SEAOC 2004 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

Rammed Aggregate Pier Design and Construction in

California - Performance, Constructability, and Economics

Tom Farrell MS, GE

Aaron Taylor MS, SE
Farrell Design-Build Companies, Inc.
Placerville, California

ABSTRACT cement columns, rammed aggregate piers, vibro-

replacement stone columns, and compaction grouting give
Faced with an increasing number of poor soil sites being the engineer the opportunity to tailor a foundation
considered for new development in California, solution for a particular site condition.
Geotechnical and Structural Engineers are turning to
current ground improvement technologies to reinforce Very similar to massive excavation replaced with
unsuitable soil and fill in place for conventional footing engineered fill, rammed aggregate pier (RAP)
support. Recommending and designing conventional construction is a technology based on the same principles:
foundations and slabs-on-grade supported by massive remove a soft weak soil then improve its stiffness, its
excavation replaced with engineered fill, or designing strength, and its ability to manage foundation loads. RAP
deep foundations with structural floor slabs are costly and construction can be considered a discrete excavation and
time consuming options. Foundation selection is replacement with rammed aggregate (engineered fill).
influenced by long-term settlement performance, Helpful insights of RAP ground improvement can be
management of seismic loads, local constructability gained by understanding the design and construction
requirements, and schedule and cost savings. Rammed process; presented next is a brief description of the RAP
aggregate pier supported shallow foundations are one construction technique and conventional footing design.
system recommended for building support by engineers.
Understanding the basic structural design concepts used
with this ground improvement technology allows the RAMMED AGGREGATE PIER CONSTRUCTION
structural engineer to design conventional shallow
foundations bearing on improved ground and to reduce To remove soft and weak soil or fill, individual RAP
overall project complexity, schedule and cost. elements are typically drilled 30 inches in diameter and
are constructed to depths ranging from 6 to 30 feet using
After a decade of successful project delivery, cost the simple construction process shown in Fig. 1.
savings, and measured performance in California, Geopier
rammed aggregate pier construction has become a main-
stream application for public and private projects. This
paper discusses rammed aggregate pier performance,
constructability, and economics in California.

A. B. C.
INTRODUCTION Fig. 1 Rammed Aggregate Pier Construction Process
A. Drill 30” and 33” diameter RAP shafts
Engineers have several foundation systems to choose B. Ram 2” crushed rock into the “bottom bulb”
from for different site and loading conditions. When it C. Ram ¾” to 1½” crushed, road base rock in 12”
comes to soft and/or weak soil sites in California, lifts up to the bottom of footing plus 6” to 12”
engineers are limited to a handful of alternatives. The
“tried and true” driven concrete pile and cast-in-drilled- The ramming equipment consists of a 45,000 pound
hole concrete pier are becoming more expensive to build hydraulic excavator equipped with a 3,500 pound
and local constructability requirements have forced hydraulic break hammer and a specially designed 45º
engineers to consider and design alternative foundation beveled ram, see Fig. 2. The hydraulic hammer delivers
systems. Various ground improvement techniques such
as massive excavation replaced with engineered fill, soil

147
SEAOC 2004 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

improved soil behavior and to design for the appropriate

allowable footing bearing pressure.

In practice, each RAP is designed to act as a stiff element

in the reinforced soil mass, attracting most of the applied
footing load and/or floor slab loads while in most cases
permitting the soil between the elements to support a
portion of the applied load. The most common conditions
that govern RAP footing design include footings bearing
directly on RAP elements and footings bearing in
engineered fill over RAP elements, see Fig. 3.

Fig. 2 Typical RAP Installation Equipment Where foundations are in contact with the RAP element,
the footing is designed to bear directly on the RAP and
between 1 to 2 million ft.-lbs. of energy to the ram at the improved soil. Thus, a high bearing capacity of the
approximately 400 blows per minute. RAP improved soil (qc) is used to size the footing, which
is typically two to four times the allowable bearing
After drilling, the high frequency ramming action of the pressure of the unimproved soil (Hall et al 2002). Using
beveled ram embeds a lift of crushed rock into and ASD load combinations from Chapter 16 of the California
compacts the bottom of the drilled shaft, commonly Building Code, footings are sized and laid out by the RAP
referred to as the “bottom bulb.” In weak soil, several design-builder. Based on this layout, the structural
cubic feet of crushed rock can be rammed to stabilize the engineer then determines footing thickness and
bottom bulb. Once the bottom bulb has stabilized, the rest reinforcement using conventional reinforced concrete
of the drilled shaft is filled. The equipment rams and design. In cases where the footings are not in direct
embeds thin lifts of crushed rock into the sides of the contact with the RAP elements, the footings are sized for
drilled shaft radially into the adjacent soil. The net effect the allowable bearing pressure of the engineered fill.
is an increase in strength and stiffness of the soil mass up
P P
to one RAP diameter from the drill edge (Pitt et al 2003). WEAK SOILS ENGINEERED FILL
OVER WEAK SOILS

In comparison to vibro stone columns, RAP elements are Compacted Bearing

rammed into soft and weak soil and not vibrated. Side by Engineered Fill Pressure
= q fill
Weak Soils or Bearing
side full-scale load tests performed in Iowa show that Uncontrolled Fill Pressure
= qc Weak Soils or
RAP stiffness is 5 to 10 times greater than vibrated stone Uncontrolled Fill

columns in the same soil (Pitt et al 2003).

Medium stiff Medium stiff
to stiff soils to stiff soils
In comparison to soil cement columns or concrete piers, or better or better

RAP construction compacts and densifies the soil at the Fig. 3 Conditions Governing Design of RAP Foundations
bottom of the shaft and radially outward around the shaft.
That is, the RAP element is not simply a structural Design of RAP supported footings falls into two distinct
element within the unimproved soil, but also improves the categories:
soil. This results in higher end bearing capacity and
higher shaft friction around the RAP element. 1) Heavily loaded footings are supported with RAP
elements spaced at less than three RAP diameters and are
An analogy can be made with a smooth and deformed designed as spread footings or small mats between frames
reinforcing bar in reinforced concrete. The smooth bar and shearwalls. The plan dimensions of footings must be
has a good bond and some friction in the concrete, where selected to develop full coverage of the RAP elements
the deformed bar has a good bond and much higher and to have a RAP area replacement ratio of at least 30%.
friction in the concrete. A RAP element is like a
deformed reinforcing bar in the improved soil. 2) Continuous footings are supported by RAP elements
spaced at greater than three diameters, and may have to
CONVENTIONAL FOOTING DESIGN structurally span between the RAP elements. As such, for
weak soil conditions the continuous footing may be
The design of conventional footings supported on RAP designed as a beam on an elastic foundation,
improved soil or fill is no different than footings designed incorporating the corresponding spring stiffness of the
on competent, naturally deposited soil or on engineered RAP elements and the unimproved soil.
fill. The structural engineer needs to understand the RAP

148
SEAOC 2004 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

The primary properties needed for conventional footing P

P
design are RAP stiffness modulus (kg) and the allowable SETTLEMENT s
RIGID FOOTING

SETTLEMENT s
RIGID PLATE

composite bearing pressure (qc). These properties are

initially derived from the Standard Penetration Test (Nspt) RAMMED
SOFT SOIL
SPRING
SOFT SOIL
SPRING
AGGREGATE

and undrained shear strength (su) properties of the UNIMPROVED

SOIL
PIER (RAP) Km = X pci Km = X pci

Kg = 200 pci
unimproved soil and are well described in the literature Km = 10 pci

(Lawton 1994, Fox & Cowell 1998, Wissmann 1999, STIFF RAP SPRING
Kg = 15X TO 50X pci
RIGID BASE

Minks 2001, Majchrzak et al 2004). As discussed later, FOOTING SUPPORT SECTION

SETTLEMENT S = TOP OF RAP STRESS / Kg

these values are verified with full-scale modulus load tests RAP STIFF SPRING DESIGN ANALOGY

at each project site. Preliminary design values for kg and Fig. 4 RAP Stiff Spring Design Analogy
qc are shown in Table 1.
stiff RAP elements and soft soil settle uniformly (Handy
Table 1. RAP Stiffness Modulus & Allowable Composite 2001), Fig. 4. For equal displacement, the top of the RAP
Bearing Capacity for Preliminary Design Estimates element has concentrated stresses in proportion to the
Native Soil stiffness ratio of RAP to the unimproved soil. In practice,
properties kg & qc kg &qc kg & qc
Sands Silt and Clay Peat stiffness ratios of RAP to native soil range from 10 to 50.
Nspt su
N (ksf) (pci) & (ksf) (pci) & (ksf) (pci) & (ksf) Total footing settlement is calculated by adding upper
3 0.50 165 & 5.0 125 & 4.5 75 & 3.5 zone settlement to lower zone settlement, see Fig. 5.
6 1.25 225 & 6.0 175 & 5.0 110 & 4.0 Upper zone settlement is derived by dividing the RAP
9 1.75 260 & 7.0 210 & 6.0 125 & 5.0 stress by its stiffness. The lower zone settlement is
12 2.30 285 & 8.0 250 & 7.0 - calculated using classical soil mechanics. A description
16 3.00 310 & 8.5 260 & 7.0 - of the calculations of RAP design can found in Majchrzak
25 4.50 325 & 9.0 275 & 7.5 - et al 2004 and Pitt et al 2003.
>25 5.00 360 & 10.0 300 & 8.0 -
1. For 30-inch RAP elements supporting spread footings B

with a min. area ratio of 30% (Fox and Cowell 1998).

Ultimate Capacities
Upper RAP
Zone element
Depending on density and strength of the unimproved soil
or fill, the ultimate vertical bearing capacity of a RAP 2B

element can range from 100 kips up to 300 kips. With the
addition of a specially designed structural steel anchor,
the RAP can also resist uplift loads generated by Lower
Zone
earthquakes and wind (Lawton 2000, Caskey 2001, and
Wissmann et al 2001). The RAP uplift element can be
designed to resist up to 200 kips of ultimate uplift force. Fig. 5 RAP Upper Zone and Lower Zone Concepts
In practice, ultimate uplift capacities of 100 to 150 kips
are usually specified. Floor Slab Support

Since the RAP is composed of very dense, crushed rock, Floor slab support is also an important and useful
it exhibits high sliding resistance to lateral loads. As a application of RAP construction being implemented at
result, footings over RAP elements have higher resistance soft soil sites in California. A warehouse or distribution
to lateral sliding forces (Lawton 2000 and Wissmann et al center floor slab with area loads of 150 psf or higher, up
2001). The RAP soil mass exhibits ultimate coefficients to 800 psf, can be designed to span 10 to 15 feet over
of friction between 0.8 and 1.1, which is applied to the RAP elements in very soft bay mud or weak uncontrolled
entire footing bottom. Appropriate factors of safety are fill instead of using a more costly pile and grade beam
applied to determine allowable design values. supported structural slab, see Fig. 6. RAP slab support is
classified as either slab-on-grade or structural and
Settlement depends on the fill thickness between the slab and RAP
elements. A structural slab design (reinforcing is
Settlement of the RAP supported footing is estimated by “active”) is required when the slab must span the clear
modeling it as a rigid plate supported on a system of stiff distance between RAP elements. A discussion of this
RAP springs and soft soil springs, and assumes that the application can be found in Minks et al 2003.

149
SEAOC 2004 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

Full scale modulus load tests measure the bearing spring

Floor load (p)
stiffness (stiffness modulus, kg) of RAP elements. The
45
o
RAP modulus test is run in general accordance with
New Fill
Thickness
(t) ASTM D1143 pile load test with modifications specific to
RAP construction. Because design parameters are based
Soft, compressible
on full scale load test data, the RAP behavior is well
soils RAP understood, and the data can be used for conventional
element
code design or for performance based design.

d "competent"
soils
spacing (s)

Slab-on-grade supported on layer of compacted fill

Floor load (p)

Soft, compressible
soils
RAP
element

d "competent"
soils
spacing (s)

Direct support of floor slab

Fig. 7 Photo of RAP Modulus Test Set-up
Fig. 6 Conditions Governing RAP Supported Floor Slabs
The compression element is loaded to 120% of the
maximum RAP top-of-pier stress to measure the stiffness
PERFORMANCE modulus and is then loaded to 200% to measure its
pseudo-ultimate capacity (break in the load deflection
RAP construction provides the engineer with increased curve), see test setup in Fig. 7. Although the purpose of
confidence in the performance of the foundation system, the modulus test is to verify the RAP stiffness modulus
both for static loads and dynamic loads. Well defined used for design calculations, the tests also add useful
stiffness of RAP construction and settlement performance insight into how the RAP behaves in various soils. The
are the main reasons for this increased confidence. failure mechanism of a RAP can be identified during load
testing because of telltales installed at the bottom and
Well defined stiffness of RAP construction is proven by: middle of the element. As shown on Fig.8 at a site in
1. Full scale load tests at every job site. Dublin, the telltale only moved slightly while
2. Regularity and simplicity of construction. The deformations at the top of the pier increased above the
RAP rock bucket holds the volume of two 12 stress of about 25 ksf. This behavior indicates that the
inch rammed lifts, ensuring thin rammed lifts for RAP is bulging slightly outward at higher stresses instead
every element installed. of plunging (Majchrzak et al 2004). Bulging is the
3. A large boring at every RAP element confirms to preferred RAP behavior and “limit state.”
the Geotechnical Engineer that the site is
represented by the soil investigation borings. R A P T o p S tr e s s (k s f)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 .0 0
0 .0 1
Defined Stiffness 0 .1 0
0 .0 7
0 .0 4 T e llta le d e fle c tio n
0 .0 9 in c h e s
0 .1 7 (1 0 0 % d e s ig n
s tre s s )
0 .2 0 0 .1 9 (1 1 7 % d e s ig n
During RAP construction in medium to stiff soil layers, 0 .2 8 s tre s s )
Average RAP Deflection (inches)

0 .3 1
0 .3 0
the rammer will embed rock into the soil with medium 0 .3 7
0 .3 1
0 .3 5
0 .3 5 (1 5 0 % d e s ig n
s tre s s )
0 .4 0
lateral sidewall deflection, and at soft soil layers the 0 .5 0
0 .4 2

0 .5 0
rammer will imbed rock with large lateral sidewall 0 .5 2 0 .5 3 0 .5 3 a t 1 8 0 k ip s
0 .6 0
deflections, increasing improvement where it is needed. 2 4 h o u r lo a d te s t a t 1 0 0 % d e s ig n
s tre s s = 1 8 ,6 4 9 p s f o r 9 2 k ip s .

As a result, unidentified soft and weak soil layers are 0 .7 0 M e a s u re d 0 .0 3 in c h e s a fte r 2 4 h o u rs .

improved with higher rock volumes (rock takes) during 0 .8 0

construction. This improvement is evidenced by several 0 .9 0

T o p o f R A P d e fle c tio n fo r 3 0 -in c h d ia . b y 1 8 fo o t G S L b e a rin g e le m e n t
T e llta le d e fle c tio n a t th e b o tto m o f th e R A P
modulus load test results at soft soil sites in California. 1 .0 0

Fig. 8 Modulus Test Results Graph, Dublin

150
SEAOC 2004 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

Uplift Performance
140
Allowable Uplift Capacity = 60 kips
First Load Cycle
A RAP uplift element is constructed almost identical to a 120
Second Load Cycle 200%

Percent of Allowable Capacity

bearing only element with the exception that a vertical

Axial Uplift Load (kips) .

“dead-man” anchor is placed at the bottom bulb during 100 167%

construction of the element. The structural steel anchor 80 133%

consists of four #7, 75 ksi, Williams Form All Thread
Rebar with a minimum ultimate strength of 60 kips each, 60 100%

see structural properties of the rebar in Fig. 9.

40 67%

Structural Properties 20 33%

Minimum Yield Ultimate Tensile

0
75 KSI 100 KSI 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
(517 Mpa) (698.4 Mpa) Vertical Displacement (inches)
Typical Elongation in 8" bar
Unique Thread Form
Fig. 11 Cyclic Load Test on 33-inch by 15-foot deep
7%-9%
RAP Uplift Element at 1801 L Street in Sacramento.
Fig. 9 All Thread Rebar Properties and Threads
ASTM D3689 quick pile uplift load test procedure, this
At the bottom, the all thread rebars are bolted to a hot dip test was performed at a project in Sacramento. The soil
galvanized 1-inch thick A36 steel plate. The assembly is condition at this site is loose sandy silt and soft silty clay
protected with a polyurethane spray-on coating at the extending 30 feet below the ground surface (bgs) with
bolted connection and over the entire plate, see Fig. 10. water at about 18 feet bgs. SPT “N- values” ranged from
The top of the all thread rebars receive 4” square bearing 2 to 5 blows per foot in the sandy silt and silty clay soil.
plates, which provide the necessary anchorage in the
footing. In consideration of long-term reliability, the For this particular test, the uplift element did not fail.
unique all thread rebars are oversized and hot dip However, in general the behavior of a RAP uplift element
galvanized and then protected by a 25 mil thick high is similar to that of a belled concrete pier, in that it begins
density polyethylene that is tightly bonded to the bar by a to progressively heave a large mass of soil at the ground
flexible bituminous mastic, see Fig. 10. This effectively surface as the element reaches its ultimate capacity
eliminates migration of moisture and oxygen to the steel, (Lawton 2000). Note that almost 50% of the initial elastic
which are requirements for corrosion. deflection is in elongation of the steel, well within its
prescribed elastic range. The uplift element maintained
The uplift load test results in Fig. 11 show the linear stiffness after multiple overstress cycles.
repeatability in linear stiffness of a RAP uplift element in
soft soil after two multiple cycle events. Based on the Settlement Control

With regard to footing design, structural engineers seem

to be more familiar with bearing pressures (strength), and
less so with the subgrade modulus (stiffness). Sometimes
a structural engineer is faced with the choice of either
requiring ground improvement below the footings and
using moderate bearing pressures for design, or opting
instead to use large footings with a low bearing pressure
or a deep foundation system with structural slab support.
Regardless of the approach, the superstructure must be
protected from both total and differential settlement
between adjacent columns.

RAP design and construction results in both reduced total

settlement and reduced differential settlement (Majchrzak
et al 2004). How important is it to control differential
settlement? Consider the case of a two-bay concrete
moment frame that has differential displacement of ¾” at
the middle column. For typical bay lengths and member
Fig. 10 RAP Uplift Element at UC Davis Math Sciences dimensions, up to 40% of the yield moment can be
realized in the beams from this settlement alone.

151
SEAOC 2004 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

To provide a long term picture of RAP settlement control,

two 6 story structures, one in Sacramento and one in D+L=398 kips M1A
Dublin, were monitored for settlement and are discussed D+L=398 kips
M5A and M9B
in detail in Majchrzak et al 2004. The following case
histories show good uniform settlement control at sites
with soft to medium stiff clay soil that extends to depths
of 30 feet. At both projects, average 20 to 25 foot deep D+L=398 kips
RAP foundations replaced 75 and 65 foot driven piles M4A and M1B

D+L=138 kips M1
D+L=648 kips M2B
D+L=398 kips D+L=398 kips
M3A and M3B D+L=597 kips M4B
M2A and M5B
D+L=421 kips M3
D+L=357 kips M5 N
Time (month - year)

Nov-01
Sep-01

Dec-01
D+L=710 kips M2

Jun-01

Feb-02
Apr-01

Apr-02
D+L=710 kips M4

Jul-01
0

shear wall
D+L=1200 kips each end M7
D+L=835 kips M11 D+L=510 kips M8 D+L=379 kips M6
shear wall

-0.5
D+L=210 kips M12 D+L=1800 kips each end M10

Settlement
D+L=210 kips M9

(inches)
Bldg A concrete decks
complete. Bldg B begins
interior tenant improvements. Live loads After 3 mos. of
Time (month-year) -1 introduced Live load
May-99

May-00

Aug-01
Nov-98

Nov-99
Sep-99

Sep-00

Dec-00

Dec-01
Mar-99

Mar-00

Feb-01

Jun-01

Feb-02

M1A (398 kips) M2A (398 kips) M3A (597 kips)

Apr-01

Apr-02
Jan-99

Jan-00

Oct-00

Oct-01
Jul-99

Jul-00

0.0 M4A (297 kips) M5A (499 kips) M1B (297 kips)
M2B (648 kips) M3B (597 kips) M4B (597 kips)
M5B (398 kips) M9B (499 kips)
-1.5

1st floor
concrete pour

-0.5
Fig. 13 Surveyed locations & Settlements - Dublin
Settlement
(inches)

6th floor
concrete pour
Garage opens
the maximum value and the average of the values less
Feb 2, 2000
than the design estimates (Majchrzak et al 2004).
1 year of service 2 years of service
(full live load) (full live load)
-1.0 Jan 25, 2001 Feb 15, 2002

M-1 (138 kips) M-2 (710 kips) M-3 (421 kips) CONSTRUCTABILITY
M-4 (710 kips) M-5 (357 kips) M-6 (379 kips)
M-7 (1200 kips) M-8 (510 kips) M-9 (210 kips)

-1.5
M-10 (1800 kips) M-11 (835 kips) M-12 (210 kips) The repeatable performance exhibited by RAP elements is
the direct result of simple construction technologies and
Fig. 12 Surveyed locations & Settlements - Sacramento
quality control. The use of common crushed aggregates
available at local rock quarries helps maintain the quality
In Sacramento, 12 column locations were monitored with
of constructed RAP elements. And the use of specially
gravity dead plus live loads ranging from 138 kips to 835
designed structural steel anchors from Williams Form
kips and two shearwalls with dead plus live loads of 1,200
Engineering ensures the repeatable performance of RAP
and 1,800 kips at the each end. The results of foundation
uplift elements.
settlement surveys are plotted against time in Fig. 12.
The results indicate that the foundation settlements have
From a contractor’s perspective, building conventional
ranged between 0.3 and 0.8 inches with both the
shallow foundations over improved soil is far easier than
maximum value and the average of the values less than
constructing pile caps or pier caps and grade beams. In
the design estimates (Majchrzak et al 2004).
some cases where massive excavation replaced with
engineered fill is recommended, but the bottom of the
In Dublin, several locations where monitored including
excavation is below or near the water table, using RAP
gravity columns with dead plus live loads ranging from
construction can preclude a stringent dewatering system.
300 kips to 600 kips and at moment frame mats with dead
plus live loads of 1,500 and 2,300 kips. The results of
Because of the improvement in adjacent unimproved soils
foundation settlement readings for the Dublin site are
and uncontrolled fill, RAP elements do not always need to
plotted against time in Fig.13. Actual measured
go to a competent deep soil layer, which reduces
settlements ranged between 0.3 to 0.7 inches with both
construction difficulties. This feature makes the system

152
SEAOC 2004 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

applicable in most soft and weak soil conditions. Typical LEEDTM certification program (USGBC 2004). The use
production rates for RAP elements approach 40 to 60 of local construction materials in the RAP foundation
elements per day. The speed of the RAP construction, assisted DPR in receiving this award by adding LEEDTM
allows contractors to start footing excavation earlier, points. This was the first privately owned project in the
getting the building superstructure out of the ground faster Central Valley to receive the honor. At a recent project in
than a deep foundation project. Modesto, Kaiser Permanente selected the RAP foundation
system for its “green” characteristics for medical offices.
From a quality control perspective, RAP construction is
observed and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer of ECONOMICS
Record as with any other foundation system. From
modulus load testing to the daily dynamic cone While every building system is judged primarily by its
penetrometer tests and bottom stabilization tests, the performance and constructability, the system will not be
Geotechnical Engineer’s field representative also records used unless it also provides economic benefit to the
drill depths, average ramming times per lift, aggregate owner. The RAP foundation system has been used in
types per lift, average lift thickness, and unusual soil over 1,000 projects in the United States, with over 75 of
conditions encountered in the drilled shafts. RAP quality those in California, on both private and public-owned
control is similar to that of concrete pier quality control, structures. Because many public projects have published
except that RAP construction includes a full scale load bid costs for base bids and their bid alternates, they
test on every job. A detailed discussion of quality control provide examples of how much savings can be realized
testing for rammed aggregate pier installations can be with RAP supported conventional shallow foundations.
found in the ICBO ES Report ER-5916 (2002).
Consider three different projects at the University of
Due to the relative size of RAP construction equipment, California at Davis (UCD). 1) For the West Entry
overhead restrictions are seldom an issue. As well, tight Parking Structure, rammed aggregate piers where a bid
city and urban sites in residential areas lend themselves to alternate to belled concrete piers. According to public
the technique because RAP construction produces low records, the reported savings was $950,000 for the RAP
noise. This is because the hammer is muffled down the alternate over belled concrete piers. 2) RAP construction
shaft 80% of the time. In addition to the low noise competed against straight concrete piers at the
effects, the high frequency, transient vibrations are nearly Mathematical Sciences Building, with $145,000 in
imperceptible at distances of 25 to 30 feet from the reported savings. 3) At the Activities and Recreation
rammer. Unlike the steady state vibrations of driving Center, McCarthy Building Companies reported a
concrete piles at peak particle velocities reaching 2 inches $300,000 savings using RAP elements instead of a 10 foot
per second, vibrations from RAP construction are under massive excavation replaced with engineered fill base bid.
0.2 inches per second at 10 feet from the rammer. For
city zero lot line sites, RAP elements can be constructed CONCLUSIONS
as close as 18 inches from an existing building,
eliminating the need for shoring. RAP construction is a ground improvement method for
the support of conventional shallow foundations that has
The main limitation of RAP construction is depth. That is become well-accepted within the geotechnical and
why RAP construction has been coined “the intermediate structural engineering communities. As demonstrated in
foundation system.” Normally consolidated soft clays or this paper, engineers have another reliable foundation
liquefiable soils that extend more than 30 feet below the alternative to recommend for soft clay, loose silt and
ground surface cannot be improved due to equipment sand, undocumented fill, and generally poor and weak soil
restrictions. While the deepest RAP elements constructed sites with demanding floor slab and foundation loads.
in California are 36 feet bgs, 90% of RAP elements are With RAP supported footings, engineers can be assured
less than 20 feet deep. In addition, casings are sometimes of simplicity of design, good long-term performance
temporarily added for caving soil conditions. characteristics, demonstrated constructability, and
economic competitiveness.
Green Construction
RAP construction is successfully being delivered on both
RAP elements can be enhanced by the addition of or public and private projects throughout California. The
substitution with recycled concrete and recycled case histories noted illustrate that the use of RAP soil
aggregate. In 2003, DPR Construction Inc. completed reinforcement for the support of high bearing capacity
construction of their regional office in Sacramento and footings resulted in cost savings within the same
received the silver medal award for Green and Sustainable performance standards as other conventional deep and
construction from the US Green Building Council in the shallow foundation systems.

153
SEAOC 2004 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

REFERENCES
Minks, A.G., Wissmann, K.J., Caskey, J.M., and Pando,
Caskey, J.M. (2001). “Uplift Capacity of Rammed M.A. (2001). “Distribution of Stresses and Settlements
Aggregate Pier Soil Reinforcing Elements.” Masters Below Floor Slabs Supported by Rammed Aggregate
Thesis. University of Memphis. December 2001. Piers.” Proceedings, 54th Canadian Geotechnical
Conference. Calgary, Alberta. September 16–19.
Farrell Design-Build Companies, Inc. (January 1999).
Block 224 Parking Garage Geopier Design and Pitt, J.M, White, D,.J., Gaul, A., Hoevelkamp, K. (2003).
Construction Recommendations, Sacramento, CA. Highway Applications For Rammed Aggregate Piers In
Iowa Soils. Iowa DOT Project TR-443.
Farrell Design-Build Companies, Inc. (June 2000).
Corporate Headquarters - Geopier Design-Build USGBC (2004) DPR-ABD Office Building, LEED
Submittal, Dublin, CA. #0480. LEED Version 2 Certification Level: Silver.
http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Certified_Projects/Cert_Reg115.pdf
Fox, N.S. and Cowell, M.J. (1998). Geopier Foundation
and Soil Reinforcement Manual. Geopier Foundation Wissmann, K.J. (1999). “Technical Bulletin No. 2 –
Company, Inc., Scottsdale, Arizona. Bearing Capacity of Geopier - Supported Foundation
Systems.” Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. Blacksburg,
Hall, K.M., Wissmann, K.J., Caskey, J.M., and VA.
FitzPatrick, B.T. (2002). “Soil reinforcement used to
arrest bearing capacity failure at a steel mill.” Wissmann, K.J., and FitzPatrick, B.T., and Lawton, E.C.
Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Ground (2001). “Technical Bulletin No. 3 – Geopier Uplift
Improvement. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 26–28 March. Resistance.” Geopier Foundation Company, Inc.
Blacksburg, VA.
Handy, R. L. (2001). “Does Lateral Stress Really
Influence Settlement.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Wissmann, K.J., and FitzPatrick, B.T., and Lawton, E.C.
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 7. (2001). “Technical Bulletin No. 4 – Geopier Lateral
Resistance.” Geopier Foundation Company, Inc.
ICBO ES Report ER-5916 (Reissued September 1, 2002) Blacksburg, VA.
ICBO Evaluation Service, Inc. • 5360 Workman Mill
Road, Whittier, California 90601 • www.icboes.org

Lawton, E.C., and Fox, N.S. (1994). “Settlement of

structures supported on marginal or inadequate soils
stiffened with short aggregate piers.” Vertical and
Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and
Embankments, A.T. Yeung and G.Y. Fello (Editors),
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2, 962-74.

Lawton, E.C., Fox, N.S. Fox, and Handy, R.L. (1994).

“Control of settlement and uplift of structures using short
aggregate piers.” In-Situ Deep Soil Improvement, Proc.
ASCE National Convention, Atlanta, Georgia. 121-132.

Lawton, E. C. (2000). “Performance of Geopier

Foundations During Simulated Seismic Tests at South
Temple Bridge on Interstate 15, Salt Lake City, Utah.”
Final Report, No. UUCVEEN 00-03, University of Utah,
Salt Lake City, Utah.

Majchrzak, M., Lew, M., Sorensen, K., and Farrell, T.

(2004). “Settlement of Shallow Foundations Constructed
Over Reinforced Soil: Design Estimates vs.
Measurements.” Proceedings, Fifth International
Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical
Engineering, April 13-17, 2004, New York, NY.

154