"'

..v1

Pressure Injected Footings

Standard Specification
1. Definition
A Pressure Injected Footing (PIF)
shall consist of an expanded base
formed by ramming zero-slump
concrete into the soil with impact
pressure of up to (see Table 1) footpounds of energy per blow, and a
concrete or steel-and-concrete shaft
designed to transmit the superstructure load to the expanded base.
2. Qualifications
Installation of PIF shall be performed
by a specialty contractor, hereinafter
called the Subcontractor, whose
qualifications as regards experience
in work of this type and scope,
suitability of equipment, competent
personnel and reputation shall be
subject to the approval of the
Architect. As a minimum, the Subcontractor

shall submit

sq~j.sf~qtory..

TABLE I
Type

Pressure Injected Footing Types, Capacities and Dimensions

Drive Standard Drop- Energyper Nominaldiameter

Recommended
batch hammer blow in base
maximum tube
compacted
zero-slump
workingload O.D. volume weight I injection

Tons
50
100
200
250
300

Mini
Medium
Standard
Large
Maxi

Tons
1.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
5.0

Inehes Cu.ft.
2
12-3/4
16
5
21
5
22
5
24
5

para~le

m scope to thls pr?ject.

of approval

concreteshaft*
Inehes

Ft.lbs.
60,000
100,000
140.000
140,000
200,000

NIA
17

10-5/8,11-1/8

22
23

16,17-5/8
19

25

22

12-1/4 to 14

Uncased zero-slump concrete shafts, in which concrete is rammed out against the
soil, are conservatively assigned nominal diameter 1" greater than drive-tube. Uncased
high-slump concrete shafts are normally taken as equal in diameter to drive-tube.
Casing referred to here is corrugated steel shell, 01 no structural value. When steel
pipe is used, structural value is allowed i1 wall thickness exce~ds,Q..1'.',..resultingin
diameters somewhat less than those listed.
. ,~.. :" .',

..

".".,:.~._ _

..!.i

,,',:' . _>-'

v.'..

f-I;

evidence of succ~ssfulc~Tiple;~i9,n"ot ,;';;;A..~n{lanls:.:,: ,~,.-""';;'.:.,

';;:":"
at least t.hree PIF mst~lIatlo~s comAII work performed under this
grantmg

Nominal
diameter
cased
shaW*
Inehes

The

sh.al.I.lmp.ly no _" .'.

Seetion

shall conform

~.

::..': .: ~v'

..:,., >'.r<~

:: ,; _'[~::~~.2:Base:::At

.~ ..,

th:is.:depth, the

closure shall .1:>J3,-expe~I~~.and

an
expanded base shall 5e formed by

to generally

acp,e,pteQ,engin.e.eriJ.l,9 and~q':lstn~c-;._,.

..., r~l"Qi.rg

~fJ.r9 ~lumPij:;oncrete

into

acceptance of respons.!:>III.ty,.!::?y,the.
. . " :. ;tic;>npr~tice.
:<-."', .-,
.' ..;. .". ...,..,..thesdil~~th tfrdP-h~~~er blows
Ar~~ltect for the Subcon~ractor ~i ..: . ,', J' ,. '.0;.-';. .:,
L..',
."
:'dfivering {see Tabfe'I)'foot-pounds
ablllty to perform the wo~k. i .~> .,-, 0., " 5~.Basis of.:Contract "',
; ~i;' .":.
of.energy. Retor.~ishatl{\)e kept both

3. Guarantee

.'

,,. ,':

The Subcontractor shall accept

entire responsibility for the perfo~mance of the PIF under the workm~
loads. He shall guarantee that he wllI
repair or replace at his expen~e al.l.
structural damage caused by I.nablhty
of the PIF to support the 'l:fpr,ktnq., .'','
loads satisfactorily. Confor~ance of.:,
the Subcontractor's work wlth the
requirements of the Specification will
not release him from liability

for

unsatisfactory perf~rmance of the

PIF under the workmg loa?s. However, the Subcontractor wllI not be
liable for long-ter~ s~ttlement.
caused by consolldatlon of coheslve
soil if such soil underlies the agre~d
bearing stratum for t~e PIF; nor wllI
the guarantee apply In the event of
(i) loading in excess of or of a type.
differing from that shown in contract
plans
andwhether
specifications
or (ii)
interference
of natural
or human

J.

'99.ntr~~t

Sra,IJ~Cj!,bas~d.on.tlT~

I')ym~.. i.

6.Installatl.o~

6.1 Dnvmg: A heavy steel

dnvetube,
. of at least (see Table
. 1)outside
.
d
h I1b
d d th
t

origin, with the vertical or lateral

support provided to the PIF by the

lame er, s a e provl e .WI a

concrete, gravel or other sUltable end

The Subcontractor's guarantee

shall be covered by Product Liability
Insurance with limits of not less than
$20,000,000, placed with an insurance
company satisfactory to the Architect. Certificates attesting to such
coverage shall be submitted to the
Architect on request.

shall be driven int~ the gro~nd to

reach proper beanng matenal. At the
Subcontractor's discretion, the
driving proce~s ~ay be as.si~ted by
pre-bonng or jettlng. The dnve-~u~e
shall penetrate to such depth wlt~m
the bearing stratum as will be SUltable for forming the expanded base.

subsoil.

~qq~e: vpluf!1~pf.c!ln<;~ete

inject~d

ber of PIF shown on the drawmgs,

and of the number of blows reqUlred
satisfactorilY.i~~1alledt9.. co~f.()rlT1.. '. "toiN~9t ;~c~ (~e~,_T~l?le1)cubic-foot
tothedirffe.nsins'~hd'load'cap~cities";"battn
ofconret~.~TIie! process shall
shown on the drawings or specified
continue until the number of blows
herein. Payment for satisfactory PIF
required to inject the last batch of
will be oo;.a.fixed 1t!tT)p
swn,tlasis,
concrete satisfies the formula herew,ith no ~dus.tt;lenff<?j;,[i(ly."ariation
under. During injection of the Iast
in aepth;-6r ih vc51Url"feiof
~p~nded
batch, the height of concrete in the
bases that may be reqOired'throughdrive-tube shall not exceed 6 inches.
out the site'inQrdertb aCt\(eve the
BWH
specified'rbad'caRf:iity"at'all
PIF
L =~
X V2/3
locations.
,', .:~,:<~ .;~.':.
where L = working load in tons
When a 10ad-testJ.s,r~qu.{E:)d,
B = average number of
responsibility for thErprovisih of a
blows required to
successful test rests sol ely with the
injec\1 cubic foot of
Subcontractor. No payment will be
corcrete during inmade for any load-test that fails to
jection o; last batch
satisfy the requirements of the load
W = weight of droptest specification.
hammer in tons
H = height of drop in feet

closure

to seal off water and soil and

V = total volume 01concre t e I.n the

.
expan d ed b ase, m

cubic feet
t t (N t A)

=. ~

cons an

o ~

If.the speclfled energy reqUlrement IS not met at the depth selec~ed,

t~e Subcontractor shall, at ~o addltlonal cost to the Owner, dnve
through th~ ~xp~nded ba~e and
repeat the mject~on proced~re at
su~h depth as ":'111
enable hlm to
satlsfy the reqUlrements.

2.1/Fr-1

&RAN<I
Structural Design
6.3 Shaft: (Separateparagraphs
6.3a ,6.3b and 6.3c are provided,
coveringthe shaft proceduresin most
commonuse.Deletethose which do
not apply.)
6.3a Uncased zero-slump concrete shaft: Upon completion of the
expanded base, the concrete shaft
shall be made by compacting charges
of zero-slump concrete, not exceeding 5 cubic feet each, with drophammer blows of at least 20,000
foot-pounds, as the drive-tube is
withdrawn in short steps. During
shaft construction the tip of the
drive-tube shall at all times be below
the level of concrete within the tu be.
Concreting shaU.terminate at or
above the cut-off elevation shown on
the plans. The shaft head shall be
trimmed, after e~cavation, to remove
excess concrete and indentation
caused by the drop-hammer, providing a level surface at correct cut-off
elevation.
6.3b Uncflsed high-slump concrete shaft: Pnor to completion of the
expanded base, a full-Iength reinforc-

ing steel cage'incorporating as a

minimum four #5 longitudinal bars

(Note B) shall b~ inserted in the
drive-tube and anchored in the base.
The drive-tube shall then be filled to
ground surface with concrete of 8 to
10-inch slump and the tu be withdrawn, concrete being recharged as
needed to ensure that its final level
shall be at or above cut-off elevation.
Alternatively, the concrete may be
placed at 4 to 6-inch slump and shall
be liquefied by application of external
power vibration to the drive-tube as
it is withdrawn. No PIF shall be
installed less than 9 feet center-tocenter from a completed high-slump
shaft until 24 hours have elapsed.
6.3c Cased shaft: Upon completion of the expanded base, a steel
shell or pipe of (see Table 1)diameter
shall be inserted in the drive-tube,
shall besecurely connected to the
expanded base and shall be sealed
with a concrete plug so as to exclude
water and soil. The drive-tube shall
then be withdrawn. Any annular
space remaining around the shell or
pipe shall be filled with sand to
assure lateral support. The shell or
pipe shall be filled, to the cut-off
elevation shown on the plans, with
concrete 01 4 to 6-inch slump. Prior
to filling with concrete all shafts shall

be inspected for cleanliness and

shape, and water or other foreign
material removed to the approval of
the Architect. Shell or pipe that is
excessively distorted shall be
replaced at noadditional cost to the
Owner. No PIFs shall be installed less
than 9 feet center-to-center from a
freshly-filled cased shaft until 24
hours have elapsed.
7. Materials
Concrete for PIF shall be proportioned to aUain
p.s.i
strength at 28 days, or
times
the maximum working stress, whichever is less.
Steel shell or pipe for cased shafts
shall be of sufficient thickness and
strength to resist all soil or hydrostatic pressures to which it may be
exposed prior to filling with concrete.
Pipe material, if considered as contributing structural value to the shaft,
shall conform to ASTM Sp~cification
A-252.
Reinforcing steel shall conform to
ASTM Specification A-615
grade_.
8. Tolerances
Pressure Injected Footings in clusters
shall be installed within 3 inches of
plan position. Single PIF shall be
installed with 1-1/2 inches of plan
positiol). Variation from the plumb or
specified baUer shall not exceed
5 per cent.
9. Records
A complete and accurate record of
all Pressure Injected Footings shall
be maintained by the Subcontractor.
The record shall show reference
number, type, diameter and length of
shaft, depth at which expanded base
was formed, volume per batch and
total volume of concrete in base, and
number and magnitude of blows
required to inject the last batch of
base concrete.

Note A: K is normally assigned a value

developed from experience in similar
soils (see Table 11,page 7). Alternatively,
K may be evaluated by load test on any
particular site (see Dynamic Formula
discussion, page 7).
Note B: This Standard Specification
addresses PIF designed for compression
load only. Nominal reinforcing is an
integral part of the uncased high-slump
shaft installation procedure. rt is assigned
no structural value in a corTipression PIF
and is thus not subject to minimum-area
Code requirements.

The shaft of a PIF can be constructed

in a variety of ways. It can be
made with uncased zero-slump
concrete compacted by drop-hammer, with uncased high-slump
concrete, with a concrete-filled steel
shell, with a concrete-filled steel
pipe, with a precast concrete member, or with a steel H-section. Space
limitations restrict this discussion
to only the most frequently used
types which are: thecompacted
zero-slump, plain or reinforced,
uncased concrete shaft and the steel
shell filled with plain or reinforced
concrete, referred to hereafter as
the cased shaft.
Choice 01 Type 01 Shalt
Which type of shaft should be used?
This question is not easy to answer
since so many variables are involved. First, however, the type of
loading must be considered. PIFs
can be designed to carry compression load, tension load, shear load,
or some combination of all three.
For compression loading, any of
t~e types of shafts mentioned can
be used. If the loads are such that
one PIF can be used to support a
column, then compacted zero-slump
concrete shafts should normally be
selected because the concrete is
rammed out of the drive-tube against
the surrounding soil, providing
significant lateral support to the
shaft. Because of this unique feature,
many codes and engineering practice
in general recognize that a single
PIF with a shaft made in this manner
can be used to support a column
without any lateral bracing.
Another factor in the selection of
PIF type is length. As a rule, when
PIFs are longer than 30 feet, cased
shafts are more economical than
compacted concrete shafts. Finally,
the decision may be dictated by the
soil environment. A deep.deposit of
soft organic material, for example,
would rule out the compactedconcrete method which requires
beUer lateral resistance to the compacting blows than suchsoil offers;
here the cased shaft would be
chosen, presenting the further advantage that its method of installation minimizesnegative friction.

:l

.wAN<1Pressure Injected Footings

Structural Design
If tension loading

is present,

then

the most frequently used shaft is the

uncased compacted zero-slump
concrete type, with a steel reinforcing cage extending into the base of
the PIF. The uncased high-slump
concrete procedure may be used
where depth and poor soil con ditions so indicate. In special situations, tension PIF can be provided
with cased shafts.
When shear loading is present,
the most effective shaft to use is
again the compacted zero-slump
concrete type because the procedure employed to make these shafts
ensures the development of maximum lateral soil pressures. For
significant shear, the upper part of
the shaft is reinforced. Shafts made
in this fashion have safely been
designed for shear loads of 40 kips.
Alternatively, of course, PIFs can be
installed on a batter to resist the
shear loads. However, a design
emp!oying battered PIFs is usually
more costly than a solution using
PIFs with plumb reinforced shafts.

DESIGN FOR COMPRESSION LOAD

AII codes permit piles to bedesigned as short columns
except for situations where the piles extend above
ground surface or where the surrounding upper soils
are so fluid as to offer no lateral support to the piles.
Pressure Injected Footings (PIFs) are rarely used in such
situations and therefore this discussion will be concerned
with the design of PIFs as short columns only.
For the case of compression loading, structural considerations do not mandate steel reinforcement. It is
recommended that ACI Standard 322-72, "Building Code
Requirements for Structural Plain Concrete" be followed.
The strength design (ultimate strength) method is preferred, in keeping with ACI Standard 318-77. An example
follows:
a) Standard

given:

uncased

compacted

concrete

shaft:

Required service or working load of

PIF = 400 kips
Average load factor = 1.55
Shaft diameter = 22 inches
Ac = 380 sq. ins.
From code, permissible factored
stress = 0.60 fe'

Therefore: 1.55 X 400,000 = 0.60fe'

380

fe'= 1.55X 400,000 = 2720psi

380 X 0.60
Many Codes still mandate worki.ng stress design for
piles loaded in compression, the maximum permissible
working stress (fe) being some percentage of the ultimate
strength (fe') of the concrete at 28 days.
BOCA and the Southern Building Code, for example,
permit fe in the range of 0.33 fe' to 0.40 fe', depending on
thickness of casing, etc.
A working stress approach to the above example results in:
400,000 = 0.33 fe' X 380
fe' = 3,160 p.s.i.
b) Standard cased shaft:
Strength design
Required working load of PIF = 400 kips
Average load factor = 1.55
O.D. of corrugated steel shaft casing* = 175/0inches
Ae = 243 sq. ins-.
From code, permissible factored stress = 0.60 fe'
Therefore,

1.55 X 400,000 - O60 f '

243

f'e = 4252 psi

Alternatively, using Working stress design
400,000 = 0.33 fe' X 243
fe' = 4,988 psi
* No structural value assigned-to steel shell.

2.1/Fr-1

DESIGN FOR TENSION LOAD

The PIF is a highly efficient tension unit because of its
geometry. But to capitalize on the obviously high
pull-out resistance of the expanded base, the PIF shaft
must be sufficiently strong structurally to transfer the
pull-out load to the base. In designing the shaft for a
tension load, the concrete is ignored and the area of
steel reinforcing bars required is computed.
For example:
'Required tension load = 120 kips per PIF
Use grade60 steel, f1 = 60,000 p.s.i.
Average load factor = 1.55
Strength reduction factor

= 0.90 (ACI 318-77)

1.55 x 120,000 = 0.90 x 60,000 x A.

A. = 3.44.sq. ins.
Use 6 #7 bars = 3.60 sq. ins.

DESIGN FOR SHEAR LOAD

Although battered PIFs can be inst~lIed to carry shear
load axially, the preferred (because less costly) method
is to design the PIF shaft to carry the shear load in
bending. Both the structural and the geotechnical engineering disciplines are needed to do so. Numerous
studies have been made regarding the interaction of soil
and lateral deflection of a pile. Lyman C. Reese and
Hudson Matlock have published design criteria for this
problem in a paper entitled "Non-Dimensional Solutions
for Laterally Loaded Piles with Soil Modulus Assumed
Proportional to Depth". Experience with this analysis is
excellent and its use is recommended. The .following
design procedure is a simplification of the solution presented by Reese and Matlock:
Mm = maximum bending-moment

V = 20 kips
PIF diameter = 22 inches, fixed head condition
fe' = 4000 psi
f1 = 60,000 psi

E = 57,000 X 4000 = 3,605,000 psi

soil is a medium dense sand below water
table, n = 30
MM

= AxVx

(~)

l/S

= 1.00 x 20 x (3,605X ~;85 x 114) l/S

= 1346 in-kips

= shear applied to PIF at ground surface

E
I

= modulus of elasticity of concrete in psi

= moment of inertia of PIF cross-section in
inches4

n
A

= modulus of subgrade reaction of soil in pci

= dimensionless constant

Top '01 PIF Condition

Fixed Head
Free Head

Given: minimum compression load while maximum

shear load acts = 200 kips

load factor on shear force = 1.7

and on compression force = 1.4

A
1]50
0.78

Soil Condition
'Typical n Values
medium dense sand. above water table
50
dense sand above water table
100
30
medium dense sand below water table
dense sand below water table
60
4
soft clay
13
mediumclay
25
hard clay
This table does not inelude loose sand, beeause sueh material
wlll be densified by the PIF installation proeess.

eccentricity = e = 1.7 x 1346 = 8.2 inches

1.4 x 200
From CRSI Handbook (1978), 1% steel would be sufficienl. Thus a cage of 6-#7 bars would be adequate. For
shear loads, unless a separate computation is made, the
cage should have a length of 60% of the PIF length but
not less than 10 feet nor more than 25 feel. Below the
bottom of the cage, the shaft must be checked to see
that the maximum comp.ression load can be carried by
the plain concrete.

..v1

Pressure Injected Footings

Bearing Capacity
Under this heading the transfer of
load from the expanded PIF base to
the soil is examined. The problem
can be approached from the dynamic
or the static viewpoint and preferably
from both. In practice, substantially
all PIF installations are controlled in
the field by a dynamic formula, the
key clause in the Specification; a
static analysis is employed to ensure
that the overall concept is geotechnically sound. Note that the
dynamic approach assumes pure

end-bearing, the normal interpretation applied to the PIF. If it is desired

to consider shaft friction it must be
computed statically.
Dynamic Formula: In the manufacture of the expanded base of a PIF,
the bearing capacity of the soil must
be overcome by the dynamic energy
used to ram zero-slump concrete
into the soil. The energy required is
thus a measure of the ultimate capacity of the soil; in fact both logic
and experience indicate that they

GAOI,IHD

--.

SOR'ACE\

are proportional to each other. The

capacity of the foundation unit is
also, of course, a function of the size
of the bearing area. These variables
are brought together in the simple,
rational and workable formula .

L = S H X Y2/3
-in which the constant K provides
empirically for such other variables
as type of soil, energy losses, etc.
Derivation of the formula is presented
below.

Proof
Lu

energy = force x distance

from Figure 1: dE = F x dr
"

dE =

F x dr =

rl

r2

Pll X 4 'Ir r2 x dr

rl

(: 'lrr23-;

E=pu

Pu

r2

'lrr13)

= Pu (V'2 - V'l)
but E = e x W x H x n
then p. (V'2
(1) niEORETICAL

DYNAMIC

(2)ACTUAL

OYNAMIC CO~ITION

(3) ACTUAL

STATIC

V'l) = e x W x H x n

CONDITION

CONDI1lON

and Pu= e x W x H x \1,2-

FIGURE1

Smce '
V

Symbols
lu = ultimate bearing capacity of PIF base
Lw = working load allowed (service load) on base
Pu = ultimate unit bearing capacity of soil surrounding
the base
W

= weight

s,
- v ,1 =

then Pu= e x W x H x S'

Lu = PII X 'Ir r2

= e x W x H x S' X 'Ir r2

3fE
but'lr r2 = .v 16

of drop-hammer

x (V')2/3

H = height through which drop-hammer falls

y = bulk volume of concrete in base
S = number of blows of weight W falling distance H that
is needed to ram a unit volume ot bulk concrete
into the base
4
y' = sameas Y but for compacted concrete ="3 'Ir r
S' = same as Sbut for compacted concrete
e = fraction of the energy of the blow, W x H, available
to ram the concrete into the soil
r

= radius of the base

A, = surface

area of the base

'Ir r2

S = factor of safety = lu ...;.--lw

K = a dimensionless constant
F = a force
n = number of blows of W x H energy
E = energy
6

V' 1

3rfi.
16 x (V')2/3

then lu = e x W x H x s' X.v

since Y'':::..0.9Y
and B' :::::.B ...;.0.9
and Lw = LlI ...;.S
then Lw = e x (0.9)2/3 xo:gx
1
S

or Lw=

~ 169;

x W x H x Sx V2/3

W x H x S X Y2f3
--

K in the formula can be assigned a value selected from

Table 1I._Thevalues in the table have been determined
from a study of numerous load-tests. On average, the
use of these values wiU yield a factor of safety of about
3 againstshear failure of the soil supporting the PIF base.

2.1/Fr-1

~I
The values of K are different for a compacted concrete
shaft than for a cased shaft. When a compacted concrete
shaft is made, the concrete in the shaft is rammed
against the surrounding soil creating major lateral pressures. When a cased shaft is made, these lateral pressures
are virtually absent. The incipient failure zone in the soil
surrounding the base arches back to the shaft of the PIF
and the presence or absence of the lateral pressures
from the shaft on this failure zone significantly affects
the resisting shear stress es and strains developed on the
failure plane. The greater the lateral pressure, the greater
is the resisting shear and the lesser the resulting strain.
Lower values of K for PIFs with compacted concrete
shafts reflect this phenomenon.

On major projects, a load-test is a common requirement. The value of K should lhen, of course, be determined for each site from its own load-test. For example,
suppose the test proves a service load of 400 kips for
the PIF. Suppose also that the test data shows that the
total volume of bulk concrete in the base of the test PIF
is 20 cf and that 45 blows of a 7000 lb. drop hammer
falling 20 feet were required to ram the last 5 cf of bulk
concrete into the base.
From the above data:
Lw = 400 kips
W = 7 kips
H = 20 feet
45
B = 5" = 9 blows average per cu. ft. for
last 5 cu. ft.
and V = 20 cf

T ABLE 11

SoilDescription
gravel
medium
to coarsesand
fineto mediumsand
coarsesand
medium
sand
finesand
veryfinesand
siltymedium
to coarsesand
siltyfineto medium
sand
siltyfinesand

Recommended
K
K
withCompactedRecommended
Concrete
Shaft withCased
Shaft
9
12
11
14
14
18
18
23
22
28
27
35
32
40
14
.18
17
22
24
30

18.
residualso!!common
to Southeast
U.S. 600but1:
N
finesandwith"limerock"fragments
18
and/orshells
20
glacialtill, granularmatrix
30
glacialtill, claymatrix
bedrock
10

1800
N but<j:50.

number of blows from Standard Penetration Test

Substituting the above data into the formula, K can be

computed:
B x W x H X V2/3
K
Lw
9 x 7 x 20 X 202/3
=
400
=23.3
Therefore,

formula

for all PIFs on this job is:

B x W x H X V2/3
23.3

If, as is usually the case, all PIFs are to be installed to the

same service load of 400 kips and the same W and H
are to be used throughout the job,

25
27
40
10

the general

then
and

B x 7 x 20 X V2/3
23.3
B x V2/3 = 66.6
400

Using this relationship, a table of minimum B values can

be determined for the job:
Vin cf
5(PIug)
10
15
20
25
cte.

Min.Brequiredpercf
Notapplicable
15
11
9
8

Min.Brequiredfor last5cf
Notapplicable
75
55
45
40

During the course of the work the job inspector must

satisfy himself that W and H remain the same, that the
size of the bucket is not changed, and that for the various sizes of bases installed, the corresponding minimum
required blows are achieved. For example, if after ramming 15 cf into the base, the blow count on the last 5 cf
is less than 55, then another 5 cf must be added. If that
blow count does not exceed 45, then still another 5 cf
must be added, and so on.
Tbe nomograph following (Figure 2) is a general
solution of the formula. It can be easily used to determine
K from the load-test and to determine the required B
values for given V values.
7
I\_

LEGEND

B = NUMBER OF BLOWS TO INJECT LAST UNIT OF VOLUME

V = TOTAL BULK VOLUME OF BASE CONCRETE
W.H = WEIGHT OF DROP HAMMER X HEIGHT OF FALLo
Lw = WORKING LOAD ALLOWED (SERVICE
K= DIMENSIONLESS
CONSTANT.

B V 2/3
o

400 -:1

LOAD) ON BASE

Lw

B W H . V 2/3
o

NOTE: ONLY USE COMBINATIONS OF GRAPHS

WITHTHESAMESYMBOLS
(.

.w..:J:L
5-,

K. Lw

Lw

r- 2,000
50

300 -1

10

200

e
;:

u..

"C
el)

()

-!

'-eel)

5
'O

el)

c:
c:

...
Q.

Q)
:::1

8
9
10

'u
ea
>-

D.

ea
O

4,000

Q) CJ

m :

50

300

6,000

70
50

80

30

60

1-20

400
500
600

70
100

8,000

15

100

90

110,000

150

70

20

5,000

l:- 1,000

t=....

200j
300

50

10

",000

IO

1,500

6
20,000

40 -j

1-5

4
15

QC'\I

ea :)

125

, r30 25

['00200

e w

.C a:

40

-V

0
0

20

150

C-5O

3,000

30

o
o

JL
b-40

250
fn
C)

. .)

20.

2J

30,000

301
25

..

20J

..

'--3
40,000

IX)

2.1/Fr-1

~I
Static Analysis (Method 1)

Static

This method utilizes standard bearing capacity theory

adapted to deep circular footings. Bearing capacity
factors have been developed by several authorities to
simplify the complex equations. Application to PIF, however, is complicated by the necessity of allowing for the
effects of compaction on the soil, especially the

This much simpler method is used in cases where

"presumptive bearing capacities" are mandated by
applicable building codeso It follows procedures presented in the Massachusetts Code, New York Code and
National Building Code. It can be helpful in analyzing
situations where weaker soil such as soft clay underlies
the PIF bearing stratum.
This approach ignores the volume of concrete injected in the expanded base. It considers that after the
base has been "forged" to the specified number of highenergy blows per unit of voJume, the material within the
frustrum of a cone, extending from bottom of shaft to 6
feet below, has been so compacted as to be incompressibJe. In effect, a composite footing 6 feet deep has
been created.
It is assumed that the soil at the 6 ft. level is unchanged, a very conservative assumption since it is
known that in granular soil compaction extends 3 to 6
base diameters below the base. 10 feet is a more realistic
and adequately conservative depth. The Massachusetts
Code indeed recognizes this fact by stating in its seismic
section that "For Pressure Injected Footings, the 10 foot
thickness of soil immediately below the bottom of the
drive shaft shall not be considered subject to
liquefaction. "
Nevertheless, having referred to the above Codes,
it is proper that the example hereunder follow their
6-foot ruJe:

increase in friction angle rf> to which all bearing capacity

equations are extremely sensitive. A simple example
follows:
GROUND SURFACE

...
...J
Q.

'"
..
x

....
;!;
o
...

'"
::>
'"
'"
..
o!!!

---'

LTO=

BEARING STRATUM

Analysis

(Method

2)

GROUND SURFACE

Assume VoJume of expanded base = 10 ft.3

Conservatively, assume true sphere .'.

Dlameter
=
.

-:;-6 x 10 = 2.67'

Effective bearing area =

7r

x 4.222/4 = 14 ft.2

Assume depth to bearing plane = 15'

Conservatively,

assume water at surface

:.

consider

only

submerged weight of soil

Effective overburden pressure
p = 15 x (110-62.4) = 713 psf
Friction angle of soil after forming base = 40., due to
compactive effect of base
Bearing capacity factor Nq = 140 (reference below)

.9
-..

Ultimate bearing capacity = Nq x A x p

= 140 x 14 x 713 lbs.
= 1396 kips
Proposed maximum working (oad = 400 kips
Factor of safety against shear failure = ~30906
= 3.5

Note: A factor of safety of 3 is recommendedwith this analysis.

Reference:"Load bearing Capacity and Deformationof Piled
Foundations," by V. Berezantzev,V. Kristoforov, and V. Golubkov,
Proceedings5th International Conferenceon S.M. and F.E.,
Paris, 1961.
For an adaptation of general bearing capacity theory specifically
to PIF,the reader is referred to "Compaction of Sandsand
Bearing Capacity of Piles" by G. G. Meyerhof,Proceedings
ASCE,1959, Vol. 85, No. SM6.

Given: Bearing area =

'TTx 92/4.= 63.5 ft.2

"Presumptive bearing capacity" for medium sand
at this depth = 8 KSF by Code :. Allowable
(oad on single PIF = 63.5 x 8
= 508 kips

Note: Factors of safety against shear failure are already

provided for in code-ordained "presumptive bearing capacities".
9

~I

Pressure Injected Footings

BearingCapacity-continued
Pressure Injected Footings in Tension
The geometry of the PIF makes it obviously advantageous
as an uplift or tension unit. Determination of ultimate uplift
resistance is a complex problem in soil mechanics: one
simplified approach, iIIustrated below, equates ultimate
capacity to the weight of the cone of soil above the base,
the sides of the cone assumed to be at 30 to the
vertical in granular material.
FINISHED FLOOR
AREA AT TH IS LEVEL

= A2
TOP OF CAP

MISCELLANEOU8 FILL
BOTTOM OF CAP
~

DESIGN G.W.L.

80FT CLAY
REINFORCING CAGE

SAND

"SUBI

HI

RE1NFORCING CAGE
ANCHORED IN BASE

Groups ofPIF's are similarly analyzed but due to overlapping of "cones" the efficiency is reduced. Normally
it is assumed that the PIFs mobilize the entire mass of
soil within the group, plus that within the pyramidal
configuration outside the group.
The above method, while simplistic, is consorvative,
especially at relatively shallow depths. A factor of safety
of 1.5 is usually applied to establish working tension load.
10

At greater depths, it is advisableto examine shear

failure around the perimeter of the PIF or group of PIFs.
Shear strength values are established for the various
strata and applied to the corresponding surface of the
vertical cylinder or prism mobilized by the base or bases.
A suitable factor of safety is then taken to arrive at
design capacity.

2.1/Fr-1

..vK1
Normal
Clearance Requirements of
Franki Driving Rig

A=3'-0"
8=6'-0"
C=30'-0"

~~

.wAN<1

Pressure Injected Footings

Reinforcing
Pressure Injected Footings are never
reinforced where compression loads
only are to be resisted, which is the
normal case. Reinforcing can,
however, be provided where moment,
shear or tension conditions so
dictate.
In cased-shaft PIFs the shaft
concrete is placed at 4 to 6~inch
slump after the driving machine has
left. Thus, if it is desired to reinforce
the shaft, the steel cage can be
designed and detailed in the
standard manner. Bends or hooks at
the top must be avoided where cutoff elevation is well below working
grade.
Cased shafts are usually reinforced
for shear only. Their use for tension
resistance is confined to special
situations, beyond the scope of this
note.
Significant moment, shear or
tension usually demand the uncased
compacted zero-slump concrete
shaft PIF. For this type of shaft, the
cage design must satisfy certain
requi rements.
For tension PIFs, the reinforcing
cage is placed inside the drive-tube
before the base is completed so that
the cage will be anchored in the
base. For PIFs required to resst
shear loads but not tension loads,
the cage is placed inside the drivetube at the appropriate depth below
the top of the PIF as the shaft is
being made. In both cases, the zeroslump concrete is rammed out of the
end of the drive-tube through the
cage and against the surrounding
soil. In order for the concrete to be
rammed out through the cage
effectively, the space between the
individuallongitudinal
reinforcing
bars and the encircling 114inch
diameter spiral binding must not be
so small as to impede the ejection
of the concrete. From experience
over many years, it has been learned
what this limit is. The outside of the
spiral (marked y on Figure 1) should
be about 112inch less than the inside
diameter of the drive-tube; pitch of
the spiral binding should be 6 to 8
inches. The number and size of the
bars have limits which are dictated
by the size of the drive-tube.as well
as by stress considerations. In
general, however, the number of
longitudinal bars should not be less
than 5 nor more than 8 and the size
of the bars should not be smaller
than #5 nor greater than #9. Franki
12

REINFORCING BAR
1/4"

SPIRAL TIE

PLAN

WRAP TlE 2 TO 3 TI MES

TOP OF P.I.F.

ORIVE
TUBE
0.0.

1/4"

~ SPIRAL

6"-8"

PITCH

TIE

16"

13.5"

20.5"

"'7.5"

21"

18.5"

22"

19.5"

24"

20.5"

1--

:5
en
o

1--,
:J:
1-<!)
Z
LLI

-1

REINFORCING BAR

WRAP TIE 2 TO 3 TIMES

SECTION

DETAlL

OF REINFORCING

should be consulted in the design

stage as to proper combination of
cage size and drive-tube.
The bars at the top of the cage
must be straight; they cannot be
hooked or bent out or in because
the cage must be inserted in the
drive tube and the drop-hammer
must be inserted in the cage. Finally,
the bars at the bottom of thecage
should be bent only if it is intended
to anchor the cage in the base of
the PIF.

CAGE

Extreme cases, where the number

of longitudinal bars needed exceeds
8, require the uncased high-slump
concrete shaft procedure, in which
the fluidity of the concrete allows
bars to be spaced as in normal
reinforced concrete. This shaft
procedure is usually more expensive,
unless it is also indicated by other
considerations, such as depth or
soil conditions.

2.1/Fr-1

..v1
Typical Details at Head of
Single Pressure Injected Footing

I~ --:~\

~(\tH

~/t
I

::

" ,~

'-

PLAN

~/

PLAN

ANCHOR

ANCHOR

BOLTS

BOLTS
DOWELS

GRADE BEAM
POURED MONO'LlTHIC WITH
PILASTER

DOWELS

DOWELS
.

EXT E RIO R

COLU

MN

~NTERIOR

'GRADE' BEAM

COL.UMN

;TI:;:"!:...o

..1

:1]:1

DOWELS

GRADE BEAM
WITH COLUMN

OVER

13