SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT - pinfoundations.com · acceptance criteria. ... embedded ½-inch diameter anchor bolt, 4 steel bearing pins, and 4 pin end caps. The pre-cast ... PRODUCT

SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to thank the Port of Camas/Washougal and the Port Executive Director, Sheldon Tyler, and his staff for making the test locations available to us. Their generous support was a significant contribution to the success of this project.

Port of Camas-Washougal 24 South A Street

Washougal, Washington 98671

PSI Report No. 704-25035-1 November 28, 2006 Page 2 of 21

SCOPE OF SERVICES

PSI’s scope of services included a number of tasks related to assisting PFI with applying for an Evaluation Report for its proprietary Pier Foundation Assembly. These tasks were completed under the direction and with the assistance of your geotechnical consultant, Mr. Troy Hull, P.E., G.E. of Chinook Geotechnical, 34 State Street, Lyle, Washington 98635. The scope of services included the following:

Locate and qualify two load test sites. Site qualification included performing 4 soil test borings, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analyses to confirm that the 2 sites met the requirements of Section 4.3.1 of AC336.

Sample and test the fresh concrete used to cast the concrete piers. Testing included air content and compression testing.

Perform axial compressive load tests on Pier Foundation Assemblies in accordance with ASTM D1143 and AC336.

Assist in developing a Quality Manual. Provide a final typed report summarizing the site qualification and Pier Foundation

Assembly load test results.

PSI’s Portland, Oregon office was approved to conduct the load testing services in accordance with ASTM D1143 by International Accreditation Service, Inc. (IAS) on April 18, 2006. See the accreditation certificate attached in Appendix M.

Our report format will address the applicable sections of ACC336 in the order they appear in the acceptance criteria.


AC336 SECTION 2.1.1 – PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

Each Pier Foundation Assembly is comprised of one pre-cast concrete pier with a single embedded ½-inch diameter anchor bolt, 4 steel bearing pins, and 4 pin end caps. The pre-cast concrete pier is manufactured by PFI, in its PinCast division. The steel bearing pins are purchased by PFI, or individual end users, from commodity pipe suppliers which in turn purchase this commodity produced under ASTM guidelines by steel mills worldwide. The embedded anchor bolts are also a standard commodity manufactured worldwide under ASTM guidelines, and purchased by PFI. The Pin end caps are manufactured by Tool Gauge and Machine Works Inc., Plastic Molded Products of Tacoma, Washington, using dies designed and approved by PFI. See Appendix B for a dimensioned drawing, specifications, and concrete mix design for the Pier Foundation Assembly, and a general product brochure.

AC336 SECTION 2.1.2 – INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS

The Pier Foundation Assembly is installed by placing the standard pre-cast concrete pier on the ground at the support location, and driving a series of 4 steel bearing pins at approximately a 40 degree angle from vertical through the assembly into the underlying ground. Detailed instructions for the installation of the Pier Foundation Assembly are presented in Appendix N attached to this report.

AC336 SECTION 2.1.3 – PACKAGING AND IDENTIFICATION

As stated in the Quality System Manual attached, each lot of product manufactured on a specific date will be marked with a pallet label showing the patent numbers, piece count per pallet, the ICC-ES evaluation report number, the date manufactured and product name which can be referenced on an order and shipping manifest, and the phrase “For use with One and Two Family Dwelling Construction Only.” These markings will be printed on the label attached to each pallet of product. Manufactured concrete products shall be wrapped on pallets, which are identified as above for shipment.

AC336 SECTION 2.2 – TESTING LABORATORIES

As required, PSI complies with Section 2.0 of the ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria for Test Reports (AC85) and Section 4.2 of the ICC-ES Rules of Procedure for Evaluation Reports.

AC336 SECTION 2.3 – TEST REPORTS

The test reports from PSI and Bodycote incorporated as part of this report (see Appendices I, J, K, O and P) comply with AC85.


AC336 SECTION 2.4 – PRODUCT SAMPLING

PSI’s sampling of the Pier Foundation Assemblies for tests conducted in accordance with AC336 complied with Section 3.1 of AC85.

AC336 SECTION 3.1.1 – CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

QUALIFICATION TESTING FOR AC 336

This section applies to the concrete piers that were used for load testing in accordance with AC 336. Refer to Section 4.3.1 of this report for discussion on piers manufactured for load tests.

PRODUCTION PIER TESTING

This section applies to the manufacturing of concrete piers available for distribution. Design strength at 28 days must be a minimum 3500 psi. For 7 day breaks, the target concrete compressive strength shall be 3200 psi. See ASTM C31/C 31M-03, Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field, and ASTM C 39-99, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. A minimum of 6 sample test cylinders shall be prepared for each week of production and delivered to an approved laboratory for testing.

AC336 SECTION 3.1.2 – CONCRETE AIR ENTRAINMENT

The concrete used to fabricate the load test assemblies was tested in accordance with Section 4.2 (i.e. volumetric test in accordance with ASTM C173) to verify the total air content (percent by volume of concrete) was not less than 5 percent nor more than 7 percent. As shown in Appendix J, the air content for the precast concrete piers included in the load testing program ranged from 5.10 to 6.10 percent, which was within the acceptable range.

AC336 SECTION 3.3.1 – STEEL BEARING PINS, GENERAL

The steel bearing pins were 1-inch nominal diameter, schedule 40, galvanized steel pipe (1.315-inch actual outside diameter). The pipe wall thickness was 0.133 inches with a tolerance of +/- 1 percent. Each pin had a length of 36 inches +/- ½ inch. The pin corrosion resistance coating consisted of hot dip galvanizing in accordance with ASTM A53-02.


AC336 SECTION 3.3.2 – STEEL BEARING PIN PROPERTIES

The steel bearing pins consisted of Type E, Grade A (electric-resistance-welded), galvanized steel pipe complying with ASTM A53-02. See mill test report attached in Appendix Q.

AC336 SECTION 3.4.1 – PRECAST ANCHOR BOLT, GENERAL

The precast steel anchor bolts in the top of each concrete pier were ½ inch in diameter (minimum requirement of AC336 is ½ inch).

AC336 SECTION 3.4.2 – PRECAST ANCHOR BOLT PROPERTIES

See PSI’s test report attached as Appendix O.

AC336 SECTION 3.4.3 – PRECAST ANCHOR BOLT CORROSION RESISTANCE

See Bodycote’s test report in accordance with Factory Mutual Research Standard 4470 attached as Appendix P.

AC336 SECTION 3.5 – PIER FOUNDATION ASSEMBLY

Refer to Section 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 below for load test procedure and detailed presentation of results. As required, the test results did demonstrate that vertical settlement of Pier Foundation Assemblies with 3-foot long steel bearing pins installed in both 1,500 and 2,000 psf soil (in accordance with IRC Table R401.4.1) was less than 0.5 inches. For Site #1, we were able to consider the average of the 3 test results—0.220 inches of settlement. For Site #2, because one of the load test results was outside of the 15 percent deviation from the average of the 3 tests, we had to use the most conservative test result—0.346 inches of settlement. The average settlement for the 1,500 psf (2,700 pounds times 1.8 equivalent square feet) and 2,000 psf (3,600 times 1.8 equivalent square feet) sites was 0.220 and 0.346 inches, respectively (see Table 3 in Section 4.3.2)

AC336 SECTION 4.1 – CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

Concrete test cylinders specific to the Pier load testing program were molded by PSI and cured in accordance with Section 9.2 of ASTM C31, except that they were cured in the same temperature and moisture environment as the concrete piers to be vertical load tested (reference Section 4.3.1 below). The concrete cylinders were tested by PSI in accordance with


ASTM C39. Test results are found in the Compressive Strength Test Reports attached in Appendix J.

AC336 SECTION 4.2 – AIR ENTRAINMENT

The total air content (percent by volume of concrete) was determined by PSI in accordance with ASTM C173. Test results are reported in the Compressive Strength Test Reports attached in Appendix J.

AC336 SECTION 4.3.1 – VERTICAL LOAD BEARING TEST, GENERAL

CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TESTING

As required, at least 4 concrete compression tests were conducted by PSI on 3 inch by 6 inch cylinder samples cast in accordance with ASTM C39 from the same batch as the Pier Foundation Assembly precast concrete block to be load tested. The test cylinders were cured for 28 days, with a five-day allowable minus tolerance, in accordance with Section 9.3 of ASTM C31, in the same temperature and moisture environment as the concrete piers to be tested. The curing process for these concrete samples is the same that will be conducted on samples made when production piers are cast.

Photo 1: Concrete test piers and cylinders Photo 2: Concrete piers, cylinders curing

At least two samples were tested in the 24-hour period immediately preceding the load test and at least two more samples were tested in the 24-hour period immediately after the completion of the load test. The average of the concrete cylinders tested prior to the Pier Foundation


Assembly load test constituted one test (the same applied for the concrete cylinders tested after the Pier Foundation Assembly load test). The average of the two tests established the concrete compressive strength, which was required to be within 10 percent of the nominal specified strength (3,500 psi).

All compressive strength tests for the 7 reported Pier Foundation Assembly load tests complied with the requirement of averaging between 3,150 and 3,850 psi at 28 days (see Appendix J attached for test results).

LOAD TEST SITE QUALIFICATION

On April 12, 2006 PSI conducted a geotechnical subsurface investigation on part of an 80-acre property at the Port of Camas-Washougal in Washougal, Oregon. The purpose of the subsurface investigation was to locate two areas on the site that met the soil classification criteria outlined in 2003 IBC Table R401.4.1 for load-bearing pressures of 2,000 +/- 10 percent and 1,500 psf +/- 10 percent (see Table 1 below).

TABLE 1: 2003 IBC Table R401.4.1, Presumptive Load-Bearing Values of Foundation Materialsa

CLASS OF MATERIAL LOAD-BEARING

PRESSURE (pounds per square foot)

Crystalline bedrock 12,000

Sedimentary and foliated rock 4,000

Sandy gravel and/or gravel (GW and GP) 3,000

Sand, silty sand, clayey sand, silty gravel and clayey gravel (SW, SP, SM,SC, GM AND GC)

2,000

Clay, sandy clay, silty clay, clayey silt, silt and sandy silt (CL, ML, MH AND CH)

1,500b

For SI: 1 pound per square foot = 0.0479 kN/m2

a. When soil tests are required by Section 401.4, the allowable bearing capacities of the soil shall be part of the recommendations.

b. When the building official determines that in-place soils with an allowable bearing capacity of less than 1,500 psf are likely to be present at the site, the allowable bearing capacity shall be determined by a soils investigation.


PSI was already familiar with the Port of Camas/Washougal property, having completed a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report for The JD White Company (PSI Report No. 704-55201 dated June 24, 2005) to evaluate the potential for developing a commercial/industrial complex. Based on the 10 boring logs completed in 2005, PSI selected two areas of the property to specifically investigate for PFI’s load testing program. Site #1 (sandy clay soil with a load-bearing bearing capacity of 1,500 psf +/-10 percent) was located in the northwest corner of large undeveloped field contained within the Port of Camas/Washougal property (see Site Location Plan in Appendix C attached). Site #2 (silty sand soil with a load-bearing capacity of 2,000 psf +/- 10 percent) was located in the southwest corner of the property. The typical trend of the property appeared to be that the southern end of the site was generally sandier (possibly because it is closest to the Columbia River paralleling the south boundary of the property) and the site soils became more fine-grained (silt and clay) trending to the north.

Prior to the subsurface investigation, PSI reviewed available geologic references for the area. According to the “Geologic Map of the Vancouver Quadrangle, Washington and Oregon” (1987), the general area of the site consists of Holocene (the last 11,000 years) to upper Pleistocene (1.8 mya to 10,000 years) aged alluvium (Qal). These alluvial soils typically consist of sand, silt and clay on the floodplains of the Columbia River that are locally up to about 50 meters thick. This is generally consistent with the soil conditions encountered in our subsurface investigation.

The Soil Survey of Clark County, Washington (1972) indicates there are two soil types on the property: (1) silt/silty clay loam (NbA or SnA) and surficial silt loam underlain by fine sandy loam (SnB). Site #1 is located in an small, isolated area of silt/silty clay loam, while Site #2 is located

in a broad area of silty loam (generally up to about 18 inches thick) underlain by fine sandy loam. The silt/silty clay loam is generally encountered on 0 to 3 percent slopes in the area while the silt loam underlain by sandy soil is generally encountered on 3 to 8 percent slopes. Our subsurface investigation confirmed the sites are generally consistent with the Soil Survey mapping.

Photo 3: PSI’s CME75 truck-mounted drill rig, Site #1.

On April 12, 2006 PSI conducted 4 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) soil borings (B-1 through B-4) using its truck mounted CME-75 drill rig outfitted with hollow stem auger (see Photo 3). Two borings (B-1 and B-2) were completed at Site #1and two borings (B-3 and B-4) were completed at Site #2.

The SPT was performed by driving a 2-inch, O.D., split-spoon sampler into the undisturbed soil formation located at the bottom of the


advanced auger with repeated blows of a 140-pound, pin-guided, automatic mechanical hammer falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler one foot is a measure of the consistency for cohesive soils and density for granular soils.

Nearly continuous SPT sampling was performed and all samples were identified in the field, placed in sealed containers, and transported to the laboratory for further classification, testing and storage. In addition to extensive SPT sampling, one relatively undisturbed, modified California ring sample (also known as a Dames and Moore sample) was obtained in boring B-1 at a depth of 4.5 feet.

Samples of the subsurface soils encountered in our borings were returned to our laboratory for further evaluation to aid in classification of the materials. The laboratory evaluation consisted of visual and textural examinations (ASTM D2487-00) and moisture content tests (ASTM D2216-98), and particle size analyses (ASTM D1140). Results of the tests are shown on the attached boring logs.

The following is a summary of soil and groundwater conditions encountered in our 4 borings completed on April 12. The soil conditions encountered in Borings B-1 and B-2 at Site #2 were extremely consistent. Both borings encountered approximately 18 inches of moist, rooted silt with fine sand topsoil. The topsoil layer was generally firm and had a thick root structure.

The topsoil was underlain by a moist to wet, clayey fine sand stratum (classified as SC in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System) that extended to the maximum depth of the borings (11½ feet below existing grade). Thin, stratified lenses of fine sandy clay were observed throughout this stratum. Moisture contents of the samples tested ranged from 32 to 43 percent. The density of the soil, based on standard penetration testing, was very loose to loose. This is the anticipated bearing stratum for the pier foundation assemblies to be load tested at Site #2. As stated previously in this section, this stratum soil classification (SC) is consistent with the 2,000 psf load-bearing classification in IRC Table R401.4.1. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of about 4 ½ feet below existing grade in boring B-1 and was not able to be measured in B-2 because the borehole collapsed immediately after removal of the drilling auger.

The soil conditions encountered in Borings B-3 and B-4 at Site #1 were also generally uniform. An 18 inch thick topsoil layer was encountered at the surface of both borings. The topsoil consisted of moist, rooted lean clay with fine sand. The topsoil layer was underlain by moist to wet, sandy lean clay (classified as CL) that extended to a depth of 6 ½ feet below grade. Moisture contents of the samples tested ranged from 36 to 44 percent. Soil consistency ranged from soft to medium stiff based on pocket penetrometer and standard penetration testing.


Lean clay with sand (classified as CL) was encountered below the sandy lean clay stratum and extended to the maximum depths of both borings (11½ feet). Moisture contents of the samples tested ranged from 36 to 46 percent. Soil consistency ranged from medium stiff to soft based on pocket penetrometer and standard penetration testing.

Groundwater was not encountered in either boring at the time of the subsurface investigation. It is possible that groundwater levels will vary by season, year, and location across the site.

The lean clay strata encountered beneath the topsoil layer are the anticipated bearing strata for the pier foundation assemblies to be load tested at Site #1. As stated previously in this section, these strata are consistent with the 1,500 psf load-bearing classification (CL) in IRC Table R401.4.1.

PSI performed geotechnical engineering analyses based on soil strength characterization using SPT blow counts, and pocket penetrometer readings for the cohesive soil samples. Our bearing capacity calculations were performed using two different analysis methods. The first method employed the General Bearing Capacity Equation, originally developed by Karl Terzaghi and since modified by several researchers and practitioners (McCarthy, 1998). This method considers soil cohesion and internal friction, foundation size, total soil weight, and surcharge effects to determine bearing capacity. Soil cohesion and internal friction values were estimated from the N-values and unconfined compressive strength results (pocket penetrometer readings) obtained from our boring samples.

The second method used to evaluate the bearing capacities for the two sites was from the NAVFAC Design Manual 7.02 (1986). A calculation from Bazarra and Peck directly correlates the N-values we obtained from the borings to bearing capacity.

The following Table 2 is a brief summary of the calculation results.

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF SITE BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATIONS

REQUIRED BEARING CAPACITY PER 2003 IBC TABLE R401.4.1

(psf)

GENERAL BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION NET

ALLOWABLE BEARING RESULTS

(psf)

NAVFAC ANALYSIS ALLOWABLE

BEARING RESULTS (psf)

Site #1 1,500 +/- 150 1,400 1,580

Site #2 2,000 +/- 200 1,900 2,080


In our professional opinion, the engineering analyses confirm that the soil within the zone of influence for Site #1 meets the requirement for soil with a load-bearing value within 10 percent of 1,500 psf as outlined in IRC Table R401.4.1. Additionally, Site #2 is consistent with soil having a load-bearing value within 10 percent of 2,000 psf per IRC Table R401.4.1.


LOAD TEST PROCEDURE

Once the two test sites at the Port of Camas/Washougal were qualified, each testing area was completely cordoned off with safety tape (see Photo 4). This was done to prevent vehicles or equipment from driving over the site and compacting (improving) the near surface soils. The approximate size of the 2 cordoned off sites was 45 feet (north-south direction) by 50 feet (east-west direction) for Site #1, and 40 feet (north-south direction) by 45 feet (east-west direction) for Site #2.

Photo 4: Site #1 cordoned off with safety tape

The areas that PSI’s drill rig had driven over as part of the April 12 subsurface investigation were excluded from the cordoned off test area. Photos were also taken of the two sites so it could be confirmed later that ground surface had not been disturbed or changed prior to the load testing program.

n May 15, 2006 Rick Gagliano of PFI and Troy Hull of PSI installed Pier Foundation

s required by Section 4.3.1 of the AC, the Pier Foundation Assemblies were installed in a

OAssemblies A, B, C, D, E, F at Site #1 (sandy clay soil with a presumptive bearing capacity of 1,500 psf +/- 10 percent). At that time it was visually confirmed that the ground surface had not been disturbed since the April 12 subsurface investigation was completed. Additionally, all of the steel bearing pins were inspected for straightness and the concrete piers were inspected for any cracking. No discontinuities were observed in any of the pins or piers used for load testing.

Amanner as recommended by the manufacturer for construction. A small amount of grass sod was removed with a shovel to seat the concrete pier (see Photos 5 and 6 below).


Photo 5: Digging small hole for pier placement, Pier A, Site #1

Photo 6: sod removed in conical shape of concrete pier

Once the concrete pier was seated, a small bubble level was used to level the top of the concrete pier. The 4 steel bearing pins were placed through precast holes in the concrete pier. Each steel bearing pin was driven a few inches with a 3-pound sledge (Photo 7). The steel bearing pins were then installed the rest of the way using a Makita 1242 demolition hammer with a pipe driving bit (Photo 8). The levelness of the concrete pier was continuously checked when driving the steel bearing pins into the ground. This same procedure was repeated for the other 5 Pier Foundation Assembly installations.

Photo 7: Installing steel pins with sledge, Photo 8: Driving steel pins, Pier A, Site Pier A, Site #1 #1


In order to be able to inspect the base of the concrete pier where the steel bearing pins enter the pier, the grass sod was removed from around and under the base of the pier. The removal of the ground surface also eliminated load bearing contribution from the precast concrete pier resting on the ground (i.e. the concrete pier was slightly elevated above the supporting ground surface and all of the load bearing contribution was from the interlocking of the four steel bearing pins). See Photos 9 and 10 below. Production piers would typically be installed at the surface without removing any sod or soil from around the sides and base of the concrete pier.

Photo 10: 3 inches of sod Photo 9: Sod and soil removed from around and under base of concrete pier, Pier F, Site #1

Load testing was conducted on these 6 pier foundation assemblies in general accordance with ASTM D1143-81 (reapproved 1994), “Standard Test Method for Piles Under Static Axial Compressive Load” between May 16 and May 19, 2006, and as detailed in AC336. The tests on Pier Foundation Assemblies A, B, and C at Site #1 were individual pier load tests. The load test on Pier Foundation Assembly F at Site #1 was a group test to determine the potential effect of adjacent Pier Foundation Assemblies.

Photo 11: Setting up reaction frame


pins) as required by Section 3.4.2 of ASTM D1143. Additional 1.25 by 1.25 by 5 foot concrete

rior to the start of testing, the reaction frame and measuring systems were covered with a

hoto 13: Reaction frame and testing area covered with plastic tarps, Site #2

The load test reaction frame consisted of two W10x33 by 25 foot long wide flange steel beams supported on either end by a single 2.5 by 2.5 by 5 foot concrete block manufactured by Ultrablock Inc. of Vancouver, Washington. The concrete blocks were placed no closer than 5 feet from the outside edge of the Pier Foundation Assembly (i.e. outside edge of driven steel

blocks weighing 2,160 pounds and 2.5 by 2.5 by 5 foot concrete blocks weighing 4,320 pounds were placed on top of the 2 steel beams as dead weight. The total dead weight exceeded the maximum test load by at least 10 percent as required by Section 3.4.3 of the ASTM standard. The steel beams and concrete block reaction frame was assembled using an all-terrain forklift working from outside the taped off restricted area to prevent the equipment from compacting the ground in the area of the tests.

Photo 12: Reaction frame set up on Piers B and C, Site #1

1

Pplastic tarp to protect from adverse temperature variations (i.e. direct sunlight and rain) as required by Section 4.1.3 of the ASTM standard.

P


ATION

DIVIDUAL LOAD TEST

AC336 SECTION 4.3.2 – VERTICAL LOAD BEARING TEST LOAD APPLIC

IN

or each individual Pier Foundation Assembly load test, vertical load was applied to the top of Fthe Pier Foundation Assemblies using a single Enerpac 12-ton hydraulic hollow core ram. The 3 rams used throughout this load testing program were calibrated by PSI’s laboratory prior to load testing (see Appendix I attached). To prevent an eccentric load on the Pier Foundation

Assemblies as required by Section 7.1.3 of the ASTM standard, two plates with a matching ball and cup were placed between the top of the Pier Foundation Assembly and the hydraulic ram (Photo 15).

Photo 14: Typical load test assembly

Photo 15: Loading plates with ball and matching cup


In accordance with AC336, each Pier Foundation Assembly was loaded to 200 percent of the anticipated design load in 8 intervals of 25 percent of the design load. For Site #1, the design load was 2,700 pounds (1,500 psf times 1.8 equivalent square feet). The design load for Site #2 was 3,600 pounds (2,000 psf times 1.8 equivalent square feet). Note that 1.8 square feet is the assumed equivalent bearing area for PFI’s Pier Foundation Assembly with 36-inch long steel pins. Each load increment was held for at least 15 minutes and until the settlement had ceased or the rate of settlement became uniform. The 200 percent load interval was held for at least 12 hours and until the settlement had ceased. Once the 200 percent load interval was completed, the Pier Foundation Assembly was unloaded in 4 equal intervals, with one hour between decrements.

For the first 7 sets of incremental loads (i.e. 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150 and 175 percent of design load) settlement readings were taken at 1 minute intervals for the first five minutes and then 5 minute intervals to 15 minutes. When settlement had not ceased or become uniform, additional readings were taken at 5 minute intervals.

For the final incremental load of 200 percent of design load, readings were taken in accordance with the preceding paragraph. Additionally, readings were taken at 30 minutes, 1 hour, and then 1 hour intervals until the load had been held for 12 hours. Additional 1 hour readings were taken beyond 12 hours if settlement had not ceased.

For the unloading phase of each test, settlement readings were generally taken at 0, 55 and 60 minutes. A 55-minute reading was taken to demonstrate that settlement had stopped between 55 and 60 minutes.

The following week, a similar procedure was followed to individually test Pier Foundation Assemblies V, Y and Z on Site #2. The Pier Foundation Assemblies were installed on the Monday and then tested Tuesday through Friday.

GROUP LOAD TEST

The group test was performed at Site #1, which in our professional opinion has the weakest soil conditions between the 2 sites and would be more influenced by group effect. The group test was performed by loading Pier Foundation Assembly F in a similar manner as the other Pier Foundation Assemblies, except that after the 100 percent design load increment was completed, adjacent Pier Foundation Assemblies D and E, were immediately loaded to 100 percent design load and then additional settlement readings were taken on Pier Foundation Assembly F for an additional hour until settlement stopped. Pier Foundation Assemblies D and E were then immediately unloaded and the load test on Pier Foundation Assembly F continued in its normal manner. After the 200 percent design load increment was completed on Pier Foundation Assembly F, Pier Foundation Assemblies D and E were then immediately loaded to 200 percent design load and additional settlement readings were taken on Pier Foundation Assembly F for an additional hour until settlement stopped. Pier Foundation Assemblies D and


E were then unloaded and the unloading decrement readings were taken on Pier Foundation Assembly F similar to the individual load tests.

LOAD TEST RESULTS

The load and deflection readings were tabulated and plotted (see Appendix K attached). The following is a summary of the maximum average deflection at 100 percent of the design load for all 6 individual Pier Foundation Assembly load tests, as well as the single group load test at Site #1.

Each Pier Foundation Assembly was visually observed after completion of the load testing program. The steel bearing pins and precast concrete piers were completely removed from the ground and examined. The steel pins showed no inelastic bending and we observed no cracking or other failure in any of the pins or piers.

TABLE 3: Results for Pier Foundation Assembly with 3-Foot Long Steel Bearing Pins

SITE#

IRC TABLE R401.4.1 LOAD-

BEARING VALUE

(psf)

DESIGNLOAD

(pounds)

PIERFOUNDATION ASSEMBLY

MAXIMUM AVERAGE SETTLEMENT AT 100%

OF DESIGN LOAD (inches)2,3

1 1,500 2,700 A 0.2191 1,500 2,700 B 0.2061 1,500 2,700 C 0.2351 1,500 2,700 F (group test)1 0.346 (before group

influence added) 0.388 (after group influence added)

Average Settlement for Pier Foundation Assemblies A, B and C 0.220

2 2,000 3,600 V 0.3462 2,000 3,600 Y 0.2562 2,000 3,600 Z 0.285

Average Settlement for Pier Foundation Assemblies V, Y and Z 0.2964

Notes:1 The group test was performed by loading Pier Foundation Assembly F in a similar manner as the other Pier Foundation Assemblies, except that the group loads were only applied at 100 and 200 percent of design load. Refer to “Group Load Test” section above.


2 Acceptance Criteria requirement is no more than ½-inch settlement at 100 percent of the design load, which is the load bearing value found in IRC Table R401.4.1 multiplied times 1.8 equivalent square feet (i.e. 2,700 and 3,600 pounds, respectively). 3 For maximum average deflection at 200% of design load, see attached load test data reports. 4 In accordance with Section 4.3.1 of AC336, the highest settlement value for Site #2 (i.e. 0.346 inches for Pier Foundation Assembly V) was used to evaluate the load test rather than the average of the 3 test results.

LOAD TEST CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of the 6 individual load tests on Pier Foundation Assemblies A, B, C, V, Y and Z, Pier Foundation Assemblies with 3-foot long steel bearing pins complied with the settlement requirements of AC336 (i.e. less than ½-inch vertical settlement at 100 percent of the design load as outlined in IRC Table R401.4.1). The AC requires that the load tests be evaluated by performing at least 3 load tests for each soil condition for which ER recognition is sought. None of the results can vary by more than 15 percent from the average of the three load tests, unless the lowest test value (i.e. highest settlement) is used. For Site #1, the average of the 3 test results was 0.220 inches of settlement—and the upper and lower bounds for 15 percent deviation were 0.187 and 0.253 inches. A review of the settlement results from Table 3 above indicates that all 3 test results were within 15 percent of the average of the 3 tests. As such, the average settlement considered for PFI’s Pier Foundation Assembly with 3-foot long steel bearing pins is 0.220 inches for soil with a load-bearing pressure of 1,500 psf in accordance with IRC Table R401.4.1. This Pier Foundation Assembly, with an equivalent steel pin bearing area of 1.8 square feet and an allowable load of 2,700 pounds, meets the AC336 load testing requirement.

For Site #2, the average of the 3 test results was 0.296 inches of settlement. The upper and lower bounds were 0.252 and 0.340 inches. A review of Table 3 above indicates that Pier Foundation Assembly V was outside of the 15 percent variance. As such, the average settlement considered for PFI’s Pier Foundation Assembly with 3-foot long steel bearing pins is 0.346 inches for soil with a load-bearing pressure of 2,000 psf in accordance with IRC Table R401.4.1. This Pier Foundation Assembly, with an equivalent steel pin bearing area of 1.8 square feet and an allowable load of 3,600 pounds, meets the AC336 load testing requirement.

The group load test involving Pier Foundation Assemblies D, E and F indicated that the influence of fully loaded Pier Foundation Assemblies located as close as 3 feet measured center to center was negligible. Pier Foundation Assembly F had a settlement of 0.346 when loaded to 100 percent of the design load (2,700 pounds or 1,500 psf). The settlement increased to 0.388 inches when Pier Foundation Assemblies D and E—located 3 feet laterally on opposing sides of Pier Foundation Assembly F—were loaded simultaneously to 100 percent. In our professional opinion, Pier Foundation Assemblies may be located as close as 3 feet on center based on the load test results.


Attachments: Appendix A: AC336 Appendix B: Pier Foundation Assembly Product Information Appendix C: Site Location Plan

Appendix D: Topographic Load Test Location Plan Appendix E: Aerial Photo Load Test Location Plan

Appendix F: Schematic Load Test Location Plan Appendix G: Boring Logs and Laboratory Test Results Appendix H: Site Qualification Engineering Calculations Appendix I: Load Test Equipment List and Hydraulic Ram Verification Reports Appendix J: Concrete Compressive Strength Test Result Summary and

Individual Test Reports Appendix K: Load Test Data Sheets Appendix L: ASTM D1143 Appendix M: PSI’s IAS Certificate of Accreditation

Appendix N: Manufacturer’s Pier Foundation Installation Instructions Appendix O: Precast Anchor Bolt General Properties Test Report from PSI Appendix P: Precast Anchor Bolt Corrosion Resistance Test Report from

Bodycote Appendix Q: Steel Bearing Pin General Properties Mill Test Report from Tianjin

Wa Song Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. Appendix R: Pier Foundation Assembly Installation, Concrete Compression

Test, and Pier Foundation Assembly Test Schedule Appendix S: Bibliography

Documents

SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT - pinfoundations.com · acceptance criteria. ... embedded ½-inch diameter anchor bolt, 4 steel bearing pins, and 4 pin end caps. The pre-cast ... PRODUCT