been largely completed. Because of the continued increase in settlement, and the resulting tilting of the building, a decision was made to demolish the structure. Subsequently, investigations were carried out to assess the cause of the tilting, and these involved a consideration of a number of issues related to soil-structure interaction. A detailed description of this work is given by Poulos,5 and a summary of some of the main features is presented below. Figure 1 shows a plan of the project site and the locations of the boreholes and cone-penetration tests carried out prior to and after construction. Figure 2 shows the details derived from the boreholes. A layer of soft to very soft silt extended to a depth of about 11 m, underlain by stiffer silt to about 18 m. This was in turn underlain by very stiff and cemented layers of silt, silty sand and sand, in which the SPT values exceeded 60. The borelogs and SPT data obtained from the second investigation confirmed the earlier indications that the site was relatively uniform. Laboratory testing was carried out to measure the undrained shear strength profile, and the one-dimensional compressibility characteristics. In the soft upper layer, the undrained shear strength was typically 20 kPa or less, and the compression index for the normally consolidated state was between about 0.61.7. Figure 3 shows the plan of the foundation piles, which consisted of 0.5 m diameter driven cast-in-situ piles, extending to a depth

Group D13 118 D 116 117 125 119 122 123 124 162 126 127 128 114 C 111 109 B 115 113 112 110 108 106 107 120 121 131 129 130 132 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 149 150 179 181 180 182 133 153 151 160 158 156 159 159 155 154 152 175 177 176 178 164 163 161 169 171 172 173 174 170 165 166 167 168

183 B184H4 105 103 104 141 142 147 148 185 187 188 189 186 190

143 144

145

146

13

14

15

15a

16

Figure 3. Plan of the 0.5 m dia. driven cast-in-situ piles for the office building, which extended to a depth of about 20 m corner group D13 were the focus of the forensic engineering investigation

ISSN 0965 089 X

PRoCEEDINGS oF THE INSTITUTIoN oF CIVIL ENGINEERS CIVIL ENGINEERING, 2009, 162, No. CE5

41

PoULoS

excess of the design values the effects of the adjacent excavation and the consequent imposition of additional actions on the foundation.

Settlement due to compressible underlying layers The boreholes in the original investigation were taken to a depth of about 25 m and indicated strong cemented layers below the founding level of the piles, but the subsequent investigation revealed a relatively compressible layer from about 2630 m. Calculations of the likely settlement due to this layer were carried out, and the settlement was estimated to be between 1620 mm, depending on the method of analysis. The observed settlements were however of the order of 900 mm, and could not reasonably have arisen from compression of the underlying clay layer. Moreover, such settlements would demonstrate the characteristic gradual development due to consolidation, and not the relatively sudden settlement which was observed in this case. It was therefore concluded that the observed settlement and failure of the office building was not due to compression of the underlying clay layers. Geotechnical failure of the piles Two modes of failure were considered when assessing the possibility of geotechnical failure of the piles n individual failure of the piles in a group n failure of pile group D13, at the corner of the office building (see Figure 3), as a block.

In all cases, calculations were based on laboratory-measured undrained shear strength and static cone penetration test data, using the total stress approach. For a single pile, the calculated geotechnical capacity was about 3110 kN, which was somewhat greater than the values from load tests (about 2500 kN). At the time of failure, the estimated average load per pile was only about 900 kN (70% of the design load). Thus, it was considered unlikely that individual pile failure would have occurred. For group D13, the computed block capacity was 7400 kN, which was about 2.1 times the estimated load acting on the pile group at the time of failure. Thus it was considered unlikely that block failure of pile groups below the building would have occurred. Structural failure of the piles Axial and lateral loading tests carried out indicated that the performance of the test piles under the design loading appeared to be quite satisfactory. Under the design loads, the observed settlements and lateral displacements were relatively small, and there was no indication that structural distress had occurred. Design calculations indicated that the ultimate axial and moment capacity were well in excess of the maximum design values of axial load and bending moment. It was also recognised that, even if one of the piles in a group was defective, for example because of construction problems, there would be the scope for redistribution of load to the remaining piles and a relatively small increase in movements, but failure would not occur.

In view of the calculations carried out, and the experience of the contractor in constructing this type of pile, it was considered that structural failure of the piles, under the design loads, was not the cause of failure. Applied loads in excess of the design loads It was estimated that the loads on the structure at the end of construction were about 70% of the design values. There appeared to be no evidence of any overloading of the structure, nor of any occurrence of earthquakes, which could induce additional loads in the foundation piles, at the time of failure. It was concluded that overloading of the structure did not occur and was therefore not a cause of the failure. Actions on piles due to ground movements The attempted excavation for the ground tank unquestionably caused significant horizontal and vertical movements of the surrounding ground. Such movements may have had the following effects on the existing pile foundations n imposition of lateral soil pressures on the piles, and hence additional bending moments and shears imposition of additional axial shear stresses due to vertical soil movements, and a consequent increase in axial force in the pile due to negative skin friction.

It was significant to note that, prior to the excavation, there were no unusual settlements of either the office building, the hotel build-

Soil movement/surface soil movement 0 0 0.5 1.0

5000

4000 Nominal base of excavation Nominal load: kN 5 3000 Structural capacity using ultimate strengths of steel and concrete

Depth: m

10

Base of very soft layer

2000

Structural capacity using design strengths of steel and concrete Computed condition in pile

1000 15 Note: Same profile used for both horizontal and vertical movements 20 0

100

200

300

400

500

Bending moment: kNm

Figure 4. Assumed vertical and horizontal soil-movement profiles

Figure 5. Computed applied bending moment and axial load in the D13 group was significantly in excess of the structural capacity of the piles

42

PRoCEEDINGS oF THE INSTITUTIoN oF CIVIL ENGINEERS CIVIL ENGINEERING, 2009, 162, No. CE5

ISSN 0965 089 X

A SYSTEMATIC APPRoACH To FoRENSIC FoUNDATIoN ENGINEERING

ing or the piles installed for the shopping centre. After the excavation, there were gross movements of the line of piles closest to the excavation. The lateral movements were of the order of 1 m, and the vertical movements were about 200 mm. Some time after the excavation commenced, settlement of the office building commenced, this settlement being most marked nearest the excavation. The hotel building, which was considerably further away from the excavation, did not appear to have suffered noticeable settlement when settlement of the office building commenced, and continued monitoring revealed no significant movement. Thus, it was concluded that the most likely cause of failure was the additional structural actions bending moments caused by the lateral ground movements generated by the uncontrolled excavation. A more detailed examination of this hypothesis was then undertaken, as described below. Examination of most likely hypothesis The effects of lateral soil movements were analysed using the program ERCAP,6 while the effects of vertical soil movements were analysed with PIES.7 In estimating the vertical and lateral soil movements, use was made of the work of Mana and Clough8 and Clough et al.9 The assumed profile of movement, both axial and lateral, with depth is shown in Figure 4. A depth of excavation of 4 m was assumed, although it was unlikely that this depth was reached in all sections of the excavation. The vertical and lateral movements appear to become relatively small at about two to three times the excavation depth behind the face of the excavation, and this characteristic appeared to be borne out on site. The second line of piles driven for the shopping centre (about 810 m away) did not appear to have suffered significant movements, at least initially. The ultimate skin friction, end bearing and lateral pressures were assessed on the basis of the laboratory measured undrained shear strength (su) values. Values of Youngs modulus were estimated from the su values, and also from values backfigured from axial and lateral pile load test data. These values were found to be about 10001500 times su. The piles in the group D13 nearest to the uncontrolled excavation were analysed to assess the possible influence of soil movements. The estimated axial dead load on the piles was about 9001000 kN per pile at the time of the excavation, and it was assumed that the pile heads were restrained against both rotation and translation, because of their fixity to the structure via the pile cap. From the analysis of pile response to vertical soil movements, soil movements of the order of 3040 mm or more were found to develop an

additional down-drag force of about 150 kN, with the additional pile settlement being about 56 mm. In the analysis of pile response to lateral soil movements, it was found that a soil movement of 80 mm or more would cause the soil to flow past the piles, and would develop a bending moment of about 245 kNm in each pile, if the pile was assumed to be elastic. The corresponding head shear force would be 134 kN per pile, giving a total lateral force at the pile cap (for the four piles) of 536 kN. Figure 5 compares the maximum applied bending moment and axial load with the structural capacity of the pile section. It is clear that the ultimate pile capacity was exceeded by a substantial margin. The analysis indicates that the yield moment of the pile section of 160 kNm would be reached at a lateral soil movement of only about 10 mm. Since movements in excess of 100 mm were measured at a nearby pile group of the shopping centre, it was likely that the soil movements occurring at D13 would have been enough to cause the pile to yield at the pile head. The additional restraining force and bending moment developed in the piles could not have reasonably been anticipated by the foundation designers, and were not allowed for in the structural design of the piles. It was therefore postulated that the tilting of the building was triggered by structural failure of the piles, caused by ground movements resulting from the uncontrolled excavation. The case may appear to be rather straightforward and the cause of the failure quite obvious. However, it involved a legal case in which claims of alternative causes were made emphatically by one of the other parties involved. These causes were considered by the author and refuted using the process described.

and to test these for consistency with the observed behaviour. An example illustrating the application of this approach is described. In that case, it was deduced that the key feature of the failure was the bending moments induced in the piles by ground movements arising from an uncontrolled excavation nearby, that is additional actions induced in the foundation which were not considered in the design.

acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Dr Ian Johnston, Mr Patrick Wong and Ms Frances Badelow for their constructive comments on the paper.

references

Summary
This paper has set out a systematic approach to forensic geotechnical assessments of foundation failures, and involves consideration of the various factors that may have influenced the failure. These include n n n n the geotechnical resistance or strength of the foundation the structural strength of the foundation the magnitude and nature of the applied loads acting on the foundation the structural actions developed within the foundation.

1. day r. w. Forensic Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering. McGraw Hill, New york, 1999. 2. carper k. l. Forensic Engineering Learning from Failures. aSCE, New york, 1986. 3. daniel d. E. and olsen r. E. Failure of an anchored bulkhead. Journal of the Geotechnical Division, ASCE, 1982, 108, No. 10, 13181327. 4. poulos h. g. pile behavior consequences of geological and construction imperfections. 40th Terzaghi Lecture. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 2005, 131, No. 5, 538563. 5. poulos h. g. Failure of a building supported on piles. Proceedings of an International Conference Foundation Failures, Singapore, 1997, Institution of Engineers Singapore, 5366. 6. coffey partners international. ERCAP Users Manual. Coffey partners International, Sydney, australia, 1991. 7. poulos h. G. PIESUsers Manual. Centre for Geotechnical Research, University of Sydney, australia, 1989. 8. mana a. I. and clough G. W. prediction of movements for braced cuts in clay. Journal of the Geotechnical Division, ASCE, 1981, 107, No. 6, 759777. 9. clough g. W., smith e. m. and sweeney B. p. Movement control of excavation support systems by iterative design. Foundation Engineering Current Principles and Practices, Vol. 2. american Society of Civil Engineers, Reston Va, 1989, 869884.

What do you think?

If you would like to comment on this paper, please email up to 200 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk. If you would like to write a paper of 2000 to 3500 words about your own experience in this or any related area of civil engineering, the editor will be happy to provide any help or advice you need.

In each case, a series of questions which need to be addressed is set out. Having addressed these questions, it is then necessary to formulate one or more credible hypotheses

ISSN 0965 089 X

PRoCEEDINGS oF THE INSTITUTIoN oF CIVIL ENGINEERS CIVIL ENGINEERING, 2009, 162, No. CE5

43