CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER (CFA) PILES

DESIGN GUIDANCE
Preferred Design Procedure
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has a design document for this technology.
The design document also contains information about construction techniques, quality
control/quality assurance, and specifications. Chapter 6 of the document contains the complete
design procedure. A summary of the procedure is presented following the reference table
below.
Available
Publication Publication
Publication Title for
Year Number
Download
Geotechnical
Design and Construction of Engineering
2007 Yes1
Continuous Flight Auger Piles Circular (GEC)
No. 8
1
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/geotech/library_listing.cfm

Use of CFA piles for Embankment Support

If the CFA piles will be used for embankment support, please see the Design Guidance for
column-supported embankments for recommended design procedures for the arching/load
transfer mechanism from the embankment to the columns.

Summary of Design/Analysis Procedure: FHWA

Current FHWA Reference: Brown et al. (2007)

This document is a state-of-the-practice manual for the design and construction of continuous
flight auger (CFA) piles, including those piles commonly referred to as augered cast-in-place
(ACIP) piles, drilled displacement (DD) piles, and screw piles. These names refer to types of
drilled foundations in which the auger is drilled to the final depth and the pile is cast during
auger withdrawal.
In CFA piles, the flights of the auger are filled with soil during drilling providing lateral support
and maintaining the stability of the hole. At the same time the auger is withdrawn from the hole,
concrete or a sand/cement grout is placed by pumping the concrete or grout mix through the
hollow center of the auger pipe to the base of the auger. Simultaneous pumping of the concrete
or grout and withdrawing of the auger provides continuous support of the hole. Reinforcement
for steel-reinforced CFA piles is placed into the hole filled with fluid concrete/grout immediately
after withdrawal of the auger.

November 2012 Page 1 of 10

G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT,
RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION,
AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM
 CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER (CFA) PILES
DESIGN GUIDANCE
Brown et al. (2007) presents a technology overview of CFA piles, applications for transportation
projects, construction techniques and materials, static capacity analysis, recommended design
procedures, QC/QA procedures, and guide specifications. The design procedures follow the
Allowable Stress Design (ASD) format since strength reduction factors have not yet been
calibrated for CFA piles in an LRFD approach.
The design procedure contains the following steps:
(1) Initial design considerations
(2) Comparison and selection of deep foundation alternatives
(3) Select pile dimensions and calculate performance under specified loads
a. Calculation of single pile length and diameter based on axial capacity
b. Verification of capacity and performance for both axial and lateral loads
c. Verification of pile group capacity and group settlement calculations
d. Pile structural design
e. Miscellaneous considerations
(4) Constructability review
(5) Prepare plans and specifications, set QC/QA and load test requirements
Step (1) involves establishing the general structural foundation requirements for the intended
application, site geology, and subsurface conditions. Step (2) involves comparison of deep
foundation alternatives including driven piles, drilled shafts, micropiles, and CFA piles including
conventional CFA piles and DD piles. Table 6.1 in Brown et al. (2007) contains a summary of
deep foundation alternatives which are appropriate based on the soil conditions, type of soil
profile, location of the ground water table, structural considerations, and other factors such as
seismic considerations, scour, potential for contaminated spoils, construction over water, and
economic factors.
Step (3) involves checking the geotechnical ultimate limit state (GULS), service limit state
(SLS), and structural ultimate limit state (SULS) of the pile. Step (3) includes the following
components: develop idealized soil profile, develop geotechnical design parameters, obtain
loadings for the foundation, select safety factor(s) for design, select a trial design pile group to
establish individual pile loads, select a trial design for individual CFA or DD piles, determine
pile group capacity, calculate pile group settlements, analyze pile group lateral behavior, and
perform pile structural design. Recommendations for calculating pile downdrag forces are
provided.
The Davisson criterion, commonly used for driven piles, will sometimes underestimate the
ultimate resistance and is not appropriate for CFA piles since more displacement is often
required to mobilize the capacity of a CFA pile versus a driven pile. Consequently, the GULS is
defined as the load resistance at a displacement equal to 5% of the pile diameter in an axial static
November 2012 Page 2 of 10
G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT,
RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION,
AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM
 CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER (CFA) PILES
DESIGN GUIDANCE
load test. CFA piles should have a factor of safety of at least 2.5 for GULS but a factor of safety
of 2.0 can be used if all of the following conditions are met:
 At least one conventional static load test is performed at the site, to a load exceeding the
computed ultimate by 50% or to a load producing a displacement equal to 5% of the pile
diameter, whichever comes first.
 Automated monitoring systems are used on all production piles to verify that production
piles are constructed in a similar way and to achieve similar performance as the test pile.
 The geology, stratigraphy, and soil properties are not highly variable and the site
conditions do not pose difficult construction conditions for CFA piles.
The mobilized side- and end-bearing resistances of CFA piles are assessed based on the Reese
and O’Neill (1988) [also in FHWA (1999) and modified in O’Neill and Reese (1999)] procedure
for drilled shafts. Some other alternative methods are discussed in Chapter 5 of Brown et al.
(2007) and can be considered by the design engineer for applications in specific soil types.
AASHTO (2002) requires that horizontal movements be limited to 25 mm (1 inch) where
combined horizontal and vertical movements are possible, and be limited to 38 mm (1.5 inches)
where vertical movements are small relative to horizontal movements.
The recommended method for estimating static axial capacity of DD piles is based on NeSmith
(2002). Improved side-shear resistance and end-bearing capacities obtainable with the DD pile
technique over conventional CFA piles must be verified for the specific site, technique, and
equipment using full-scale load-testing on pre-production test piles and a percentage of
production piles, as well as automated monitoring and recording equipment for construction of
all test and production piles.
Step (4) is a constructability review and involves the following considerations:
 Are pile length and diameters appropriate?
 Can bearing strata be penetrated to the depth indicated?
 Is there a risk of soil mining due to loose water-bearing sands?
 Is there a potential effect on nearby structures?
 Is the rebar cage appropriate?
 Is there a pile cutoff detail?
 Are low headroom conditions required?
 Is the construction sequence feasible?
 Is there a plan for resolving construction questions prior to production pile installation?

November 2012 Page 3 of 10

G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT,
RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION,
AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM
 CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER (CFA) PILES
DESIGN GUIDANCE
Step (5) involves preparing plans and construction specifications, and setting QC/QA and load
test requirements. This document contains a guide specification and recommended QC/QA
procedures.
Brown et al. (2007) provides an example problem to illustrate the steps above.
Brown et al. (2007) also provides a brief discussion of design for seismic loading, however a
complete discussion of the design of deep foundations for seismic loading is beyond the scope of
this document. For transportation applications, simple equivalent static analysis of lateral loads
at the top of the foundation due to inertial effects on the structure may be sufficient. For uplift, a
full-length center bar may be required. Where seismic load and soft ground are present, it may
be necessary to consider bending stresses in the pile due to seismically-induced lateral ground
movements (liquefaction and lateral spreading), which can produce large bending stresses at
significant depth below the top of the pile. In this case, a single center bar will not be sufficient,
and the use of a continuous steel pipe for reinforcement can provide good flexural capacity and
ductility and may be considered where deep reinforcing cages are problematic to install.
Table 1 provides a list of typical inputs and outputs for design and analysis procedures.

Liquefaction Potential Assessment

CFA Piles may be used at sites with in-situ soils that may be susceptible to liquefaction during
earthquakes. Saturated sands, silty sands, sandy silts, and silts are likely to be in this category.
When CFA Piles are used for the support of embankments and structures or to reduce
settlements, it is also necessary to confirm that there will not be a risk of liquefaction or other
ground disturbance that could lead to loss of support and lateral spreading. The initial assessment
of whether the soil at a site will liquefy in an earthquake is made in terms of whether the in-situ
shear strength under cyclic loading, represented as a Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR), is less than
the cyclic shear stress that will cause liquefaction, termed the Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR).
Combinations of CSR and strength of the soil layer, usually determined in-situ by means of
penetration tests and shear wave velocity 1 measurements, have been found that define the
boundary between liquefaction and no liquefaction over a range of peak ground motion
accelerations. This boundary has been determined through extensive analyses of case history
data from many earthquakes. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT), Cone Penetration Tests (CPT),
and Becker Penetration Tests for soils containing gravel and cobbles (BPT) are used to determine
the CRR. Values of CRR are defined by the points on the boundary curve that separates
liquefaction and no liquefaction zones on a plot of CSR vs. penetration resistance or shear wave

1
Owing to the lack of precision and uncertainties associated with shear wave velocity - liquefaction correlations,
this method is not considered further herein.
November 2012 Page 4 of 10
G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT,
RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION,
AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM
 CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER (CFA) PILES
DESIGN GUIDANCE
velocity corresponding to the measured and corrected in-situ property. An example of such a plot
for liquefaction analysis using the SPT is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. SPT liquefaction chart for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes (Youd et al. 2001; With
permission from ASCE).

Thus, if a site underlain by saturated clean sand has a corrected blow count (N1)60 of 10 blows
per foot and the anticipated cyclic stress ratio under the design earthquake is 0.25, the soil will
liquefy unless the normalized penetration resistance (N1)60 is increased to greater than 22 blows
per foot by densification, or the cyclic stress ratio is reduced by transferring some or all of the
dynamic shear stress to reinforcing elements. Similar plots are available in terms of normalized
CPT tip resistance qc1N. In each case the penetration resistance is normalized to an effective
overburden stress of 1 atmosphere.
Although straightforward in concept, the liquefaction potential analysis is complex in
application, because (1) the CSR depends on the input motions within the soil layer which, in
turn, depend on such factors as earthquake magnitude and intensity, distance from the epicenter,
November 2012 Page 5 of 10
G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT,
RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION,
AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM
 CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER (CFA) PILES
DESIGN GUIDANCE
geologic setting, rock conditions, and soil profile characteristics, (2) the CRR depends on such
factors as overburden stress, fines content of the soil, and static shear stress, and (3)
determination of normalized values of the penetration resistance involves several corrections to
the measured values, especially in the case of the SPT.
Information about input ground motions can be obtained from local experience and recorded
ground motions near the site, if available, or from seismicity information obtainable from the
United States Geological Survey Ground Motion Calculator at:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/javacalc.php
which can be used to obtain peak rock accelerations for the site, and the USGS Interactive
deaggregation website:
http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/
which enables determination of the magnitude and site-to-source distance earthquake scenario
that contributes the most to the seismic hazard at the site; i.e., it enables estimation of what
magnitude to use to obtain the appropriate magnitude scaling factor needed to adjust the actual
ground accelerations to a magnitude of 7.5, which is the value assumed for the available chart
correlations.
Widely used liquefaction correlation diagrams for SPT and CPT, along with discussions of how
to make the necessary computations to obtain the CSR, (N1)60, qc1N, and the CRR are given in
Youd et al. (2001) and Idriss and Boulanger (2008).
If CFA Piles are used in potentially liquefiable soils in a seismic area for support of
embankments or structures, or for stabilization of slopes, the cyclic stresses caused by ground
shaking will be shared between the columns and the untreated matrix soil. By virtue of their
greater stiffness, the columns will attract a greater proportion of the cyclic shear stresses than
given simply by the replacement ratio (the ratio of the treated area in plan to the total plan area).
To maintain structural integrity and ensure satisfactory performance requires a design that
prevents horizontal shear failure in aggregate columns or combined shear and bending failures in
cemented columns and walls. Analysis of this complex soil-structure problem is usually site and
project specific and requires input from someone with prior knowledge and experience.
Whether the matrix soil will liquefy with the supporting elements in place can be assessed in
terms of the reduced shear stress and strain that it is subjected to after accounting for that carried
by the columns. A very approximate, but conservative, means for estimating the reduced shear
stress is as follows.
If the simplifying assumption is made that the shear strains in the columns are the same as the
shear strains in the soil, then the ratio of the shear stress in the soil to the average stress can be
expressed as:

November 2012 Page 6 of 10

G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT,
RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION,
AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM
 CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER (CFA) PILES
DESIGN GUIDANCE

where,
= Area replacement ratio
= Shear modulus of the column
= Shear modulus of the soil

The equal strain assumption means that the stress concentration ratio, n = col/soil, will be given
by Gc/Gs. Owing to various types of compliance in the system, however, the actual stress
concentration ratio would be less than Gc/Gs for most situations. One source of guidance is the
stress concentration that occurs in a column-soil system subjected to vertical compressive
loading. For aggregate columns in soft soil this ratio is typically in the range of about 2 to 5 or 6,
and the ratio can be higher for cemented columns. When isolated columns are used to resist
shear deformations, the values of n can be smaller than for axial loading because there are more
potential sources of compliance, including column rotation and bending, than for axial loading.
Nevertheless, the values for axial loading can serve as a useful guide. If continuous panels are
used, the stress concentration for shear deformations can be higher than for isolated columns
because the rotation and bending deformation modes are inhibited.
Substituting n for Gc/Gs in the above expression gives:

As an example, if a safe value of n is assumed to be 3, then:

and if as = 0.3, then:

which represents a 38% reduction in the seismic shear stress applied to the soil. A reduction of
this magnitude could provide a significant decrease in the liquefaction potential.
The appropriate value of n in any case depends on the relative stiffness of the column and soil,
the slenderness ratio of the columns for unconnected column arrangements, the use of grids
formed of continuous shear panels instead of isolated columns, and the overall height-to-width
November 2012 Page 7 of 10
G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT,
RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION,
AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM
 CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER (CFA) PILES
DESIGN GUIDANCE
and height-to-length ratios of the treated zone, among other factors. As mentioned above, if the
columns are arranged in a grid of overlapping continuous panels it would be expected that n
would be higher than if isolated columns are used.

November 2012 Page 8 of 10

G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT,
RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION,
AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM
 CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER (CFA) PILES
DESIGN GUIDANCE
Table 1. Typical inputs and outputs for design and analysis procedures
Factor of safety for bearing capacity
Allowable settlement
Performance Criteria/Indicators
Allowable angular distortion
Allowable lateral displacement
Soil stratigraphy, shear strength and
classifications
Depth to bearing layer
Location of ground water table
Presence and extent of unusual geologic
features such as solution cavities, boulders,
lenses, or layers of hard rock
Soil stiffness/modulus for bearing capacity and
Subsurface Conditions
settlement calculations
Compressibility of soil layers for downdrag
calculations
Presence of contaminated soil that would
produce contaminated spoils
Presence of loose saturated granular soils
which could cause mining (removal of excess
soil up the auger flights during drilling)
Vertical load on pile
Lateral load on pile
Loading Conditions
Seismic loads
Scour information
Specified strength of concrete or grout (leading
Material Characteristics to mix design submitted by the contractor)
Yield strength of reinforcing steel
Availability of local contractors with CFA pile
Construction Techniques
experience
Diameter of piles
Spacing of piles
Geometry
Depth of piles
Steel reinforcing cage design

November 2012 Page 9 of 10

G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT,
RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION,
AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM
 CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER (CFA) PILES
DESIGN GUIDANCE
References
AASHTO (2002). “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges,” 17th Edition, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
Brown, D.A., Dapp, S.D., Thompson, W.R. and Lazarte, C.A. (2007). “Design and construction
of continuous flight auger piles.” Geotechnical Engineering Circular (GEC) No. 8, U.S. Dept.
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., p. 270
Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008). Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute Monograph MNO-12, 235 pp.
NeSmith, W.M. (2002). “Static Capacity Analysis of Augered, Pressure-Injected Displacement
Piles,” Geotechnical Special Publication No. 116, M. W. O’Neill and F. C. Townsend (Eds.),
ASCE, February, Vol. 1, pp. 1088–1097.
O’Neill, M.W. and Reese, L.C. (1999). “Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design
Methods,” FHWA Report No. IF-99-025, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C.
Reese, L. C., and O’Neill M. W. (1988). “Drilled Shaft: Construction Procedures and Design
Methods,” FHWA-HI-88-042, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango. I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn,
W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F.,
Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., and
Stokoe, K.H. (2001). “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996
NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of
Soils”, J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 10, pp.
817 - 833. http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291090-
0241%282001%29127%3A10%28817%29

November 2012 Page 10 of 10

G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT,
RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION,
AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM