‘SECTION 10 (SI) - TABLE OF CONTENTS 10.1 SCOPE... 10.2 DEFINITIONS .. 10.3 NOTATION 10-2 10.4 DETERMINATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES . 10-6 10.4.1 Subsurface Exploration 10-6 10.4.2 Laboratory Tests 10-7 10.421 GENERAL . 10-7 10.4.2.2 SOIL TESTINGS 10-7 10.4.2.3 ROCK TESTS 10-7 10.4.3 In-situ Tests .... 10-8 10.4.3,1 GENERAL . 10-8 10.4.3.2 IN-SITU SOIL TESTS . 10-8 10.4.3.3 IN-SITU ROCK TESTS . 10-9 10.5 LIMIT STATES AND RESISTANCE FACTORS 10-10 10.5.1 General . 10-10 10.5.2 Service Limi States. 10-10 10.5.3 Strength Limit State ... 10-10 10.5.4 Extreme Event Limit States 10-11 10.5.5 Resistance Factors ....... 10-11 10.6 SPREAD FOOTINGS ....... 10-16 10.6.1 General Considerations . 10-16 10.6.1.1 GENERAL 10-16 10.6.1.2 DEPTH .. 10-16 — 10.6.1.3 ANCHORAGE . 10-16 ~ 10.6.1.4 GROUNDWATER 10-17 10.6.1.5 UPLIFT . 10-17 10.6.1.6 NEARBY TURE 10-17, 10.6.2 Movement and Bearing Pressure at the Service Limit State 10-17 10.6.2.1 GENERAL 10-17 10.6.2.2 MOVEMENT CRITERIA . 10-18 10.6.2.2.1 General . 10-18 10.6.2.2.2 Loads .. . 10-18 10.6223 Settlement Analyses 10-19 10.6.2.2.3a General .... wee . 10-19 10.6.2.2.3b Settlement of Footings on jesionless 10-20 10.6.2.2.3¢ Settlement of Footings on Cohesive Soils 10-22 10.6.2.2.3d Settlements of Footings on Rock . 10-26 10.6.2.2.4 Loss of Overall Stability 10-29 10.6.2.3 BEARING PRESSURE AT THE SERVICE LIMIT STATE 10-30 10.6.2.3.1 Presumptive Values for Bearing Pressure . . . 10-30 10.6.2.3.2 Semiempirical Procedures for Bearing Press 10-31 10.6.3 Resistance at the Strength Limit State . . 10-32 10.6.3.1 BEARING RESISTANCE OF SOILS UNDER FOOTINGS . 10-32 10.6.3.1.1 General... .. . 10-32 10.8.3.1.2 Theoretical Estimation 10-32 10.6.3.1.2a General . . 10-32 10.6.3.1.2b6 ‘Saturated Clays see 10-35, 10.6.3.1.2c Cohesionless Soils 10-39 10.6.3.1.3 Semiempirical Procedures . . 10-46 % 10.6.3.1.3a General ... 10-46 4 10.6.3.1.3 Using SPT 10-47 10-1‘TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 10.6.3.1.3¢ Using CPT .... 5 . 10-49 10.6.3.1.3d Use of Pressuremeter Test Results... bay : 10-50 10.6.3.1.4 Plate Load Tests .... 10-52 10.6.3.1.5 Effect of Load Eccentricity + 10-52 10.6.3.2 BEARING RESISTANCE OF ROCK + 10-53 10.63.21 General . 2 10-53 106.322 Semiempirical Procedures se. 10-53 10.6.3.2.3 Analytic Method + 10-53 106.324 Load Test ..... 10-53 10.6.3.2.5 Limits on Load Eccent 10-54 10.3.3 FAILURE BY SLIDING 10-54 10.6.4 Structural Design . .. + 10-55 10.7 DRIVEN PILES 10-56 10.7.1 General . + 10-58 107.1.1 USE . - 10-56 10.7.1.2 PILE PENETRATION . 10-56 10.7.1.3 RESISTANCE ...... Bas - 10-56 10.7.1.4 EFFECT OF SETTLING GROUND AND DOWNDRAG LOADS 10-57 10.7.1.5 PILE SPACING, CLEARANCES, AND EMBEDMENT 10-59 1.6 BATTERPILES ..... 10-59 7 GROUNDWATER TABLE AND BUOYANCY | 10-60 1.8 PROTECTION AGAINST DETERIORATION 10-60 10.7.1.9 UPLIFT ....... 10-61 107.110 ESTIMATED LEN : 10-61 10.7.1.11 ESTIMATE AND MINIMUM TIP ELEVATION 10-61 10.7.1.12 PILES THROUGH EMBANKMENT FILL . 10-62 10-62 10-62 10-62 10-63 10.7.1.13 TEST PILES ...... 14 WAVE EQUATION ANALYSIS. 1 DYNAMIC MONITORING .... 10.7.1.18 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DRIVING STRESSES 10.7.2 Movement and Bearing Resistance at the Service Limit State . 10-63 107.21 GENERAL ...... : epaeonoee ceeeees 10-63 2 CRITERIA FOR HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT pbecbebbaaosbse 10-64 107.23 SETTLEMENT . 5 10-65 10.7.2.3.1 General .. 10-65 10.7.2.32 Cohesive Soll... 10-65 10.7.2.3.3 Cohesionless Soil... 10-65 10.7.2.4 HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT. 10-68 107.25 PRESUMPTIVE VALUES FOR E! 10-68 10.7.3 Resistance at the Strength Limit State .. 10-68 107.31 GENERAL .... ~ 10-68 10.7.32 AXIAL LOADING OF PILES - 10-67 1073.3 SEMIEMPIRICAL ESTIMATES OF PILE RESISTANCE 10-68 10.7.3.3.1 General ..... 10-68 10.7.3.32 Shaft Resistance . 10-68 10.7.3.3.28 a-Method .. 10-68 10.7.3.3.2b B-Method 10-70 10.7.3.3.20 A-Method. 10-70 10.7.3.33 Tip Resistance . 10-74 10.7.3.4 PILE RESISTANCE ESTIMATES BASED ON IN-SITU TESTS 10-74 10.7.3.4.1 General ............ 10-74 107.342 Using SPT... + 10-72 10.7.3.4.2a Pile Tip Resistance + 10-72 10.7.3.4.2b Skin Friction . PIII 10-72 407.343 Using CPT 2 10-73 10.7.3.4.3a General... 10-73 10-iiTABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 10.7.3.4.3b Pile Tip Resistance . = 10-73 10.7.3.4.3¢ Skin Friction ... 10-74 10,7.3.5 PILES BEARING ON ROCK = 10-76 10.7.36 PILE LOAD TEST AND FIELD 10-77 10.7.3.7 UPLIFT .. 2. 10-78 10.7.3.7.1 General 21 10-78 10.7.3.7.2 Single-Pile Uplift Resistance 210-78 40.7.3.7.3 Pile Group Uplift Resistance + 10-78 10.7.3.8 LATERAL LOAD . 10.7.3.9 BEARING RESISTANCE OF BATTER PILES .......... 7 10.7.3.10 GROUP AXIAL LOAD RESISTANCE ......0....06000ccseeee 0.7.3.10.1 General ... : 10.73.102 Cohesive Soll .. 10.7.3.10.3 Cohesionless Soil te 10-80 - 10-81 V1 40-81 110-84 110-82 10.7.3.10.4 Pile Group in Strong Soil Overlying a Weak or Comress le Soil 2+. 10-83 10.7.3.11 GROUP LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE 5 210-83 10.7.4 Structural Design 210-84 110-84 110-84 10.7.4.1 GENERAL 10.7.4.2 BUCKLING 10.8 DRILLED SHAFTS . 10.8.1 General . 10.8.1.1 SCOPE 10.8.1.2 EMBEDMENT | 3 SHAFT DIAMETER, 10.8.1.4 RESISTANCE 10.8.1.5 DOWNDRAG 10.8.1.6 GROUP SPACING . 10.8.1.7 BATTER SHAFTS . 10.8.1.8 GROUNDWATER TABLE AND BUOYANCY 10.8.1.9 UPLIFT ... 10.8.2 Movement at the Service Limit State 10.8.2.1 GENERAL ..... 10.822 CRITERIA FOR HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT .. 10.8.2.3 SETTLEMENT .. : 10.8.2.3.1 General... 10.8.2.3.2 Settlement of Single-Drilled Shaft 10.8.2.3.3 Group Settlement ..... 10.8.2.4 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT 10.8.3 Resistance at the Strength Limit State 10.8.3.1 GENERAL ...... 10.8.3.2 AXIAL LOADING OF DRILLED SHAFTS 108.33 SEMIEMPIRICAL ESTIMATES OF DRILLED SHAFT RESISTANCE IN COHESIVE SOILS ..... 10.8.3.3.1 Shaft Resistance Using the a-Method . 10.8,3.3.2 Tip Resistance ...... 10.8.3.4 ESTIMATION OF DRILLED-SHAFT RESISTANCE IN COHESIONLESS 8 SOILS 10.8.3.4.1 General 10.8.3.4.2 Shaft Resistance 10.8.3.4.3 Tip Resistance 10.8.3.5 AXIAL RESISTANCE IN ROCK 10;8.816| LOAD TESTA 10.8.3.7 UPLIFT RESISTANCE 10.8.3.7.1 General...... : 10.83.72 Uplift Resistance of a Singi-Diled ‘Shaft 10.8.3.7.3 Group Uplift Resistance . . 10.8.3.8 LATERAL LOAD = 10-85 = 10-85 = 10-85 2. 10-85 = 10-85 10-88 = 10-86 :++ 10-87 : 10-87 = 10-87 2. 10-87 = 10-88 = 10-88 + 10-88 210-88 + 10-88 10-88 10-91 10-91 10-91 210-94 + 10-94 - 10-92 + 10-92 210-93 = 10-94 210-94 10-94 = 10-97 10-98 10-103 10-103 10-103 10-104 10-105 10-105 10- iii10.8.3.9 GROUP CAPACITY 10.8.3.9.1 General .... 10.8.3.9.2 Cohesive Soil. 10.8.3.9.3 Cohesionless Soll... 0.83.94 Group n Seng Soll Overing Wesker Compressbe & Soil 10.8.4 Structural Design : 10.8.4.1 GENERAL ...... 108.42 BUCKLING OF DRILLED SHAFTS | 10.8.5 Detalls for Drilled Shafts . 10.8.5.1 GENERAL ...... 10.8.5.2 REINFORCEMENT . 10-106 10.853 TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT Saeonceoone 10-107 10.8.5.4 CONCRETE Aprons 10-107 10.8.5.5 REINFORCEMENT INTO SUPERSTRUCTURE seeeeeee 10-108 : Seeode 10-108 ~ 10-105 10-105 10-105 10-105 10-105 10-106 10-108 10-106 10-106 10-108 10.8.5.6 ENLARGED BASES APPENDIX ‘A10.1 INVESTIGATION ... = A10-1 ‘A10.2 FOUNDATION DESIGN . - A10-5 ‘A10.3 SPECIAL PILE REQUIREMENTS . - A10-9 10-iv‘Section 10 - Foundations (SI!) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 10.1 SCOPE spread footings, foundations. ‘The probabilistic LRFD basis of these Specifications, ‘which produces an interrelated combination of load, load factor, resistance, resistance factor, and statistical reliabilty, shall be considered when selecting procedures for caloulating resistance other than that specified herein. Other methods, especially when locally recognized and Considered suitable for regional conditions, may be used ‘and drilled shaft driven piles, COMMENTARY ci04 ‘The resistance procedures used in developing this section are summarized in Appendix A of Barker et al (1991). The specification of methods of analysis and calculation of resistance for foundations herein is not intended to imply that field verification andlor reaction to conditions actually encountered in the field are no longer needed. These traditional features of foundation design ‘and construction are still practical considerations when designing in accordance with these Specifications. if the statistical nature of the factors given above are considered through consistent use of reliability theory and are approved by the Owner. 10.2 DEFINITIONS Batter Pile - Pile driven at an angle inclined to the vertical to provide higher resistance to lateral loads. Bearing Pile - A pile whose purpose is to carry axial load through friction or point bearing. ‘Combination Point Bearing and Friction Pile - Pile that derives its capacity from contributions of both point bearing developed at the pile tip and resistance mobilized along the embedded shaft. ‘Combined Footing - A footing that supports more than one column, ‘Competent Rock - A rock mass with discontinuities that are open not wider than 3.2 mm. ‘Deep Foundation - A foundation that derives its support by transferring loads to soil or rock at some depth below the structure by end bearing, adhesion or friction, or both. Drilled Shaft - A deep foundation unit, wholly or partly embedded in the ground, constructed by placing fresh concrete in a drilled hole with or without steel reinforcement. Drilled shafts derive their capacity from the surrounding soil and/or from the soil or rock strata below its tip. Drilled shafts are also commonly referred to as caissons, drilled caissons, bored piles, or drilled piers. Effective Stress - The net stress across points of contact of soll particles, generally considered as equivalent to the total stress minus the pore water pressure. Friction Pile - A pile whose support capaeity is derived principally from soll resistance mobilized along the side of the embedded pile. Isolated Footing - Individual support for the various parts of a substructure unit; the foundation is called a footing foundation. Length of Foundation - Maximum plan dimension of a foundation element. Overconsolidation Ratlo (OCR) - Defined as the ratio ofthe preconsolidation pressure to the current vertical effective stress. Pile - A relatively slender deep foundation unit, wholly or partly embedded in the ground, that is installed by driving, diriling, auguring, jetting, or otherwise and that derives its capacity from the surrounding soil and/or from the soil or rock strata below its tp. 10-1Section 10 - Foundations (SI) Plie Bent - A type of bent using piles as the column members. Plie Shoe - A metal piece fixed to the penetration end of a penetration through very dense material, to protect it from damage during driving and to facilitate Piping - Progressive erosion of soil by seeping water that produces an open pipe ‘through the soil through which water flows in an uncontrolled and dangerous manner. Plunging - A mode of behavior observed in some pile load tests, wherein the settlement of the pile continues to increase with no increase in load. Point-Bearing Pile - A pile whose support capacity is derived principally from the resistance of the foundation material ‘on which the pile tip rests. RQD - Rock Quality Designation, Shallow Foundation - A foundation that derives its support by transferring load directly to the soil or rock at shallow depth. Slickensides - Polished and grooved surfaces in clayey soils or rocks resulting from shearing displacements along planes. Total Stress - Total pressure exerted in any direction by both soll and water. Width of Foundation - Minimum plan dimension of a foundation element. 10.3 NOTATION ‘The units shown after the description of each term are suggested units. Other units that are consistent with the ‘expressions being evaluated may be used. = effective footing area for determination of elastic settlement of footing subjected to eccentric loads (mm?) (10.6.2.2.3b) area of pile point or base of drilled shaft (mm) (10.7.3.2) surface area of pile shaft (mm) (10.7.3.2) pile perimeter at the point considered (mm) (10.7.3.4.3c) area of drilled shaft socket in rock (mn) (C10.8.3.5) uplift area of a belled drilled shaft (mm?) (10.8.3.7.2) footing width (mm); pile group wiath (mm) (10.6.3.1.2c) effective footing width (mm) (10.6.3.1.5) secondary settlement coefficient estimated from results of laboratory consolidation testing of undisturbed soil samples (DIM) (10.6.2.2.3c) compression index (DIM) (10.6.2.2.3c) ‘compression ratio (DIM) (10.6.2.2.3c) recompression index (DIM) (10.6.2.2.3c) Uniaxial compressive strength of rock (MPa) (10.6.2.3.2) cone penetration test (10.5.5) recompression ratio (DIM) (10.6.2.2.3¢) coefficient of consolidation (mm?/VR) (10.6.2.2.3c) ‘correction factors for groundwater effect (DIM) (6.10.3.1.2c) ‘cohesion of soil (MPa); undrained shear strength (MPa) (10.6.3.1.2b) soil compressibility factor (DIM) (10.8.3.1.2c) Undrained shear strength ofthe top layer of soil as depicted in Figure 3 (MPa) (10.6.3.1.2b) shear strength of lower soil layer (MPa) (10.6.3.1.2b) reduced effective stress soll cohesion for punching shear (MPa) (10.6.3.1.2a) pile width or diameter (mm); diameter of diled shaft (mm) (10.7.3.4.2a) (10.8.3.3.2) effective depth of pile group (mm) (10.7.2.3.3) PIeDpPr> > geppe 3 pee + Coa > goog ope 10-2Section 10 - Foundations (Si) SPST MAMMmMepoppD op 3x ZEE rere. re Reon RARARR z : eezl zor FFF z depth of embedment of pile into a bearing stratum (mm) (10.7.2.1) foundation embedrent depth taken ftom ground surface to bottom of foundation (rim) .6.3.1,2b) pile width or diameter at the point considered (mm) (10.7.3.4.3c) diameter of the tip of a drilled shaft (mm); diameter of bell (mm) (10.8.3.3.2) (10.8.3.7.2) depth factor (DIM) (10.8.3.1.2c) diameter of socket when pile or drilled shaft is socketed into rock (mm) (10.7.3.5) depth to water surface taken from the ground surface (mm) (10.6.3.1.2c) depth factor for estimating tip capacity of piles in rock (DIM) (10.7.3.5) modulus of elasticity of concrete (MPa) (C10.8.3.5) modulus of elasticity of intact rock (MPa) (C10.8.3.5) ‘estimated rock mass modulus (MPa); rock mass modulus (MPa) (C10.6.2.2.3c) (10.6.2.2.3d) intact rock modulus (MPa) (10.6.2.2.3d) modulus of elasticity of pile (MPa) (10.7.4.2) Modulus of elasticity of in-situ rock (MPa) (C10.8.3.5) ‘soil modulus (MPa) (10.7.4.2) ‘eccentricity of load parallel to the width of the footing (mm) (10.6.3.1.5) ‘eccentricity of load parallel to the length of the footing (mm) (10.6.3.1.5) ‘oid ratio at initial vertical effective stress (DIM) (10.6.2.2.3c) reduction factor for point resistance of large diameter drilled shafts (DIM) (10.8.3.3.2) 28-day compressive strength of concrete (MPa) (10.6.2.3.2) sleeve friction measured from a CPT (MPa) (10.7.3.4.3a) unit local sleeve friction resistance from CPT at the point considered (MPa) (10.7.3.4.3¢) gravitational acceleration (m/s*) horizontal component of inclined loads (N); distance from tips of piles to top of lowest stratum (mm) (10.6.3.1.3b) height of compressible soil layer (mm) (10.6.2.2.3c) height of longest drainage path in compressible soil layer (mm) (10.6.2.2.3c) height of sloping ground mass (mm); depth of embedment of pile or drilled shaft socketed into Tock (mm) (10.6.3.1.2b) (10.7.3.8) distance from bottom of footing to top of the second soil layer (mm) (10.6.3.1.2b) length interval at the point considered (mm) (10.7.3.4.3c) influence factor for the effective embedment of a pile group (DIM) (10.7.2.3.3) influence coefficient to account for rigidity and dimensions of footing (DIM); moment of inertia of pile (mm) (10.8.2.2.3d) (10.7.4.2) influence coefficient from Figure C10.8.3.5-1 (DIM) load inclination factors (DIM) (10.6.3.1.2c) load transfer factor (DIM) (10.8.3.4,2) coefficient for bearing on rock from pressuremeter test (DIM) (C10.8.3.5) correction factor for sleeve friction in clay (DIM) (10.7.3.4.3c) ‘modulus modification ratio from Figure C10.8.3.6-3 (DIM) (C10.8.3.5) correction factor for sleeve friction in sand (DIM) (10.7.3.4.3c) dimensionless bearing capacity coefficient (DIM) (10.7.3.5) empirical bearing capacity coefficient from Figure 10.6.3.1.3d-1 (DIM) (10.6.3.1.3d) length of foundation (mm) (10.6.3.1.5) effective footing length (mm) (10.6.3.1.5) depth to point considered when measuring sleeve friction (mm) (10.7.3.4.3c) depth to middle of length interval at the point considered (mm) (10.7.3.4.3c) liquid limit of soil (C10.8.1.9) ‘Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (Blows/300 mm) (10.7.2.3.3) average (uncorrected) SPT blow count along pile shaft (Blows/300 mm) (10.7.3.4.2b) bearing capacity factor (DIM) (10.6.3.1.2b) bearing capacity factors (DIM) (10.6.3.1.2c) modified bearing capacity factors (DIM) (10.6.3.1.2b) modified bearing capacity factors (DIM) (10.6.3.1.2b) ‘corrected SPT blow count (Blows/300 mm) (10.7.2.3.3) average value of corrected SPT blow count (Blows/300 mm) (10.6.3.1.3b) 10-3Section 10 - Foundations (SI) zZ 222F Pe RPE bearing capacity factor (DIM) (10.6.3.1.2b) rock parameter (DIM (10.6.2.3.2) uplift adhesion factor for bel! (DIM) (10.8.3.7.2) modified beating capacity factor (DIM) (10.6.3.1.2c) SPT resistance, corrected for depth (Blows/300 mm); number of intervals between the ground ‘surface and a point 8D below the ground surface (10.6.2.2.3b-1) (10.7.3.4.30) umber of intervals between 8D below the ground surface and the tip of the pile (10.7.3.4.3c) = rate of increase of soll modulus with depth (MPalmm) (10.7.4.2) plastic limit of soll (C10.8.1.9) limiting pressure obtained from pressuremeter test result (MPa) (10.6.3.1.3d) total horizontal pressure at the depth where the pressuremeter test is performed (MPa) (10.6.3.1.3d) limit pressure determined from pressuremeter tests averaged over a distance of 2.0 diameters above and below the base (MPa) (C10.8.3.5) Passive resistance of soil available throughout the design life of the structure (N) (10.6.3.3) ominal resistance of pile group (N) (10.7.3.10.1) ‘nominal lateral resistance of single pile (N) (10.7.3.11) ‘nominal lateral resistance of pile group (N) (10.7.3.11) nominal resistance (N) (10.6.3.3) ‘nominal load carried by pile point (N) (10.7.3.2) factored resistance (N) (10.6.3.3) nominal load carried by pile shaft (N) (10.7.3.2) ‘nominal uplift resistance of a belled drilled shaft (N) (10.8.3.7.2) nominal side resistance of drilled shafts socketed in rock (N) (C10.8.3.6) ‘nominal upift resistance of a pile group (N) (10.7.3.7.3) total nominal bearing resistance (N) (10.7.3.2) ‘maximum shear resistance between the foundation and the soil (N) (10.5.5) ‘net foundation pressure applied at 2D,/3 (MPa) (10.7.2.3.3) static cone resistance (MPa); average static cone resistance over a depth B below the equivalent footing (MPa) (10.6.3.1.3c) (10.7.2.3.3) minimum average static cone resistance over a depth yD below a pile tip (MPa) (10.7.3.4.3b) minimum average static cone resistance over a distance 8D above the pile tip (MPa) (10.7.3.4.3b) ting point resistance (MPa) (10.7.3.4.2a) ‘nominal bearing resistance (MPa) (10.6.3.1.1) vertical stress at base of loaded area (MPa) (10.6.2.2.3b) nominal unit point resistance (MPa) (10.7.3.2) reduced nominal unit point resistance (MPa) (C10.8.3.3.2) factored bearing resistance (MPa) (10.6.3.1.1) Unit shear resistance; nominal unit skin resistance (MPa) (10.6.3.3) (10.7.3.2) ‘nominal unit uplift resistance of a belled dried shaft (MPa) (10.8.3.7.2) ‘average uniaxial compression strength of the rock core (MPa) (10.7.3.6) ‘nominal bearing resistance (MPa) (10.6.3.1.1) ultimate bearing capacity of footing supported in the upper layer of a two-layer system, assuming the upper layer is infinitely thick (MPa) (10.6.3.1.2a) = ultimate bearing capacity of a fictitious footing of the same size and shape as the actual footing, bbut supported on surface of the second (lower) layer of a two-layer system (MPa) (10.6.3.1.2a) reduction factor accounting for the effect of load inclination (DIM) (10.6.3.1.3b) ius of circular footing or B/2 for square footing (mm) (10.6.2.2.3d) ital total vertical pressure at foundation level (MPa) (10.6.3.1.3d) consolidation settlement (mm) (10.6.2.2.3a) elastic settlement (mm) (10.6.2.2.3a) standard penetration test (10.5.5) secondary settlement (mm) (10.6.2.2.3a) tndrained shear strength (MPa) (10.6.3.1.2b) average undrained shear strength along pile shaft (MPa) (10.7.3.7.3) shape factors (DIM) (10.6.3.1.2b) (10.6.3.1.2c) spacing of discontinuities (mm) (10.7.3.5) time factor (DIM) (10.6.2.2.3¢) 10-4Section 10 - Foundations (Si) PP vgann oor fe eee = _ time for a given percentage of one-dimensional consolidation settlement (YR) (10.6.2.2.3c) ‘with of discontinuities (mm) (10.7.3.5) = arbitrary time intervals for determination of S, (YR) (10.6.2.2.3c) vertical component of inclined loads (N) (10.6.3.1.3b) weight of block of soil, piles and pile cap (N) (10.7.3.7.3) width of pile group (mm) (10.7.2.3.3) length of pile group (mm) (10.7.3.7.3) total embedded pile length (mm) (10.7.3.4.3c) depth below ground surface (mm) (10.8.3.4.2) adhesion factor applied to S, (DIM) (10.7.3.3.2a) reduction factor (DIM) (10.6.2.2.34) Coefficient relating the vertical effective stress and the unit skin ftiction of a pile or drilled shaft (OIM) (10.7.3.3.2b) punching index (DIM) (10.6.3.1.2b) factor to account for footing shape and rigiity (DIM) (10.6.2.2.34) density of soll (kg/m?) (10.6.3.1.2b) angle of shearing resistance between soil and pile (DEG) (10.6.3.3) efficiency factor for pile or drilled shaft group (DIM) (10.7.3.10.2) = empirical coefficient relating the passive lateral earth pressure and the unit skin friction of a pile (DIM) (10.7.3.3.2c) = reduction factor for consolidation settlements to account for three-dimensional effects (DIM) (10.62.2.30) settiement of pile group (mm) (10.7.2.3.3) settlement of the base of a drilled shaft (mm) (C10.8.3.5) elastic shortening of a drilled shaft (mm) (C10.8.3.5) = working load at the top of a rock socket (N) (C10.8.3.5) final vertical effective stress in soil at depth interval below footing (MPa) (10.6.2.2.3c) intial vertical effective stress in soil at depth interval below footing (MPa) (10.6.2.2.3c) ‘maximum past vertical effective stress in soil at depth interval below footing (MPa) (10.6.2.2.3c) = current vertical effective stress in the soil, not including the additional stress due to the footing loads (MPa) (10.6.2.2.3¢) = total vertical stress at the brace elevation (MPa) (C10.8.3.5) vertical effective stress (MPa) (C10.7.1.7) resistance factor (10.5.5) resistance factor for passive pressure (10.6.3.3) angle of internal fiction of soll (DEG) (10.6.3.3) = resistance factor for the bearing capacity of a ple group failing as a unit consisting of the piles and the block of soil contained within the piles; group resistance factor (10.7.3.10.1) pile group resistance factor for lateral loads (DIM) (10.7.3.11) resistance factor for the total bearing capacity of a pile for those methods that do not distinguish between total resistance and the individual contributions of tip resistance and shaft resistance (10.7.3.2) = resistance factor for the shaft capacity of a pile for those methods that separate the resistance of a pile into contributions from tip resistance and shaft resistance (10.7.3.2) = resistance factor for the tip capacity of a pile for those methods that separate the resistance of a pile into contributions from tip resistance and shaft resistance (10.7.3.2) resistance factor for shear between soil and foundation (10.5.5) = resistance factor for the uplift capacity ofa single pile (10.7.3.7.2) resistance factor for the uplift capacity of pile groups (10.7.3.7.3) effective stress angle of internal friction ofthe top layer of soil (DEG) (10.6.3.1.2c) reduced effective stress soil friction angle for punching shear (DEG) (10.6.3.1.2a) 10-5Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS 10.4 DETERMINATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES 10.4.1 Subsurface Exploration ‘Subsurface explorations shall be performed for each substructure element to provide the necessary Information for the design and construction of foundations. The extent of exploration shall be based on ‘subsurface conditions, structure type, and project requirements. The exploration program shall be extensive enough to reveal the nature and types of soil deposits and/or rock formations encountered, the engineering properties of the soils and/or rocks, the potential for liquefaction, and the groundwater conditions. Borings shall be taken at pier and abutment locations, sufficient in number and depth, to establish a reliable longitudinal and transverse substrata profile. Samples of material encountered shall be taken and preserved for future reference and/or testing. Boring logs shall be prepared in detail sufficient to locate ‘material strata, results of penetration tests, groundwater, any artesian action, and where samples were taken. ‘Special attention shall be paid to the detection of narrow, soft seams that may be located at stratum boundaries. If's0 requested by the Owner, boring and penetration test holes shall be plugged to prevent water contamination. ‘Subsurface explorations shall be made to competent ‘material of suitable bearing capacity or to depth where added stresses due to estimated footing load is less than 10 percent of the existing effective soil overburden stress, whichever is the greater. if bedrock is ‘encountered at shallow depths, the boring shall advance ‘a minimum of 3000 mm into the bedrock or to the proposed foundation depth, whichever is greater. Laboratory andlor in-situ tests shall be performed to determine the strength, deformation, and flow characteristics of solls and/or rocks and their suitability for the foundation selected. COMMENTARY C1044 The conduct of the subsurface exploration program is part of the process of obtaining information relevant for, the design and construction of substructure elements. ‘The elements of the process that should precede the ‘actual exploration program include search and review of published and unpublished information at and near the site, a visual site inspection, and design of the ‘subsurface exploration program. Refer to AASHTO. ‘Manual on Subsurface Investigations (1988) for general guidance regarding the planning and conduct of ‘subsurface exploration programs. ‘As a minimum, the subsurface exploration and testing program should obtain information to analyze foundation stability and settlement with respect to: © Geological formation(s); © Location and thickness of soll and rock units; © Engineering properties of soil and rock units, including density, shear strength and compressibility; ‘© Groundwater conditior ‘© Ground surface topography; and © Local considerations, e.g., iquefiable, expansive or dispersive soil deposits, underground voids from solution weathering or mining activity, or slope instability potential. Parameters derived from field tests, such as standard penetration, cone penetrometer, dynamic Penetrometer, and pressuremeter tests, may also be Used directly in design calculations based on empirical relationships. These are sometimes found to be more reliable than analytical calculations, especially in familiar, ground conditions for which the empirical relationships are well established. The design values selected for the parameters should be appropriate to the particular limit state and its correspondent calculation model under consideration. For the value of each parameter, relevant published data together with local and general experience should be considered. Published correlations between parameters should also be considered when relevant. In interpreting test results, published information relevant to the use of each type of test in the appropriate ‘ground conditions should be considered. 10-6Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 10.4.2 Laboratory Tests 1042.1 GENERAL Laboratory tests shall be carried out in conformance with the relevant AASHTO or ASTM standards or Owner- supplied standards and may include the following tests for solls and rocks. 10.422 SOIL TESTINGS Laboratory soil tests may include: ‘© Water Content - ASTM D 4643 © Specific Gravity - AASHTO T 100 (ASTM D 854) ‘© Grain Size Distribution - AASHTO T 88 (ASTM 0 422) ‘© Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit - AASHTO T 90 (ASTM 4318) ‘Shear Test - AASHTO T 236 (ASTM D 3080) © Unconfined Compression Test - AASHTO T 208 (ASTM D 2166) © Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Test - ASTM D 2850 © Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Test - AASHTO 7 287 (ASTM D 4767) © Consolidation Test - AASHTO T 216 (ASTM 1D 2435 or D 4186) © Permeability Test - AASHTO T 215 (ASTM D 2434) 10.42.3 ROCK TESTS Laboratory rock tests may include: © Determination of Elastic Moduli - ASTM D 3148 ‘© Triaxial Compression Test - AASHTO T 266 (ASTM 2664) ‘© Unconfined Compression Test - ASTM D 2938 ‘© Spliting Tensile Strength Test - ASTM D 3967 COMMENTARY c10.4.2.4 ‘An understanding of the engineering properties of soils is essential to the use of current methods for the design of foundations and earth structures. ‘The purpose of laboratory testing is to provide the basic data with which to classify soils and to measure their engineering properties. C10.42.2 Laboratory tests of soils may be grouped broadly into two general classes: © Classification tests: These may be performed on either disturbed or undisturbed samples. © Quantitative tests for permeability, compressibility and shear strength: These tests are generally performed on undisturbed samples, except for materials to be placed as controlled fill or materials that do not have an unstable soil-structure. In these cases, tests should be performed on specimens prepared in the laboratory. 010.423 Laboratory testing of rock has very limited applicability for measuring significant rock properties, such as: © Compressive strength, © Shear strength, © Hardness, © Compressibility, and 10-7‘Section 10 - Foundations (S!) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 104.3 In-situ Tests 1043.1 GENERAL In-situ tests may be performed to obtain deformation ‘and strength parameters of foundation soils or rock for the purposes of design and/or analysis. The tests shall be performed in accordance with the appropriate standards recommended by ASTM or AASHTO and may include the in-situ soil tests and in-situ rock tests. 10.432 IN-SITU SOIL TESTS In-situ soil tests include: © Standard Penetration Test - AASHTO T 206 (ASTM D 1586) © Static Cone Test - ASTM D 3441 ‘© Field Vane Test - AASHTO T 223 (ASTM. 2573) © Pressuremeter Test - ASTM D 4719 © Plate Bearing Test - AASHTO T 235 (ASTM D 1194) © Well Test (Permeability) - ASTM D 4750 COMMENTARY © Permeability. Rock samples small enough to be tested in the laboratory are usually not representative of the entire rock mass. Laboratory testing of rock is used primarily for classification of intact rock samples, and, if performed properly, serves a useful function in this regard, Laboratory tests on intact samples provide upper bounds on strength and lower bounds on compressibility. Frequently, laboratory tests can be used in conjunction with field tests to give reasonable estimates of rock mass, behavioral characteristics. c10.4.3.4 ‘Some features of common in-situ tests are given in Table €10.4.32-1 (Canadian Geotechnical Society 1985). 10-8‘Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY Table C10.4.3.2-1 - In-Situ Tests NOT PROPERTIES THAT APPLICABLE | CAN BE DETERMINED ‘Standard Qualitative evaluation of Penetration compactness. Test (SPT) Qualitative comparison of subsoil stratification. Dynamic Cone Qualitative evaluation of Test compactness. Qualitative comparison of subsoil stratification. Static Cone | Sand, Silt, : Continuous evaluation of Test and Clay density and strength of sands. Continuous ‘evaluation of undrained shear strength in clays. Field Vane Clay ‘All Other Soils | Undrained shear Test strength. Pressuremeter | Soft Rock, | SoftSensitive | Bearing capacity and Test Sand, Clays: ‘compressibility Gravel, and Till {Ti Plate Bearing | Sand and - Deformation modulus, Test and Clay Modulus of subgrade Screw Plate reaction. Bearing Test capacity. Flat Plate Sand and | Gravel Empirical correlation for Ditatometer | Clay soil type, K,, Test ‘overconsolidation ratio, undrained shear strength, and modulus. Permeability | Sand and - Evaluation of coefficient Test Gravel of permeability 10.4.3.3 IN-SITU ROCK TESTS In-situ tests may include ‘© Deformabilty and Strength of Weak Rock by an In- Situ Uniaxial Compressive Test - ASTM D 4555 © Determination of Direct Shear Strength of Rock Discontinuities - ASTM D 4554 © Modulus of Deformation of Rock Mass Using the Flexible Plate Loading Method - ASTM D 4395, 10-9Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS ‘© Modulus of Deformation of Rock Mass Using a Radial Jacking Test - ASTM D 4506 ‘® Modulus of Deformation of Rock Mass Using the Rigid Plate Loading Method - ASTM D 4394 © Stress and Modulus of Deformation Determination Using the Flatjack Method - ASTM D 4729 © Stress in Rock Using the Hydraulic Fracturing Method - ASTM D 4845 10.5 LIMIT STATES AND RESISTANCE FACTORS 10.5.1 General The limit states shall be as specified in Article 1.3, foundation-specific clarifications are contained in this section. 10.5.2 Service Limit States Foundation design at the service limit state shall include: © Settlements, ‘© Lateral displacements, and © Bearing resistance estimated using the presumptive bearing pressure. Consideration of settlement shall be based upon rideability and economy. 10.5.3 Strength Limit State Foundation design at the strength limit state shall include: © Bearing resistance, except presumptive bearing pressure; © Excessive loss of contact; © Sliding at the base of footing; © Loss of lateral support; © Loss of overall stability; and © Structural capacity, COMMENTARY c10.5.2 In bridges where the superstructure and substructure are not integrated, correction of settlements can be made by jacking and shimming bearings. Article 2.5.2.3, requires jacking provisions for these bridges. ‘The cost of limiting foundation movements should be compared to the cost of designing the superstructure so that it can tolerate larger movements or of correcting the ‘consequences of movements through maintenance to determine minimum lifetime cost. More stringent criteria ‘may be established by the Owner. 10-10Section 10 - Foundations (S!) ‘SPECIFICATIONS Foundations shall be proportioned such that the factored resistance is not less than the effects of factored, loads specified in Section 3. 10.5.4 Extreme Event Limit States Foundations shall be designed for extreme events as. applicable. 10.5.5 Resistance Factors Resistance factors for different types of foundation systems at the strength limit state shall be taken as specified in Tables 1 through 3, unless regionally specific values are available. ‘Where pile foundations are specified, the contract documents shall specify the level of field pile capacity verification required. The field verification specified shall be consistent with the value of A, taken from Table 2. Resistance factors for the service limit state shall be taken as 1.0. ‘A further reduction in P, for piles should be considered when pile driving difficulty is expected. COMMENTARY c10.5.4 Extreme events include the check flood for scour, vessel and vehicle collision, seismic loading, and other site-specific situations that the Engineer, determines should be included. AAs of 1996, seismic considerations for foundation design were being thoroughly reevaluated. For the time being, relevant information from Division IA of the Standard Specifications are reproduced herein as an ‘Appendix to this section, C1055 Where statistical information was available, reliability theory, tempered in some cases with judgment, was used to derive the values of geotechnical resistance factors given in Tables 1 through 3. These resistance values do not apply to structural resistance for which Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 should be utlized. In cases where there was insufficient information for calibration using reliability theory, values of resistance factors were chosen based on judgment, so that the design using LRFD procedures was consistent with that using ASD procedures. Details are provided in Appendix A of Barker et al. (1991). ‘The resistance factor for passive earth pressure ‘associated with bearing capacity is taken as specified in Table 1 if a bridge component is pushed, e.g., backwall of an integral abutment, or pulled, e.g., anchor block of a deadman, into the soil. On the other hand, if passive earth pressure is used to determine force effects on other bridge components, e.g., the bending moments in components of an integral abutment, it is conservative to assume that the maximum passive resistance Is available, ie., @ = 1.0. In the past, a reduction multiplier factor of about 0.875 was considered when moderate driving difficulty ‘was expected, and a factor of about 0.75 was considered when difficult driving was expected. For further details ‘see Davisson et al. (1983). 10-11Section 10 - Foundations (SI) Table 10.5.5-1 - Resistance Factors for Strength Limit State for Shallow Foundations RESISTANCE METHOD/SOIL/CONDITION FACTOR. Bearing Capacity and Passive ‘Sand Pressure = Semiempirical procedure using ‘SPT data 0.45 - Semiempirical procedure using CPT data 0.65 - Rational Method ~ using @, estimated from SPT data 0.35 using @, estimated from CPT data 0.45 Clay - Semiempirical procedure using CPT data 0.50 - Rational Method ~ using shear resistance measured in lab tests 0.60 using shear resistance measured in field vane tests: 0.60 using shear resistance estimated from CPT data 0.50. Rock - Semiempirical procedure, Carter and Kulhawy (1988) 0.60 Plate Load Test 0.55, Sliding Precast concrete placed on sand using 9, estimated from SPT data 0.90 using 9, estimated from CPT data 0.90 Concrete cast-in-place on sand using @, estimated from SPT data 0.80 using @, estimated from CPT data 9.80 10-12Section 10 - Foundations (SI) METHOD/SOILICONDITION. Sliding on clay is controlled by the strength of the clay when the clay shear is less than 0.5 times the normal stress and is controlled by the ‘normal stress when the clay shear strength is greater than 0.5 times the normal stress (see Figure 1, which is developed for the case in which there is at least 150 mm of compacted granular material below the footing). Clay (where shear resistance is less than 0.5 times normal pressure) using shear resistance measured in lab tests using shear resistance measured in field tests using shear resistance estimated from CPT data Clay (where the resistance is greater than 0.5 times normal pressure) RESISTANCE FACTOR 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.85 Soil on soil 4.0 cs Passive earth pressure component of sliding resistance 0.50 Overall Stability ‘Where soil or rock properties and groundwater levels are based on laboratory or in-situ testing, shallow foundations on or near a slope evaluated for overall stability and resistance to a deep-seated failure mode 0.90 10-13Section 10 - Foundations (Si!) Table 10.5.5-2 - Resistance Factors for Geotechnical Strength Limit State in Axially Loaded Piles RESISTANCE METHODISOIL/CONDITION. FACTOR. Uttimate Beating Skin Friction: Clay Resistance of Single Piles ca-method (Tomlinson 1987) O.70A, B-method (Esrig & Kirby 1979 and 0.504, Nordlund method applied to cohesive soils) A-method (Vijayvergiya & Focht 1972) 0.554, End Beating: Clay and Rock Clay (Skempton 1951) 070A, Rock (Canadian Geotechnical Society 1985) 050K, Skin Friction and End Bearing: Sand ‘SPT-method 0.45, CPT-method 0.554, Wave equation analysis with assumed driving 0.65, resistance Load Test, 0.804, Block Failure. Clay 0.65 Uplift Resistance of ‘-method 0.60 Single Piles S-method 0.40 method 0.45 ‘SPT-method 0.35 CPT-method 0.45 Load Test 0.80 Sand 0.55 a 0.55. Method of controling installation of piles and verifying their capacity during Value of A, lof after driving to be specified in the contract documents Pile Driving Formulas, e.9., ENR, equation without stress wave 0.80 ‘measurements during driving Bearing graph from wave equation analysis without stress wave 0.85 measurements during driving Stress wave measurements on 2% to 5% of piles, capacity verified by 0.90 simplified methods, e.g., the pile driving analyzer Stress wave measurements on 2% to 5% of piles, capacity verified by 4.00 simplified methods, e.g., the pile driving analyzer and static load test to verify capacity Stress wave measurements on 2% to 5% of piles, capacity verified by 1.00 simplified methods, e.g., the pile driving analyzer and CAPWAP analyses to verify capacity ‘Stress wave measurements on 10% to 70% of ples, capacity verified by 1.00 simplified methods, e.g., the pile driving analyzer 10-14Section 10 - Foundations (SI) Table 10.5.5-3 - Resistance Factors for Geotechnical Strength Limit State in Axially Loaded Drilled Shafts Ultimate Bearing Resistance of Single-Drilled Shafts METHOD/SOILICONDITION Resistance in Clay a-method (Reese & O'Neill 1988) RESISTANCE FACTOR. Base Resistance in Clay Total Stress, (Reese & O'Neill 1988) Side Resistance in Sand Touma & Reese (1974) Meyernot (1876), Article 10.8.3.4 Quiros 1977) Reese & Wright (181 Reese & O'Neil (188 Base Resistance in Touma & Reese (1974) | See Discussion in Sand Meyernot (1876) Aricle 10.8.3.4 Quitos & 197 Reese & Wright (18771 = Reese & ONeill (1988) Side Resistance in Garter & Kulhawy (1988 0.55 Rock Horvath & Kenney (1878) 088 Base Resistance in Canadian Geotechnical 0.60 Rock Society (1985) Pressure Method 0.60 (Canadian Geotechnical Seeisty Be) Side Resistance and | Load Test 0.80 End Bearing Block Failure Clay 085 Single- | Clay aemethod 0.55 Baca Shans? Sale | Cay {Resto & oNeit 1988) Belled Shafts 0.60 (Reese & ONeill 1988) cose Di in Sand Teyort ery | Rae esr Quiros & Reese (1 Reese & Wright (19771 Reese & O'Neill (1988) Garter & Kulhawy (1988) 0.45 a Firat & Renney (he78) O55 Load Test 0.80 Group Uplift Resistance ‘Sand 95s 10-15Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS 10.6 SPREAD FOOTINGS 10.8.1 General Considerations 10.6.1.1 GENERAL Provisions of this Article shall apply to design of isolated footings and, where applicable, to combined footings. Special attention shall be given to footings on. fil Footings should be designed so that the pressure under the footing is as nearly uniform as practicable. The distribution of soil pressure shall be consistent with properties of the soil or rock and the structure and with established principles of soil and rock mechanics. 10.6.1.2 DEPTH ‘The depth of footings shall be determined in consideration of the character of the foundation materials and the possibility of undermining. Footings at stream crossings shall be founded at a depth at least 600 mm below the maximum anticipated depth of scour as specified in Article 2.6.4.4.1 Footings not exposed to the action of stream current shall be founded on a firm foundation below frost level or on a firm foundation made frost resistant by overexcavation of frost-susceptible material to below the frost line and replacement with material which is not frost-susceptible. Consideration should be given to the use of elther a geotextile or graded granular filter layer to reduce susceptibility to piping in rip rap or abutment backfill 10.6.1.3 ANCHORAGE Footings that are founded on inclined smooth solid rock surfaces and that are not restrained by an overburden of resistant material shall be effectively anchored by means of rock anchors, rock bolts, dowels, keys, or other suitable means. Shallow keying of large. COMMENTARY c10.6.1.1 Problems with insufficient bearing and/or excessive settlements in fil can be significant, particularly if poor, e.9., soft, wet, frozen, or nondurable, material is used, or if the material is not properly compacted. Settlement of improperly placed or compacted fil around piers can cause substantial increases in footing loads resulting from the downward drag or friction force exerted on the pier by the setting fil, .e., negative skin friction. Even property placed and compacted backfill undergoes some. amount of settiement or swelling depending on the ‘material type, moisture conditions, method of placement, and method and degree of compaction. c106.12 In cases where footings are founded on rocks, ‘special attention should be paid to the effect of blasting, Blasting of highly resistant competent rock formations typically results in the fracturing of the rock to some depth below the final rock surface. Blasting may reduce the resistance to scour within the rock zone immediately below the footing base. Considerable differences of frost penetration can exist throughout the United States and, in some instances, even locally. Where frost protection is marginal or deficient, consideration should be given to the use of insulation to improve frost protection. Evaluation of seepage forces and hydraulic gradients is essential in the design of foundation excavations extending below the groundwater table. Upward seepage forces in the bottom of excavations can result, in piping in dense granular soil or heaving in loose granular soil that may cause bottom instability. These problems can be controlled by adequate dewatering, typically using wells or well points. Dewatering of excavations in loose granular soils can cause settlement of the surrounding ground. If adjacent structures may be damaged by such settlement or ifthe cost of dewatering is high, seepage cut off methods, such as sheet piling or slurry walls, may be practical or necessary. c106.1.3, Blasting operations have a high probability of ‘overbreak andlor fragmentation of the bearing rock below the footing level. Accordingly, positive anchorage should be provided between the rock and footing such as, that provided by rock anchors, bolts, or dowels, 10-16 apineeeieeemat aaa a inSection 10 - Foundations ($1) SPECIFICATIONS footing areas shall be avoided where blasting is required for rock removal 10.6.1.4 GROUNDWATER Footings shall be designed in consideration of the highest ancipated groundwater table luences of groundwater table on the beating copacty of soils or rocks and on the settlements of the structure should be considered. In cases where seepage forces are present, they should also be included in the analyses. 10.6.1.5 UPLIFT Where foundations are subjected to uplift forces, they shall be investigated both for resistance to pullout, and for their structural strength 10.6.1.6 NEARBY STRUCTURES. Where foundations are placed adjacent to existing structures, the influence of the existing structures on the behavior of the foundation and the effect of the foundation on the existing structures shall be investigated. 10.6.2 Movement and Bearing Pressure at the Service Limit State 10.6.2.1 GENERAL Movement of foundations in both vertical settiement and horizontal lateral displacement directions shall be investigated at the service limit state. Lateral displacement of a structure shall be evaluated where: © Horizontal or inclined loads are present, ¢ The foundation is placed on embankment slope, ‘© The possibilty of loss of foundation support through erosion or scour exists, or © Bearing strata are significantly inclined. COMMENTARY c106.2.1 Elastic deformation occurs quickly and is usually ‘small. It is normally neglected in design. Changes in volume associated with a reduction in the water content ‘of the subsoil is called consolidation and can be estimated and measured. Consolidation settlement ‘occurs in all soils. In cohesionless soils, the ‘consolidation occurs quickly and is normally not distinguishable from the elastic deformation. In cohesive sols, such as clays, the consolidation can take a considerable length of time. Various loads may have significant effects on the ‘magnitude of settlements or lateral displacements of the soils. The following factors should be considered in the estimation of settlements: ‘© The ratio of sustained load to total load, ‘© The duration of sustained loads, and © The time interval over which settlement or lateral displacement occurs. 10-17Section 10 - Foundations (81) SPECIFICATIONS 10.6.2.2 MOVEMENT CRITERIA 10.6.2.2.1 General Vertical and horizontal movement criteria shall be developed to be consistent with the function and type of structure, anticipated service life, and consequences of unacceptable movements on structure performance. ‘The tolerable movement criteria shall be established by ‘ether empirical procedures or structural analyses or by ‘consideration of both. 106.222 Loads Immediate settlement shall be determined using load combination Service-l, as specified in Table 3.4.1-1 Time-dependent settlements in cohesive soils may be determined by using the permanent loads only. ‘Settlements caused by embankment loadings behind bridge abutments shall be investigated. In seismically active areas, consideration shall be given to the potential settlements of footings on sand resulting from vibration induced by earthquake, COMMENTARY ‘The consolidation settlements in cohesive soils are time-dependent; consequently, transient loads have Negligible effect. However, in cohesionless soils where the permeability is sufficiently high, elastic deformation of the supporting soll due to transient load can take place. Because deformation in cohesionless soils often takes place during construction while the loads are being applied, it can be accommodated by the structure to an ‘extent, depending on the type of structure and construction method. Deformation in cohesionless, or granular, soils often ‘occurs 2s soon as loads are applied. As a consequence, settlements due to transient loads may be significant in cohesionless soils, and they should be included in settlement analyses, c106.22.1 Past experience has shown that bridges can and often do accommodate more settlement than traditionally allowed or anticipated in design. This accommodation is accompanied by creep, relaxation, and redistribution of force effects. Some studies have been made to synthesize apparent response. These studies indicate that angular distortions between adjacent foundations. greater than 0.008 in simple spans and 0.004 in ‘continuous spans should not be permitted in settlement criteria (Moulton et al. 1985; Barker et al. 1991). Lesser ‘angular distortion may be appropriate after consideration of © Cost of mitigation through larger foundations, realignment or overbuilding, © Rideabilty, © Aesthetics, and © Safety 10-18Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 10.6.2.2.3 Settlement Analyses 10.6.2.2.3a General Foundation settlements should be estimated using deformation analyses based on the results of laboratory testing or in-situ testing. The soll parameters used in the analyses should be chosen to reflect the loading history of the ground, the construction sequence, and the effect, of soil layering. Both total and differential settlements, including time dependent effects, shall be considered. The total settlement, including elastic, consolidation, ‘and secondary components, may be taken as: S,=S,+8,+5, (10622381) ‘elastic settlement (mm) ‘consolidation settlement (mm) ‘secondary settlement (mm) Other factors that can affect settlement, eg., embankment loading and lateral and/or eccentric loading and for footings on granular soils, vibration loading from dynamic live loads or earthquake loads, should also be considered, where appropriate. The distribution of vertical stress increase below circular (or square) and long rectangular footings, .e., where L > 5B, may be estimated using Figure 1 tty ong Fema samergean 2 ey Figure 106.2.2.3a-1 - Boussinesq Vertical Stress Contours for Continuous and Square Footings Modified After Sowers (1979) COMMENTARY C10.6.2.2.38 Immediate settlement, often referred to as elastic settlement because of the method of computation, is the instantaneous distortion of the soil mass that occurs as the soil is loaded. In a nearly saturated or saturated cohesive soil, the applied load is initially carried by the ore water pressure. AS pore water is forced from the voids in the soil by the applied load, the load is transferred to the soil skeleton. Consolidation settlement is the gradual compression of the soil skeleton as the ore water is forced from voids in the soil. Secondary settlement occurs as a result of the plastic deformation Of the soil skeleton under a constant effective stress. Immediate settlements predominate in cohesionless soils and unsaturated cohesive soils, whereas consolidation settements predominate in fine-grained Cohesive soils having a degree of saturation greater than about 80 percent. Secondary settlement is of pri ‘concer in highly plastic or organic soil deposits. The principal deformation component for footings on rock is elastic settiement, unless the rock or included discontinuities exhibit ‘noticeable time-dependent behavior. For general guidance regarding static loading conditions, see Gifford et al. (1987). For guidance regarding dynamic/seismic loading conditions, see Lam and Martin (1986). For guidance on vertical stress distribution for other footing geometries, see Poulos and Davis (1874). ‘Some methods used for estimating settlement of footings on sand include an integral method to account for the effects of vertical stress increase variations. For ‘guidance regarding application of these procedures, see Gifford et al. (1987). 10-19Section 10 - Foundations (S!) SPECIFICATIONS 10.6.2.2.3b Settlement of Footings on Cohesioniess Soils Settlements of footings on cohesionless soils may be estimated using empirical procedures or elastic theory. ‘The elastic settlement of footings on cohesionless soils may be estimated using the following: lan(t -v?WA (10.6.2.2.3b-1) EB, where: = load intensity (MPa) ‘A = area of footing (mm?) ‘Young's modulus of soil taken as specified in Table 1 in lieu of the results of laboratory tests (MPa) ‘shape factor taken as specified in Table 2 (DIM) Poisson's Ratio taken as specified in Table 1 in lieu of the results of laboratory tests (DIM) Unless E, varies significantly with depth, E, should be determined at a depth of about 1/2 to 2/3 of B below the footing. If the soil modulus varies significantly with depth, a weighted average value of E, may be used. The following nomenclature shall be used with Table N = Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance N, = SPT corrected for depth S, = _undrained shear strength (MPa) @. = cone penetration resistance (MPa) COMMENTARY C10.6.2.2.3b ‘Although methods are recommended for the determination of settiement of cohesionless soils, experience has indicated that settlements can vary ‘considerably in a construction site, and this variation may not be predicted by conventional calculations. Settlements of cohesioniess soils occurs essentially 28 rapidly as the foundation is loaded. Consequently, their importance on the performance of most bridge structures will be small because the settlements occur before critical elements of the bridge are constructed. Details of these procedures can be found in many text books and engineering manuals (Terzaghi and Peck 1967, Sowers 1979, U.S. Department of the Navy 1982, Gifford et al. 1987, Tomlinson 1986, Barker et al. 1991), For general guidance regarding the estimation of elastic settlement of footings on sand, see Gifford et al (1987). The stress distributions used to calculate elastic settlement assume the footing is flexible and supported ‘on a homogeneous infinite depth. The settlement below a flexible footing varies from a maximum near the center to a minimum at the edge equal to about 50 percent and 64 percent of the maximum for rectangular and circular footings, respectively. The settlement profile for rigid footings is assumed to be uniform across the ‘width of the footing. Accurate estimates of elastic settlement are difficult to oblain because the analyses are based on only a single value of soil modulus. Therefore, in selecting an ‘appropriate value for soil modulus, consideration should be given to the influence of soil layering, bedrock at a shallow depth, and adjacent footings. For footings with eccentric loads, the area, A, should be computed based on reduced footing dimensions as specified in Article 10.6.3.1.5. 10-20Section 10 - Foundations (Si) SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY Table 10.6.2.2.3b-1 - Elastic Constants of Various Soils Modified After U.S. Department of the Navy (1982) and Bowles (1988) i Typical Range of ‘Values Estimating E, from N ‘Young's Modulus, E, | Poisson's Ratio, v Sol Type (Pa) (dim) Sol Type Clay: Sof sensitive 2415 0405 Sits, sandy sts, slightly Medium sti to suit 15.50 (undrained) cohesive micures Very st 50-100 Clean fine to medium sands and o7m, sight sity sands Coarse sands and sands with 108, Title gravel Sandy grave and gravels 11%, Loess 15.60 04-03 ‘Sandy gravel and gravels 1.48, sit 220 03.0.5 Table 10.6.2.2.3b-2 - Elastic Shape and Rigidity Factors, EPRI (1983) 10 1.44 444 10-21‘Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS. 10.6.2.2.3¢ Settlement of Footings on Cohesive Soils For foundations on stiff cohesive soils, the elastic settlement may be determined using Equation 10.6.2.2.3b-1. For foundations on cohesive soils, both immediate and consolidation settlements shall be investigated. In highly plastic and organic clay, secondary settlements may be significant and shall be included in the analysis. ‘Where laboratory test results are expressed in terms Of void ratio (e), the consolidation settlement of footings ‘on saturated of nearly saturated cohesive soils may be taken as: © For initially overconsolidated soils 1 0'5 > O'y) (10.6.2.2.3e-1) © For initially normally consolidated soils. (eo, = 0): We) [2 (10622.30-2) © For initially underconsolidated soils (i.e., o', <0, (10.62.2303) Where laboratory test results are expressed in terms of vertical strain, ¢,, consolidation settlement may be taken pel © For initially overconsolidated soils (Ie. c', > 0): a (10.6.2.2.30-4) eu COMMENTARY C10.6.2.2.3¢ In practice, footings on cohesive soils are most likely founded on overconsolidated clays, and settlements can be estimated using elastic theory (Baguelin et al. 1978) or the tangent modulus method (Janbu 1963, 1967). ‘Settlements of footings on overconsolidated clay usually ‘occur at approximately one order of magnitude faster than soils without preconsolidation, and it is reasonable to assume that they take place as rapidly as the loads are applied. Infrequently, a layer of cohesive soll may exhibit a preconsolidation pressure less than the Calculated existing overburden pressure. The soll is then said to be underconsolidated because a state of equilibrium has not yet been reached under the applied overburden stress. Such a condition may have been caused by a recent lowering of the groundwater table. In this case, consolidation settlement will occur due to the additional load of the structure and the settlement that is occurring to reach a state of equilibrium. The total consolidation settlement due to these two components can be estimated by Equation 3 or Equation 6. To account for the decreasing stress with increased depth below a footing and variations in soil compressibility with depth, the compressible layer should be divided into vertical increments (i.e., typically 1500 to 3000 mm for most normal width footings for highway applications) and the consolidation settlement of each Inctement analyzed separately. The total value of S. is the summation of S, for each increment. ‘The magnitude of consolidation settlement depends ‘on the consolidation properties of the soil (Le., C. [or Cue] and C,, {or Cj), the preconsolidation pressure (o,'), the ‘current vertical effective stress (0,'), and the final vertical effective stress after application of additional loading (@;). The soil condition depicted in Figures 1 and 2 is for ‘an overconsolidated soil (o,’ < o,), that is, a soil that has been preloaded by previously overlying strata, desiccation, groundwater lowering, glaciation, or some other geologic process. If 0,' = 0,., the soil is referred to, ‘a8 normally consolidated, Because C, is typically equal to 0.05C, to 0.10C,, an accurate understanding of the soil deposit stress history is needed to make reliable estimates of consolidation settlement. ‘The reliability of consolidation settlement estimates is also affected by the quality of the consolidation test ‘sample and by the accuracy with which changes in o,' with depth are known or estimated. As shown in Figure C1, the slope of the e versus log 0,” and the location of ©," can be strongly affected by the quality of samples Used for the laboratory consolidation tests. in general, the use of poor quality samples will result in an ‘overestimate of consolidation settlement. Typically, the value of 6,’ will vary with depth as shown in Figure C2. If the variation of o, with depth is unknown (e.9., only ‘one consolidation test was conducted in the soil profile) 10-22Section 10 - Foundations (Si!) SPECIFICATIONS © For initially normally consolidated soils (.e., 0, = o,) 5 8,"H,Cglog] —! (10.6.2.2.3¢-5) %, © For initially underconsolidated solls(Le., 0', <0, 8, neae| 2] (10.6.2.2,3¢-6) Oe, height of compressible soil layer (mm) void ratio at initial vertical effective stress (DIM recompression index determined as specified in Figure 1 (DIM) compression index determined as specified in Figure 4 (DIM) ‘compression ratio determined as specified in Figure 2 (DIM) recompression ratio determined as specified in Figure 2 (DIM) maximum past vertical effective stress in soil ‘at depth interval below footing (MPa) initial vertical effective stress in soil at depth interval below footing (MPa) final vertical effective stress in soil at depth interval below footing (MPa) current vertical effective stress in the soll, rot including the additional stress due to the footing loads (MPa) COMMENTARY ‘actual settlements could be higher or lower than the computed value based on a single value of o, Void ratio, e ange in o, trom poor quality sample aa ==: Insitu curve Laboratory curve on high quality sample —— aes 14 Laboratory curve on poor quality sample 1 Effective consolidation sires, o;, (Hog scale) Figure C10.6.2.2.3c-1 - Effects of Sample Quality on Consolidation Behavior, Holtz and Kovacs (1981) 10-23Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS Vertical effective stress, o (log seated Figure 10.6.2.2.3c-1 - Typical Consolidation Compression Curve for Overconsolidation Soil - Void Ratio Versus Vertical Effective Stress, EPRI (1983) scale) Vertical effective stress, 2" Figure 10.6.2.2.3c-2 - Typical Consolidation Compression Curve for Overconsolidation Soil - Vertical Strain Versus Vertical Effective Stress, EPRI (1983) If the footing width is small relative to the thickness of the compressible soil, the effect of three-dimensional loading shall be considered and may be taken as: Seis-0) =“ HeSeit-0) (10.6.2.2.3¢-7) where: He = reduction factor taken as specified in Figure 3(0M) S.s0) = single dimensional consolidation settlement (mm) COMMENTARY sme siete Sas ee Figure 10.6.2.2.3¢-2 - Typical Variation of Preconsolidation Pressure with Depth, Holtz and Kovacs (1981) ‘The height of the drainage path is the longest distance from any point in a compressible layer to a drainage layer at the top andlor bottom of the compressible soil unit. Where a compressible layer is located between two drainage boundaries, H, equals one-half the actual height of the layer. Where a compressible layer is adjacent to a single drainage boundary, H, equals the actual height of the layer. Computations to predict the time rate of consolidation based on the result of laboratory tests generally tend to overestimate the actual time required for consolidation in the field. This overestimate is principally due to: © The presence of thin drainage layers within the compressible layer that are not observed from the subsurface exploration nor considered in the settlement computations; © The effects of three-dimensional dissipation of pore water pressures in the field, rather than the one- dimensional dissipation that is imposed by laboratory consolidation tests and assumed in the analyses; and ‘© The effects of sample disturbance, which tend to reduce the permeability of the laboratory tested samples. 10-24Section 10 - Foundations (S!) SPECIFICATIONS Overconsolidation ratio, oy /o,' Lo! 5 to 1s Zz s os 8 3 3 Eo Figure 10.6.2.2.30-3 - Reduction Factor to Account for, Effects of Three-Dimensional Consolidation Settlement, EPRI (1983) The time (t) to achieve a given percentage of the total estimated one-dimensional consolidation settlement may be taken as: THe & t (10.6.2.2.3¢-8) time factor taken as specified in Figure 4 (DIM) height of longest drainage path in compressible soil layer (mm) ‘a coefficient taken from the results of laboratory consolidation testing of undisturbed soil samples or from in-situ measurements using devices ‘such as a plezoprobe or piezocone (mm*/YR) Secondary settlement of footings on cohesive soil may be taken as: t S,= Cato 4} (10.6.2.2.3¢-9) time when secondary settlement begins, i... te typically at a time equivalent to 90 percent average degree of consolidation (YR) t, = arbitrary time that could represent the service life of the structure (YR) COMMENTARY For values of T for other excess pressure distributions, see Winterkorn and Fang (1975). Secondary settlement results from the continuous readjustment of the soil skeleton under sustained load. Secondary settlement is most important for highly plastic clays and organic and micaceous soils. The mechanism ‘of secondary settlements is not well understood, particularly for organic and highly plastic clays, ‘Accordingly, secondary settlement predictions should be considered as approximate estimates only. 10-25Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS coefficient estimated from the results of laboratory consolidation testing of undisturbed soil samples (DIM) Cu Time factor, T 3201 001 on ‘ 20] nu «0 id 60 20 Perce 100) Figure 10.6.2.2.3¢-4 - Percentage of Consolidation as a Funetion of Time Factor, T, EPRI (1983) 10.6.2.2.3d Settlements of Footings on Rock For footings on competent rock, designed in accordance with Article 10.6.32.2, elastic settlements may generally be assumed to be less than 15 mm. When elastic settlements of this magnitude are unacceptable or when the rock is not competent, an analysis of settlement based on rock mass characteristics shall be made. Where rock is broken or jointed and the criteria for competent rock are not met, the influence of rock type, Condition of discontinuities, and degree of weathering shall be considered in the settlement analysis. The elastic settlement of footings on broken or jointed rock may be taken as: © For circular (or square) footings; A =9,(t-7)L2 e=a,(t-v7) 2 (10.6.2.2.34-1) in which: (10.6.2.2.34-2) (10.6.2.2.34-3) COMMENTARY 010.6.2.2.3d In most cases, it s sufficient to determine settlement using the average pressure under the footing. Where the foundations are subjected to a very large load or where settlement tolerance may be small, settlements of footings on rock may be estimated using elastic theory. The stifiness of the rock mass should be Used in such analyses. The accuracy with which settlements can be estimated by using elastic theory is dependent on the accuracy of the estimated rock mass modulus, Eq. In ‘some cases, the value of E can be estimated through ‘empirical correlation with the value of the modulus of elasticity for the intact rock between joints. For unusual ‘oF poor rock mass conditions, it may be necessary to determine the modulus from in-situ tests, such as plate loading and pressuremeter tests. 10-26Section 10 - Foundations (S1) SPECIFICATIONS in which: LB)? B, (10.6.2.2.34-4) = vertical stress at base of loaded area (MPa) Vv = Poisson's Ratio (DIM) 1 = radius of circular footing or BY/2 for square footing (mm) |, = influence coefficient to account for rigidity and dimensions of footing (DIM) E, = rock mass modulus (MPa) B= factor to account for footing shape and rigidity (01M) Values of |, may be computed using the B, values presented in Table 10.6.2.2.3b-2 for rigid footings. Where the results of laboratory testing are not available, Values of Poisson's ratio, v, for typical rock types may be taken as specified in Table 1. Determination of the rock. ‘mass modulus, E,, should be based on the results of in- situ and laboratory tests. Alternatively, values of E,, may be estimated by multiplying the intact rock modulus, E,, obtained from uniaxial compression tests by a reduction, factor, de, which accounts for the frequency of discontinuities by the rock quality designation (RQD), using the following relationship (Gardner 1987): £,=0,6, (10622.34-5) inwhich: 0.0231(RQD) -1.32 2 0.15 (10.6.2.2.306) For preliminary design or when site-specific test data cannot be obtained, guidelines for estimating values of E,, such as those presented in Table 2, may be used. For preliminary analyses or for final design when in-situ test results are not available, a value of a = 0.15 should be used to estimate E,, ‘The magnitude of consolidation and secondary settlements in rock masses containing soft seams or other material with time-dependent settlement characteristics may be estimated by applying procedures specified in Article 10.6.2.2.3¢. COMMENTARY 10-27Section 10 - Foundations (S!) ‘SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY Table 10.6.2.2.3d-1 - Summary of Poisson's Ratio for Intact Rock Modified After Kulhawy (1978) Poisson's Ratio, v No. of Rock Type_|__Values. Granite 22 Gabbro 3 Diabase 6 Basalt 11 Quartzite 6 6 022 0.08 0.14 0.05 Marble 5 5 0.40 0.17 028 0.08 Goeiss 14 14 0.40 0.09 oz 0.09 Schist 12 1 031 0.02 0.12 0.08 Sandstone 42 9 0.46 0.08 020 ott Siltstone, 3 3 023 0.09 0.18 Shale 3 3 0.48 0.03 Limestone 19 19 0.33 0.2 Dolostone 5 5 0.36 0.14 10-28‘Section 10 - Foundations (S!) SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY Table 10.6.2.2.3d-2 - Summary of Elastic Moduli for Intact Rock Modified After Kulhawy (1878) Elastic Modulus, E, (MPa x 10°) No. of No. of Rock Standard Values. Types Maximum, Minimum Mean Deviation 26 26 100, 641 52.7 3.55 3 112 47.4 51.4 6.19 3 84.1 676 758 0.97 z 104 69.0 88.3 1.78 12 12 84.4 29.0 56.1 2.60 z z 88.3 365 66.1 2.32 14 413 73.8 4.00 426 2.49 13. 13 82.1 28.5 61.4 2.31 4 2 | 264 241 9.58 0.96 13 12 69.0 5.93 343 3.18 3 3 17.3 8.62 11.8 0.57 27 19 30.2 0.62 147 1.19 5 5 32.8 2.62 16.5 1.65 30, 14 286 0.007 9.79 1.45 30 30 89.6 4.48 39.3 3.73 7 16 726 572 204 3.44 10.6.2.2.4 Loss of Overall Stability 610.6224 Overall stability shall be investigated at the service limit state using the provisions of Article 3.4.1. Equilibrium methods or analyses that employ the modified Bishop, simplified Janbu, Spencer, or other generally accepted method of slope stability analysis, may be used. Investigation of global stability important for foundations located close to: is particularly ‘© Annatural slope or on an inclined site, ‘© An embankment or an excavation, © Abody of water, © Amine, or © A retaining wall The mode of failure will be dictated by the ‘subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the footing. 10-29Section 10 - Foundations (S!) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 10.623 BEARING PRESSURE AT THE SERVICE LIMIT STATE 10.6.2.3.1 Presumptive Values for Bearing Pressure The use of presumptive values shall be based on a knowledge of geological conditions at or near the bridge site. COMMENTARY ‘Where relatively homogeneous soil conditions exist and such conditions extend below the footing, the critical failure surface will likely be circular. Where subsurface ‘conditions include a particularly weak zone or layer or a shallow sloping rock surface, the critical failure surface will likely be planar. In many cases, both modes of failure must be analyzed to determine the more critical failure mode. Even if the overall stability is satisfactory, special exploration, testing, and analyses may be required for bridge abutments or retaining walls constructed over soft subsoils where consolidation and/or lateral squeeze of the soft soils could result in unacceptable long-term settlement or horizontal movement of abutments. 6106231 Unless more appropriate regional data are available, the presumptive values given in Table C1 may be used. ‘These are allowable bearing pressures and apply only at the service limit state. 10-30Section 10 - Foundations (S!) SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY ‘Table C10.6.2.3.1-1 - Presumptive Allowable Bearing Pressures for Spread Footing Foundations at the Service Limit State (Modified after U.S. Department of the Navy, 1982) CONRENEY BEARING PRESSURE QuPa) ordnay Range _| "USES! Mas agus and | Voy hart, sou re ry ars, sound ok 571696 77 Saar sae ager sesnre sort Folated metamorticreak wat, | Hard wound ox oa EAIR ONCE i ti ee sat Segmenacec tacearend | Hartson ck taeaa 13 Sea Weathered or ken bao ot any | Madu hard eek ore tt 098 Westheter payne (shale) nah ot ar 096 Sanpacon soba bay,_| Madu ado orrteta res orrweta 09 Wenarade mit os [peepee tial (SA-BE, GC, ere | very aeres 713398 SOUL RRASTENTO ENS” | MGR SEnee oaense | 8391688 as gagieasr 38 Cero gga nd wah care o3gt0087 038 Stay WeLigetoreetosanee | 8351085 Q te Sasetes HA nao eon sora. tua deyey | Ver, eras 2310048 PecumrtScoures sand XL SM” | Median dense to dense | Basten, 83 a te Sse oe Fin an day mec : r Fasc SISSY I | NSE ESnew to dense | S483 058 838 is Sosa a ee ‘ 2310057 : CPOE TERN =F 3 | Nese a Gab fob 8 838 sv GEES | Some Trp ean or ey a sin iona otet0038 038 eae a3 ; ne ee 10.6.2.3.2 Semiempirical Procedures for Bearing C10.6.2.3.2 Pressure Bearing pressure of rock may be determined using empirical correlation with RQD or the Geomechanic, Rock Mass Rating System, RMR, or Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, NGI, Rock Mass Classification ‘System, Local experience shall be considered in the use of these semiempirical procedures. If the recommended value of allowable bearing pressure exceeds either the unconfined compressive strength of the rock or the allowable stress on the concrete, the allowable bearing pressure shall be taken as the lesser of the unconfined compressive strength of the rock or the allowable stress on the concrete. The allowable bearing stress of concrete may be taken as Ost. ‘The empirical correlation given in Table C1 may be sed to estimate allowable bearing pressure of footings ‘on competent rock (Peck et al. 1974). The value of RAD in Table C1 shall be taken as the average RQD of rock within a depth B below the base of the footing. 10-31‘Section 10 - Foundations (S!) SPECIFICATIONS 10.6.3 Resistance at the Strength Limit State 10.6.3.1_ BEARING RESISTANCE OF SOILS UNDER FOOTINGS 10.6.3.1.1 General Bearing resistance shall be determined based on the highest anticipated position of groundwater level at the footing location. ‘The factored resistance, qq, at strength limit state shall be taken as: Oe= 9H = 0 Oe (10.6.3.1.1-1) where: ° = resistance factor specified in Article 1055 =x = nominal bearing resistance (MPa) Where loads are eccentric, the effective footing dimensions L' and B', as specified in Article 10.6.3.1.5, shall be used instead of the overall dimensions L and B in all equations, tables, and figures pertaining to bearing capacity. 10.6.3.1.2 Theoretical Estimation 10.6.3.1.2a General ‘The nominal bearing resistance should be estimated using accepted soil mechanics theories based on measured soil parameters. The soll parameters used in the analysis shall be representative of the soil shear COMMENTARY Table C10.6.2.3.2-1 - Allowable Bearing Pressures of Rock - Service Limit State (After Peck et al. 1974) ALLOWABLE RQD | BEARING PRESSURE (MPa) 100 28.7 90 192 75 14.5 50. 6.23 25 2.87 o 0.96 c106.3.1.1 ‘The position of the groundwater table can significantly influence the bearing resistance of soils through its effect on shear strength and density of the foundation soils. In general, the submergence of soils will reduce the effective shear strength of cohesionless (or granular) materials, a8 well as the long-term (or drained) strength of clayey soils. Moreover, the densities Cf submerged soils are about half of those for the same soils under dry conditions. Thus, submergence may lead to a significant reduction in bearing resistance, and it is, ‘essential that the bearing resistance analyses be carried ‘out under the assumption of the highest water table ‘expected within the service life ofthe structure. The lity of bearing resistance estimates depends to a large extent on the accuracy with which the soil parameters, such as undrained shear strength or friction angle, are determined. As a consequence, Values of resistance factors vary with the means by which the soil strength is determined, as shown in Table 105.51. C10.6.3.1.2a ‘The three modes of shear failure (general, local, and punching) are shown in Figure C1. 10-32 eTSection 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS strength under the con ‘conditions. The nominal bearing resistance of footings on cohesionless soils shall be evaluated using effective stress analyses and drained soil strength parameters. The nominal bearing resistance of footings on cohesive soils shall be evaluated for total stress analyses and undrained soil strength parameters. In cases where the cohesive soils may soften and lose strength with time, the bearing resistance of these solls shall also be evaluated for permanent loading conditions. using effective stress analyses and drained soil strength, parameters, For footings on compacted soils, the nominal bearing resistance shall be evaluated using the more critical of either total or effective stress analyses. Where it is necessary to estimate nominal bearing resistance of cohesive soils, such as clays, and compacted soils by effective stress analyses, Equation 10.6.3.1.2c-1 shall apply. If local or punching shear failure is possible, the nominal bearing capacity may be estimated using reduced shear strength parameters c” and g” in Equation, 10.86.3.1.2b-1 and 10.6.3.1.2c-1. The reduced shear fered loading and subsurface parameters may be taken as: = 0.676 (10.8.3.1.22-1) g’ = tan” (0.67 tan) (10.6.3.1.2a-2) reduced effective stress soil cohesion for punching shear (MPa) = reduced effective stress soil friction angle for punching shear (DEG) Where the soil profile contains a second layer of soll with different properties affecting shear strength within a distance below the footing less than Hoar, the bearing capacity soil system shall be determined using the provisions for two-layered soil systems herein. The distance Hear may be taken as: (10.6.3.1.22-3) timate bearing capacity of footing supported in the upper layer of a two-layer system, assuming the upper layer is infinitely thick (MPa) COMMENTARY 2 PUNCHING SHEAR Figure C10,6.3.1.2a-1 - Bearing Capacity Failure Modes for Footings on Soll, Vesic' (1963) General shear failure is characterized by a well-defined failure surface extending to the ground surface and is ‘accompanied by sudden rotation and titing of the footing and bulging of soil on both sides of the footing. General shear failure occurs in relatively incompressible soll and in saturated normally consolidated clays in undrained loading. Local shear failure is characterized by a failure surface that is similar to that of a general shear failure but that does not extend to the ground surface, ending somewhere in the soil below the footing. Local shear failure is accompanied by vertical compression of soil below the footing and visible bulging of soil adjacent to the footing but not by sudden rotation or titing of the footing. Local shear failure is a transitional condition between general and punching shear failure. Punching shear failure is characterized by vertical shear around the perimeter of the footing and is accompanied by @ vertical movement of the footing and compression of the soil immediately below the footing but does not affect the soil outside the loaded area. Punching shear failure ‘occurs in loose or compressible soils, in weak soils under slow (drained) loading, and in dense sands for deep footings subjected to high loads. ‘The failure mode for a particular footing depends primarily on the compressibility of the soil and the footing 10-33Section 10 - Foundations (S!) SPECIFICATIONS 2 = ultimate bearing capacity of a fictitious footing of the same size and shape as the actual footing but supported on surface of the second (lower) layer of a two-layer system (MPa) B= footing width (mm) L_ = footing length (mm) Footings with inclined bases should be avoided wherever possible. Where use of an inclined footing base cannot be avoided, the nominal bearing capacity determined in accordance with the provisions herein, shall be further reduced using accepted corrections for inclined footing bases available in the literature. COMMENTARY depth. The relationship between footing depth, mode of failure, and relative density for footings in sand is shown in Figure C2. Peta deny o end, 0, B BRB Tore uuu occu foting BOL 21841) tr 8 cgi otng Figure C10.6.3.1.2a-2 - Modes of Bearing Capacity Failure for Footings in Sand Some efforts have been made to modify the general bearing capacity equation to account for soil compressibility by inclusion of rigidity factors based on a. rigidity index. The rigidity index is a parameter that relates soil shear modulus to strength and vertical stress, and that can be used to predict failure mode. Investigations by Ismael and Vesic’ (1981) indicate, however, that this technique is overly conservative for deep footings, and that Terzaghi's approach of using reduced shear strength parameters is fairly accurate to slightly conservative. ‘The bearing capacity of footings on soil should be evaluated using soil shear strength parameters that are representative of the soil shear strength under the loading conditions being analyzed. The bearing capacity of footings supported on granular soils should be evaluated for both permanent dead loading conditions and short-duration live loading conditions using effective stress methods of analysis and drained soil shear strength parameters. The bearing capacity of footings supported on cohesive soils should be evaluated for shortduration live loading conditions using total stress methods of analysis and undrained soil shear strength parameters. In addition, the bearing capacity of footings ‘supported on cohesive soils, which could soften and loose strength with time, should be evaluated for 10-34 acetal iSection 10 - Foundations (S1) SPECIFICATIONS 10.6.3.1.2b Saturated Clays ‘The nominal bearing resistance of a layer of saturated clay, in MPa, determined from undrained shear strength may be taken as: Ga = CNg + GYDNggX10* (10.6.3.1.2b-1) whe ¢=S, = undrained shear strength (MPa) NeNgs = modified bearing capacity factors that are functions of footing shape, embedment depth, soll compressibility, and load inclination (DIM) Y = total, ie., moist, density of clay (kg/m?) DB embedment depth taken to the bottom of the footing (mm) ‘The bearing capacity factors New and Nay may be taken as: © For D/B «2.5, BIL <1 and HV < 0.4 New = NA+ 0.2(0/8)]L1 + 0.2(B/L)] [1-1.3(HM)] (10.6.3.1.2b-2) © For D/B > 2.5 and HIV < 0.4 Ne = Nt + 0.2(B/L)I - 1.3(H)] (10.6.3.1.2b-3) N, = 5.0 for use in Equation 2 on relatively level soil = 7.5 for use in Equation 3 on relatively level soil = Ne from Figure 1 for footing on or adjacent to sloping ground Now 1.0 for saturated clay and relatively level ground surface = 010 for footing on sloping ground or adjacent to sloping ground In Figure 1, the stability number, N,, shall be taken as: © ForBH, N= [gy Hc] x 10° (10.6.3.1.2b-5) where: B_ = footing width (mm) = footing length (mm) = _unfactored horizontal load (N) height of sloping ground mass (mm) | 20D pe! uses i a Zo 4 0 UB =1 (eauare orcicte) ia Bob ° 3t fol Soy Pe fos - an i, ma 2 5 5 ERE ee Undrained Strength Ratio, Co/ Cy Figure 10.6.3.1.2b-3 - Modified Bearing Capacity Factor for Two-Layer Cohesive Soil with Softer Soil Overiying Stiffer Soil, EPRI (1983) 10.6.3.1.2¢ Cohesionless Soils The nominal bearing resistance of a layer of ccohesionless soll, such as sands or gravels, in MPa, may be taken as: Gh = 0.5 GYBCy:NyqX10* + gyC DIN, X10? (10.6.3.1.2c-1) where: D, = footing depth (mm) Y total, ie., moist, density of sand or gravel (kg/m?) B = footing width (mm) CyuCya= coefficients as specified in Table 1 asa function of D, (DIM) Dy = depth to water surface taken from the (ground surface (mm) Nm = modified bearing capacity factor (DIM) COMMENTARY €10.6.3.1.20 ‘Where the position of groundwater is at a depth less than 1.5 times the footing width below the footing base, the bearing resistance is affected. The highest anticipated groundwater level should be used in design. 10-39Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS Table 10.6.3.1.2c-1 - Coefficients C,, and C,2 for Various Groundwater Depths er 0 os | 05 D, os | 10 2158+ 40] 4.0 For intermediate positions of the groundwater table, values of C,, and C. may be determined by interpotation between the values specified in Table 1. ‘The bearing capacity factors Ny, and New may be taken as: Num = NSC, (10.6.3.1.2c-2) Nan = NgSelcied (10.6.3.1.2c-3) where: N, = bearing capacity factor as specified in Table 2 for footings on relatively level ground (DIM) = Nyy as specified in Figure 1 for footing on or adjacent to sloping ground (DIM) N, = bearing capacity factor as specified in Table 2 for relatively level ground (DIM) = 0.0 for footing on or adjacent to sloping ground (DIM) S_S, = shape factors specified in Tables 3 and 4, respectively (DIM) Cy = soil compressibility factors specified in Tables 5 and 6 (DIM) iy = load inclination factors specified in Tables 7 and 8 (DIM) d, = depth factor specified in Table 9 (DIM) ‘The following interpretation shall apply: © In Tables 5 and 6, q shall be taken as the initial vertical effective stress at the footing depth, vertical stress at the bottom of the footing prior to excavation, corrected for water pressure. COMMENTARY As an alternative to the values specified in Table 2, (€10.6.3.1.2c-1) (W,+1)tang, (C10.6.3.1.2c-2) As an alternative to the values specified in Table 3, ‘8, may be taken as: 34 (3) tang, (c106.3.1.2e3) As an alternative to the values specified in Table 4, 8, may be taken as: of ‘The values specified in Tables 5 and 6, c, and c, are reasonably approximated by Vesic’ (1969): (C10.6.3.1.20-8) B.07ang Rea 2) arin ane, «1.0 (C10.6.3.1.2¢-5) (C10.6.3.1.2¢6) 10-40Section 10 - Foundations (S1) SPECIFICATIONS © In Tables 7 and 8, H & V shall be taken as the unfactored horizontal and vertical loads, respectively. © In Table 8, values of d, shall be taken as applicable if the soils above the footing bottom are as ‘competent as the soils below the footing. Ifthe soils, are weaker, use d, = 1.0. Table 10.6.3.1.2c-2 - Bearing Capacity Factors Ny and N, for Footings on Cohesionless Soil (Barker et al. 1981) Friction Angle, (@) COMMENTARY for which: relative density in percentage as specified in B= Tables 5 and 6 = effective overburden pressure (MPa) P, = atmospheric pressure taken as 0.101 MPa ‘As an altemative to the values specified in Table 7, the inclination factors i, and i, may be taken as: (C10.6.3.1.2c-7) (C10.6.3.1.20-8) for which: 2.50 for square footings 2.87 for footings with LIB = = 3.00 for footings with LIB > 10 a Intermediate values of n may be obtained by linear interpolation. ‘As an alternative to the values specified in Table 8, ination factors |, and iy may be taken as: (C10.6.3.1.2c-9) (C10.6.3.1.2c-10) for which: 2.50 for square footings 2.33 for footings with UB = 2 2.00 for footings with LIB > 10 Intermediate values of n may be obtained by linear interpotation. 10-41‘Section 10 - Foundations (S!) ‘SPECIFICATIONS Table 10.6.3.1.2c-3 - Shape Factor s, for Footings on Cohesioniess Soil (Barker et al. 1991) COMMENTARY AAs an alternative to the values specified in Table 9, the depth factor, d,, may be taken as: D, +2tang(1 -sing)?tan’ (3) (C10.6.3.1.2c-11) SRESSSLSB Table 10.6.3.1.2c-4 - Shape Factor 8, for Footings on Cohesioniess Soil (Barker et al. 1991) 10-42Section 10 - Foundations (Si) SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY Table 10.8,3.1.2c-5 - Soil Compressibility Factors c, and c, for Square Footings on 1991) Cohesionless Soil (Barker et al. =o, (dim) (deg) = 0.024 MPa q= 0.048 MPa q= 0.006 MPa q=0.192 MPa loco maaan BIS8888E 4.00 4.00 0.97 0.86 0.80 0.68 0.42 Cohesionless Soil (Barker et al 1991) 0.89 O77 0.75 0.73 0.65 0.60 0.48 031 Table 10.6.3.1.2c-6 - Soil Compressibilty Factors ¢, and c, for Strip Footings on 10-43Section 10 - Foundations (Si) SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY Table 10.6.3.1.2c-7 - Load Inclination Factors i, and i, for Load Inclined in Direction of Footing Width (Barker et al. 1901) Table 10.6.3.1.2c-8 - Load Inclination Factors i, and i, for Load Inclined in Direction of Footing Length (Barker et al. 1991) 10-44Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY Table 10.6.3.1.20-8 - Depth Factor d, for Cohesionless Soils (Barker et al. 1991) 37 Ska RSRs se Where a footing supported on a two-layered Ifthe upper layer is a cohesionless soil and g' equals, cohesive soil system is subjected to a drained loading, 25° to 50°, Equation 4 reduces to: the nominal bearing capacity may be taken set (C10.6.3.1.20-12) ue = Fe (10.6.3.1.20-4) (10.6.3.1.2c-5) c, = undrained shear strength of the top layer of soil as depicted in Figure 3 (MPa) 2 = ultimate bearing capacity of a fictitious footing of the same size and shape as the actual footing but supported on surface of the second (lower) layer of a two-layer system (MPa) 9; = effective stress angle of internal friction of the top layer of soil (DEG) 10-45Section 10 - Foundations (SI!) SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY A rational numerical approach for determining a ‘modified bearing capacity factor, Ny. for footings on or near a slope is given in Bowles (1988). g 1 ett ac ot Rants om Sie Spe Figure 10.6.3.1.2c-1 - Modified Bearing Capacity Factors for Footings in Cohesionless Soils and On or Adjacent to Sloping Ground after Meyerhof (1857) 10.6.3.1.3 Semiempirical Procedures 10.6.3.1.3a General The nominal bearing resistance of foundation soils may be estimated from the results of in-situ tests or by observed resistance of similar soils. The use of a Particular in-situ test and the interpretation of test results should take local experience into consideration. The following in-situ tests may be used: © Standard penetration test (SPT), ‘© Cone penetration test (CPT), and © Pressuremeter test. 10-48Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS 10.6.3.1.3 Using SPT ‘The nominal bearing resistance in sand, in MPa, based on SPT results may be taken as: D, a = 820° ag B{ C46 eB (10.6.3.1.3b-1) where: Nor = average value of corrected SPT blow count within the range of depth from footing base to 1.58 below the footing (Blows/300 mm) B footing width (mm) Con Giz = correction factors for groundwater effect, as specified in Table 10.6.3.1.2c-1 (DIM) footing embedment depth taken to the bottom of the footing (mm) reduction factor accounting for the effect of load inclination, specified in Tables 1 and 2 (om) unfactored horizontal load for use in determining HIV ratio in Tables 1 and 2 (N) or (Nimm) Uunfactored vertical load for use in determining H/V ratio in Tables 1 and 2 (N) or (Nim) COMMENTARY €10.6.3.1.36 Because of difficulties in obtaining undisturbed sand samples, the nominal bearing capacity of footings on sand are best estimated using semiempirical procedures. Equation 1 is modified after Meyerhof (1956). ‘When the load is inciined, failure can occur either by sliding of the footing along its base or by general shear of the undertying soil. The theoretical zones defining the slip surface under the footing are reduced in size when a horizontal component is present. Closed-form solutions to the problem are not available, but results in the form of semiempirical expressions for inclination factors have been developed by Vesic’ (1975) and are summarized in Kulhawy et al. (1983). ‘The load inclination factors in Tables 1 and 2 have been developed for cohesionless soils and are conservative when applied to cohesive soils. The factors include an increase in the resistance provided by the shear strength of the overburden. If the overburden is loose backfill or is weaker than the bearing stratum, the ‘additional shearing resistance of the overburden should be neglected, ie., the columns headed DB = 0 should be used. To preserve the angle of inclination of the resultant, unfactored loads are used. When factored loads are used, the failure surface beneath the footing could be different than the one due to the applied loads, and the result may become overly conservative. 10-47Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY Table 10.6.3.1.3b-1 - Load Inclination Factor, R, for Square Footings | Load Inclination Factor, Ry Hv | D/B= DB = DiB=5 0.0 | 4.00 1.00 | 1.00 010 | 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.15 | 0.65 0.75 0.80 020 | 055 0.65 0.70 0.25 | 0.50 0.55 0.65 0.30 | 0.40 0.50 055 0.35 | 0.35 0.45 0.50 0.40 | 0.30 0.35 0.45 0.45 | 0.25 0.30 0.40 050 | 0.20 0.25 055 | 0.45 0.20 60] 0.10 0.15 0.20 | 10-48Section 10 - Foundations (S!) ‘SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY Table 10.6.3.1.3b-2 - Load Inclination Factor, R, for Rectangular Footings Load Inclination Factor, Ry HIV [Load Inclined in Width Direction D/B=0 | D/B=1 | D/B=5 00 | 1.00 1.00 4.00 040 | 0.70 075 0.80 018 | 060 065 0.70 020 | 0.50 060 0.65 025 | 040 050 055 030 | 0.35 0.40 050 035 | 0.30 0.35 040 040 | 0.25 0.30 0.35 045 | 0.20 025 0.30 050 | 0.15 020 025 0.15 0.20 0.10 0.15 Inclination Factor, R, 0.10 bw ined in Length Direction pe=1 | oe=5 00 1.00) 11.00 0.10 085 0.90 016 0.80 085 020 070 075 025 0.65 070 0.30 0.60 0.65 0.35 055 0.60 0.40 0.50 055 0.45, 045 0.50 035 | 046 0.30 0.40 0.25 0.35 106.3.1.3 Using CPT 610.6.3.1.30 Based on CPT results, the nominal bending Equation 1 is modified after Meyerhof (1956). resistance, in MPa, for footings on sands or gravels may be taken as: 10-49Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS D, ue #2110%4,8 (6, °C, 3 R, (106.3.1.30-1) where: = average cone resistance within a depth B below the bottom of footing (MPa) B= footing width (mm) D, = footing embedment depth taken to the bottom of the footing (mm) R= correction factor for load inclination, as specified in Tables 10.6.3.1.3b-1 and 10.6.3.1.3b-2 (DIM) Coa = correction factors for groundwater effect, as, specified in Table 10.6.3.1.2c-1 (DIM) 10.6.3.1.3d Use of Pressuremeter Test Results ‘The nominal bearing resistance of foundation soils, in MPa, determined from results of pressuremeter test results, may be taken as: Ga = [+k (- PIR (10.6.3.1.3d-1) where: f, = initial total vertical pressure at foundation level (MPa) k = empirical bearing capacity coefficient from Figure 1 (DIM) PL = average value of limiting pressures obtained from pressuremeter tests within the depth of 1.58 above and below the foundation level (MPa) total horizontal pressure at the depth where the pressuremeter test is performed (MPa) R, = correction factor for load inclination, as specified in Tables 10.6.3.1.3b-1 and 10.6.3.1.3b-2 (DIM) Ifthe value of p, varies significantly within a depth of 1.5B above and below the foundation level, a special averaging technique should be used. COMMENTARY C10.6.3.1.3d No resistance factor is specified in Table 10.5.4-1 for resistance of footings determined by the pressuremeter test method. Where this method is used, a resistance factor would have to be determined as indicated in Barker et al, (1981). It is anticipated that a resistance factor for this method will be developed in the future. ‘A special averaging technique has been proposed by Baguelin et al, (1978), 10-50Section 10 - Foundations (S!) SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY 4 capacity cotericient, K o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 DEPTH FACTOR, D, /8 SOIL | CONSISTENCY TYPE OR DENSITY _| _(p,-p,) (MPa) _| CLASS. Clay Soft to Very Firm <14 4 Stitt 0.77-3.8 Sand and | Loose 0.38-0.77 2 Gravel Very Dense 2958 4 Silt Loose to Medium. <0.67 1 Dense 1.1.29 2 Rock Very Low 0.96-2.9 2 Strength Low Strength 2.958 Medium to High 57-8.6+ 4 L___ Strength Figure 10.6.3.1.3d-1 - Values of Empirical Capacity Coefficient, k (After Canadian Geotechnical Society 1985) 10-51Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS 10.6.3.1.4 Plate Load Tests The nominal bearing resistance may be determined by plate load tests, listed in Article 10.4.3.2, provided that adequate subsurface explorations have been made to determine the soil profile below the foundation ‘The nominal bearing resistance determined from a load test may be extrapolated to adjacent footings where the subsurface profile is similar. 10.6.3.1.5 Effect of Load Eccentricity For loads eccentric to the centroid of the footing, a Teduced effective area, B' x L’, within the confines of the physical footing shall be used in geotechnical design for settlement or bearing resistance. The design bearing pressure on the effective area shall be assumed to be Uniform. The reduced effective area shall be concentric, with the load. ‘The reduced dimensions for an eccentrically loaded rectangular footing may be taken as: B=B-2e, (10.6.3.1.5-1) Us L-2e, (10.6.3.1.5-2) where: , = eccentricity parallel to dimension B (mm) @. = eccentricity parallel to dimension L (mm) Footings under eccentric loads shall be designed to ensure that: © The factored bearing resistance is not less than the effects of factored loads, and '® For footings on soils, the eccentricity of the footing, evaluated based on factored loads, is less than 1/4 of the corresponding footing dimension, B or L. For structural design of an eccentrically loaded foundation, a triangular or trapezoidal contact pressure distribution based on factored loads shall be used. For footings that are not rectangular, similar procedures should be used based upon the principles specified above, COMMENTARY c10.6.3.1.4 Load tests have a limited depth of influence and may ‘not disclose long-term consolidation of foundation soils. c106.3.1.5 ‘The reduced dimensions for a rectangular footing are ‘shown in Figure C1 meno Figure C10.6.3.1.-1 - Reduced Footing Dimensions For purposes of structural design, it is usually ‘assumed that the bearing pressure varies linearly across the bottom of the footing. This assumption results in the slightly conservative triangular or trapezoidal contact pressure distribution. For footings that are not rectangular, such as the circular footing shown in Figure C1, the reduced effective area is always concentrically loaded and can be ‘estimated by approximation and judgment. Such an ‘approximation could be made, assuming a reduced rectangular footing size having the same area and centroid as the shaded area of the circular footing shown, in Figure C1. 10-52Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 10.6.3.2 BEARING RESISTANCE OF ROCK 10.6.3.2.1 General ‘The methods used for design of footings on rock shall consider the presence, orientation, and condition of discontinuities, weathering profiles, and other similar profiles as they apply at a particular sit For footings on competent rock, reliance on simple and direct analyses based on uniaxial compressive rock. strengths and ROD may be applicable. Competent rock. shall be defined as a rock mass with discontinuities that are open not wider than 3.2 mm. For footings on less. competent rock, more detailed investigations and analyses shall be performed to account for the effects of weathering and the presence and condition of discontinuities. 10.6.3.2.2 Semiempirical Procedures ‘The nominal bearing resistance of rock may be determined using empirical correlation with the ‘Geomechanics Rock Mass Rating system, RMR, or Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, NGI, Rock Mass Classification System. Local experience shall be ‘considered in the use of these semiempirical procedures. ‘The factored bearing pressure of the foundation shall ot be taken to be greater than the factored bearing ‘strength of the footing concrete. 10.6.3.2.3 Analytic Method The nominal bearing capacity of foundations on rock shall be determined using established rock mechanics principles based on the rock mass strength parameters, ‘The influence of discontinuities on the failure mode shall, 10.6.3.2.4 Load Test Where appropriate, load tests may be performed to determine the nominal bearing capacity of foundations on rock. COMMENTARY ‘A comprehensive parametric study was conducted for cantilevered retaining walls of various heights and soil conditions. The base widths obtained using the LRFD load factors and eccentricity of B/4 were comparable to those of ASD with an eccentricity of B/6. c10.6.3.22 ‘The bearing resistance of jointed or broken rock may be estimated using the semiempirical procedure developed by Carter and Kulhawy (1988). This procedure is based on the unconfined compressive strength of the intact rock core sample. Depending on rock mass quality measured in terms of RMR or NGI system, the ultimate bearing capacity of a rock mass varies from a small fraction to six times the unconfined compressive strength of intact rock core samples. c106.3.2.3 Depending upon the relative spacing of joints and rock layering, bearing capacity failures for foundations on tock may take several forms. Except for the case of a rock mass with closed joints, the failure modes are different from those in soil. Procedures for estimating bearing capacity for each of the failure modes can be found in Kulhawy and Goodman (1987), Goodman (1988), and Sowers (1978). 10-53Section 10 - Foundations (SI!) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 10.6.3.2.5 Limits on Load Eccentricity The eccentricity of loading, based on factored loads, shall not exceed three-eighths of the corresponding footing dimensions B or L. 10.6.3.3 FAILURE BY SLIDING Failure by sliding shall be investigated for footings that support inclined load andior are founded on slopes. For foundations on clay soils, the possible presence of a shrinkage gap between the soil and the foundation shall be considered. If passive resistance is included as Part of the shear resistance required for resisting sliding, consideration shall also be given to possible future removal of the soil in front of the foundation. ‘The factored resistance against failure by sliding, in N, may be taken as: Qn = 9, = P.Q,#Po,Qay (10.6.3.3-1) ‘where: * = resistance factor for shear resistance between soil and foundation specified in Table 10.5.5-1 Q, = nominal shear resistance between soil and foundation (N) wy = ‘resistance factor for passive resistance ‘specified in Table 10.5.5-1 Q,, = nominal passive resistance of soil available throughout the design life of the structure (N) If the soil beneath the footing is cohesionless, then: Q, = Vtans (1063.32) for which: tan& = tang, for concrete cast against soil = 0.8 tan g, for precast concrete footing where: % = intemal friction angle of soil (DEG) V_ = total vertical force (N) For footings that rest on clay, the sliding resistance may be taken as the lesser of: COMMENTARY C106.3.3 Sliding failure occurs if the force effects due to the horizontal component loads exceed the more critical of either the factored shear resistance of the soils or the factored shear resistance at the interface between the soil and the foundation, For footings on cohesioniess soils, sliding resistance depends on the roughness of the interface between the foundation and the soil ‘The magnitudes of active earth load and passive resistance depend on the type of backfill material, the wall movement, and the compactive effort. Their ‘magnitude can be estimated using procedures described in Sections 3 and 11. In most cases, the movement of the structure and its foundation will be small. Consequently, if passive resistance Is included in the resistance, its magnitude is commonly taken as 50 percent of the maximum passive resistance, as shown in Table 10.5.5-1. ‘The units for Q,, Q,, and Q,, are shown in newtons. For elements designed on a unit length basis, these quantities will have the units of newtons per unit length. Rough footing bases usually result where footings are cast in-situ. Precast concrete footings may have smooth bases. 10-54‘Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY ‘¢ The cohesion of the clay, or ‘© Where footings are supported on at least 150 mm of compacted granular material, one-half the normal stress on the interface between the footing and soil, as shown in Figure 1 for retaining walls. The following notation shall be taken to apply to Figure 1. = unit shear resistance, equal to S, or 05 o',, whichever is less Q, = areaunder q, diagram (shaded area) $, = _undrained shear strength (MPa) vertical effective stress (MPa) a 0.50, Figure 10.6.3.3-1 - Procedure for Estimating Sliding Resistance for Walls on Clay 10.6.4 Structural Design ‘The structural design of footings shall comply with the requirements given in Article 5.13.3. 10-55‘Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY 10.7 DRIVEN PILES 10.7.1 General 107.4.1 USE Piling should be considered when footings cannot be founded on rock, stiff cohesive, or granular foundation, ‘material at a reasonable expense. At locations where soil conditions would normally permit the use of spread footings, but the potential for erosion exists, piles may be used as a protection against scour. 10.7.1.2 PILE PENETRATION Required pile penetration should be determined based on the resistance to vertical and lateral loads and the displacement of both the pile and the subsurface ‘materials. In general, unless refusal is encountered, the design penetration for any pile should be not less than 3000 mm into hard cohesive or dense granular material and not less than 6000 mm into soft cohesive or loose granular materi Unless refusal is encountered, piles for trestle or pile bents shall penetrate a distance equal to at least one- third the unsupported length of the pile. : Piling used to penetrate a soft or loose upper stratum ‘overlying a hard or firm stratum, shall penetrate the firm stratum by a distance sufficient to limit movement of the piles and attain sufficient bearing capacities. 10.7.1.3 RESISTANCE Piles shall be designed to have adequate bearing ‘and structural resistances, tolerable settlements, and tolerable lateral displacements. ‘The supporting resistance of piles should be determined by static analysis methods based on soil structure interaction, load testing, the use of the pile driving analyzer, or other stress-wave measurement technique, with CAPWAP. The resistance of piles should be determined through a suitable combination of subsurface investigations, laboratory andor in-situ tests, analytical methods, pile load tests, and reference to the history of past performance. Consideration shall also be given to: © The difference between the resistance of a single pile and that of a group of piles; © The capacity of the underlying strata to support the load of the pile group; © The effects of driving the piles on adjacent structures; 10-56Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS © The possi lity of scour and its effect; and © The transmission of forces, such as negative skin friction oF downdrag forces, from consolidating soil Resistance factors for pile capacities obtained from field load tests or from the pile driving analyzer shall be 288 specified in Table 10.5.5-2. 10.7.1.4 EFFECT OF SETTLING GROUND AND DOWNDRAG LOADS Possible development of downdrag loads on piles shall be considered where: © Sites are underlain by compressible clays, silts, or peats; Fill has recently been placed on the earlier surface; and © The groundwater is substantially lowered. Downdrag loads shall be considered as a load when the bearing resistance and settlement of pile foundations, are investigated. ‘The downdrag loads may be determined as specified in Article 10.7.3.3, with the direction of the skin friction forces reversed. The factored drag loads shall be added to the factored vertical dead load applied to the deep foundation in the assessment of bearing capacity at the strength limit state, ‘The downdrag loads shall be added to the vertical dead load applied to the deep foundation in the assessment of settlement at service limit state. COMMENTARY c107.1.4 Where soil deposit in which or through which piles have been installed is subject to consolidation and settlement in relation to the piles, downdrag forces are induced on the piles. The induced downdrag loads tend to reduce the usable pile capacity. ‘As explained in Section 3.11.8, downdrag is a load, ‘and skin friction is a resistance. Downdrag is not ‘combined with transient loads. Downdrag loads are 7ot to be combined with transient loads because transient loads cause downward movement of the pile or pier relative to the ground, causing temporary reduction ot elimination of downdrag loads. Downdrag is a pile capacity issue only in the case of ‘a true end:-bearing pile on very dense or hard soil or rock. Where the pile capacity is generally controlled by the structural strength of the pile and where settlements of the pile are negligible. In all other cases of piles bearing in compressible soils where the pile capacity is controlled by tip resistance and shaft adhesion or friction, downdrag may be regarded as a settiement issue. Field observations on instrumented piles have shown that the magnitude of downdrag is a function of the effective stress acting on the pile and may be computed in a way similar to the calculation of positive shaft resistance. Downdrag loads can be estimated using the aor A methods. However, an allowance should be made for the possible increase in undrained shear strength as. consolidation occurs because the increase in shear strength will result in higher downdrag loads. An altemative approach would be to use the B method ‘where the long-term conditions after consolidation should be considered. ‘When designing for downdrag, drag loads should not be combined with transient loads, therefore, only permanent loads need be included with the drag loads, provided that the transient loads are smaller than the drag loads. 10-57Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY Downdrag forces can be reduced by applying a thin Coat of bitumen on the pile surface. In determining the extent of the pile affected by downdrag forces, it is necessary to locate the so-called eutral plane. The neutral plane is defined as the elevation at which the settiement of the pile and the settlement of the soil are the same as shown in Figure C1. Above the neutral plane, the soil loads the shaft in negative skin friction. Below the neutral plane, the pile derives support from the soll and hence the total load in, the pile decreases. The distribution of the load and the resistance in the pile, based on unfactored loads, shown in Figure C1 Load and Resistance ‘Setlament Oistrbution Pla ess Figure C10.7.1.4-1 - Schematic Representation of Pile Loads, Settlement, and Neutral Plane ‘At the strength limit state, the issue of load factors and resistance factors to be applied to downdrag and skin friction require some engineering judgment. Consider the idealized situation shown in Figure C2. Initially, a pile carries its share of the total foundation loads indicated by P, in Figure C2. Above the neutral plane, load in the pile continues to increase with depth due to downdrag, under which situation the factored load ‘adds to the initial factored load in the pile, as indicated by the path A-B in Figure C2. Below the neutral plane, skin friction begins to support the pile, and the problem to be considered is whether the skin friction is factored as a resistance at any point below the neutral plane or ‘whether skin friction should initially be used to offset the accumulated downdrag load to the extent possible, given the actual situation at hand. A reasonable interpretation is shown in Figure 2(b). Along the path B-C skin friction is considered to offset downdrag and is, therefore, regarded as a factored load. Stated another way, the et difference between downdrag and skin fiction emains applied to the pile as a factored load until the 10-58‘Section 10 - Foundations (S!) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 10.7.1.5 PILE SPACING, CLEARANCES, AND EMBEDMENT Center-to-center pile spacings shall not be less than the greater of 750 mm or of 2.5 pile diameters or widths. The distance from the side of any pile to the nearest edge of the footing shall be greater than 225 mm. ‘The tops of piles shall project at least 300 mm into footings after all damaged pile material has been removed. If the pile is attached to the footing by embedded bars or strands, the pile should extend no less than 150 mm into the footing. Where a reinforced conerete beam is cast-in-place and used as a bent cap ‘supported by piles, the concrete cover at the sides of the piles shall be greater than 150 mm, plus an allowance for permissible pile misalignment, and the piles shall project at least 150 mm into the cap. Where pile reinforcement is anchored in the cap satisfying the requirements of Article 6.13.4.1, the projection may be less than 150 mm. 10.7.1.6 BATTER PILES Batter piles should be avoided where downdrag loads are expected and in Seismic Zones 3 and 4. Batter piles may be used in the foundation where the lateral resistance of vertical piles is inadequate to (COMMENTARY accumulated skin friction balances the accumulated downdrag. In the idealized example in Figure C2, the skin friction is sufficient to offset all of the downdrag when the load path reaches Point C. Along the path D- C, the resistance of the pile accumulates for a total equal to the factored tip resistance, plus the factored resistance from skin friction along the path D-C. { Figure 10,7.1.4-2 - Schematic Representation of Factored Loads on Piles with Downdrag c107.1.5 It is not the intention of this article to require a reduction in standard spacings used by an Owner. c107.1.6 Settlement induces bending moments in the shafts of batter piles (Tomiinson 1987). ‘The degree of batter will depend on the type of pile ‘and the magnitude of the lateral loads. Installation by 10-59Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS counteract the horizontal forces transmitted to the foundation or when increased rigidity of the entire structure is required. 10.7.1.7 GROUNDWATER TABLE AND BUOYANCY Bearing capacity shall be determined using the ‘groundwater level consistent with that used to calculate load effects. The effect of hydrostatic pressure shall be ‘considered in the design. 10.7.1.8 PROTECTION AGAINST DETERIORATION ‘As a minimum, the following types of deterioration shall be considered: '* Corrosion of stee! pile foundations, particularly in fil soils, low pH soils, and marine environments; © Sulfate, chloride, and acid attack of concrete pile foundations; and’ © Decay of timber piles from wetting and drying cycles from insects or marine borers. ‘The following conditions should be considered as indicative of a potential pile deterioration or corrosion situation: © Resistivity less than 100 ohm/mm, © pHless than 5.5, © pH between 5.5 and 8.5 in soils with high organic content, © Sulfate concentrations greater than 1000 ppm, © Landfills and cinder fils, © Soils subject to mine or industrial drainage, COMMENTARY driving is feasible for batters as large as one horizontal to two vertical (Tomlinson 1987). The greatest efficiency is achieved by using piles battered in opposite directions. A simple graphical procedure for estimating the compressive and tensile forces in pile groups containing Rot more than three rows of piles is described in Tomlinson (1987). Linear elastic procedures may be Used to solve for the pile forces and displacements in pile groups that can be modeled in two dimensions (Hrennikoff 1950). This procedure has been expanded to three dimensions (Saul 1968). For analysis of three- dimensional pile groups that considers nonlinear soil response and pile-soi-pile interaction, refer to O'Neill et, al. (197) and O'Neill and Tsai (1984). c107.1.7 Unless the pile is bearing on rock, the tip resistance is primarily dependent on the effective surcharge that is directly influenced by the groundwater level. For drained loading conditions, the vertical effective stress, o',, is related to the groundwater level and thus affects shaft capacity c107.1.8 Resistivity, pH, chloride content, and sulfate concentration values have been adapted from those in Fang (1991) and Tomlinson (1987). Some states use coal tar epoxy paint system as a protective coating with good results. ‘The criteria for determining the potential for deterioration varies widely. An alternative set of recommendations is given by Elias (1980). A field electrical resistivity survey or resistivity testing ‘and pH testing of soil and groundwater samples may be Used to evaluate the corrosion potential. The deterioration potential of steel piles may be reduced by several methods, including protective ‘coatings, concrete encasement, cathodic protection, use of special steel alloys, or increased steel area. Protective coatings should be resistant to abrasion and have a proven service record in the corrosive environment identified. Protective coatings should extend into noncorrosive soils a few feet because the lower portion of the coating is more susceptible to abrasion loss during installation. Concrete encasement through the corrosive zone may also be used. The concrete mix should be of low Permeability and placed properly. Steel piles protected by concrete encasement should be coated with a dielectric coating near the base of the concrete jacket. ‘The use of special stee! alloys of nickel, copper. and potassium may also be used for increased corrosion 10-60Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS ‘© Areas with a mixture of high resistivity soils and low resistivity high alkaline soils, and © Insects (wood piles). The following water conditions should be considered {8 indicative of a potential pile deterioration or corrosion, situation: ‘© Chloride content greater than 500 ppm, © Sulfate concentration greater than 500 ppm, © Mine or industrial runoff, © High organic content, © pHiess than 5.5, © Marine borers, and © Piles exposed to wet/dry cycles. When chemical wastes are suspected, a full ‘chemical analysis of soil and groundwater samples shall be considered. 10.7.1.9 UPLIFT Pile foundations designed to resist uplift forces should be checked for resistance to pullout and structural ability to carry tensile stresses. 10.7.1.10 ESTIMATED LENGTHS Estimated pile lengths for each substructure shall be shown on the plans and shall be based upon careful evaluation of available subsurface information, static and lateral capacity calculations, and/or past experience. 10.71.11. ESTIMATE AND MINIMUM TIP ELEVATION Estimated and minimum pile tip elevations for each substructure should be shown on the contract plans. Estimated pile tip elevations shall reflect the elevation where the required ultimate pile capacity can be COMMENTARY resistance in the atmosphere or splash zone of marine piling, Saorificial steel area may also be used for corrosion ‘resistance. This technique oversizes the steel section so that the available section after corrosion meets structural capacity requirements. Deterioration of concrete piles can be reduced by design procedures. These include use of a dense impermeable concrete, sulfate resisting Portland cement, increased steel cover, air-entrainment, reduced chloride ‘content in concrete mix, cathodic protection, and epoxy- coated reinforcement.’ Piles that are continuously ‘submerged are less subject to deterioration. AC! 318, Section 4.5.2, provides maximum water-cement ratio requirements for special exposure conditions. ACI 318, Section 4.5.3, lists the appropriate types of cement for Various types of sulfate exposure. For prestressed concrete, ACI 318 recommends a maximum water soluble chloride ion of 0.06 percent by mass of cement. Cathodic protection of reinforcing and prestressing steel can be used to protect concrete from corrosion effects. This process induces electric flow from the ‘anode to the cathodic pile and reduces corrosion. An external DC power source may be required to drive the current. However, cathodic protection requires electrical continuity between all steel that necessitates bonding the steel for electric connection. This bonding is expensive ‘and usually precludes the use of cathodic protection of concrete piles. Epoxy coating of pile reinforcement has been found in some cases to be useful in resisting corrosion. It is important to ensure that the coating is continuous and free of holidays. c10.7.1.9 Uplift forces can be caused by lateral loads, buoyancy effects, and expansive soils. The connection of the pile to the footing is part of its structural ability to resist uplift and should also be investigated. 10-61 sciaticaSection 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY obtained. Minimum pile tip elevations shall reflect the Penetration required to support lateral pile loads, Including scour considerations where appropriate, and/or Penetration of overlying unsuitable soil strata, 10.7.1.12 PILES THROUGH EMBANKMENT FILL Piles to be driven through embankments shall Penetrate a minimum of 3000 mm through original ‘ground unless refusal on bedrock or competent bearing strata ocours at a lesser penetration. Fill used for ‘embankment construction shall be a select material that, shall not obstruct pile penetration to the required depth. ‘The maximum size of any particles in the fill shall not exceed 150 mm. Predrilling or spudding pile locations. should be specified where required, particularly for displacement piles 10.71.13 TEST PILES Test piles shall be considered for each substructure to determine pile installation characteristics, evaluate pile capacity with depth, and establish contractor pile order lengths. Piles may be tested by static loading, dynamic testing, driveability studies, or a combination thereof, based upon the knowiedge of subsurface conditions. ‘The number of test piles required may be increased in nonuniform subsurface conditions. Test piles may not be required where previous experience exists with the same, pile type and ultimate pile capacity in similar subsurface Conditions. 10.7.1.14 WAVE EQUATION ANALYSIS. ‘The constructibility of the pile foundation design should be evaluated using a wave equation computer program. The wave equation should be used to confirm that the design pile section can be installed to the desired depth and ultimate capacity as well as within the allowable driving load levels specified in Article 10.7.1.18 using an appropriately sized driving system. 10.7.1.15 DYNAMIC MONITORING Dynamic monitoring may be specified for piles stalled in difficult subsurface conditions, such as soils with obstructions and boulders or a steeply sloping bedrock surface, to evaluate compliance with structural pile capacity. Dynamic monitoring may also be considered for geotechnical capacity verification where the size of the project or other limitations deter static load testing. 10-62Section 10 - Foundations (S!) SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY 10.71.16 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DRIVING STRESSES Driving loads may be estimated by wave equation analyses or dynamic monitoring of force and acceleration at the pile head during pile driving. ‘The maximum driving loads for top driven piles shall not exceed the following factored resistances, with Nomenclature and resistance factors as given in Sections 5, 6, oF 8, as appropriate. © Steel Piles: * Compression: 0.909 F, A, + Tension: 0.909 F, A, '* Concrete Piles: * Compression: 0.85 9 fA, ‘+ Tension: O.709F,A, © Prestressed Concrete Piles: ‘+ Compression: 9 (0.85 Fats) A, ‘+ Tension - Normal Environments: 9 (O.25VPeHfy) A, ‘+ Tension - Severe Corrosive Environments: hye Aw © Timber Piles: ‘+ Compression: OFA © Tension: NA 10.7.2 Movement and Bearing Resistance at the Service Limit State 10.7.2.1 GENERAL For purposes of calculating the settlements of pile groups, loads shall be assumed to act on an equivalent footing located at two-thirds of the depth of embedment of the piles into the layer that provides support as shown in Figure 1. For piles in cohesionless soils, foundation settlement shall be investigated using all applicable loads in the Service | Load Combination specified in Table 3.4.1-1 For piles in cohesive soil, the Service | Load Combination shall also be used with all applicable loads, ‘except that the transient loads may be omitted. ‘Al applicable service limit state load combinations in Table 3.4.1-1 shall be used for evaluating lateral displacement of foundations, 10-63Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY (b) Figure 10.7.2.1-1 - Location of Equivalent Footing (After Duncan and Buchignani 1976) 10.7.22 CRITERIA FOR HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT =—C10.7.22 ‘The provisions of Article 10.6.2.2 shall apply. This criteria is taken from Moulton et al. (1985). Design horizontal movements should not exceed 38 mm. 10-64Section 10 - Foundations (Si!) SPECIFICATIONS 10.7.2.3 SETTLEMENT 10.7.2.3.1 General ‘The settlement of a pile foundation shall not exceed the tolerable settlement, as selected according to Article 106.22. 10.7.2.3.2 Cohesive Soil Procedures used for shallow foundations shall be Used to estimate the settlement of a pile group, using the ‘equivalent footing location specified in Figure 10.7.2.1-1. 10.7.2.3.3 Cohesionless Soil ‘The settlement of pile groups in cohesionless soils can be estimated using results of in-situ tests and the ‘equivalent footing location shown in Figure 10.7.2.1-1. The settlement of pile groups in cohesionless soils may be taken as: Using SPT: p = 28044 (10.7.2.3.3-1) 2g! aoa Using CPT: p (10.7.2.3.3-2) for which: 1-1-0.125.2 205 (10.7.2.3.3-3) 7 (10.7.2.3.3-4) [0.77 wa. ©, net foundation pressure applied at 203, as shown in Figure 10.7.2.1-1; this pressure is equal to the applied load at the top of the group divided by the area of the equivalent footing and does not include the weight of the piles or the soil between the piles (MPa). width or smallest dimension of pile group (mm) settlement of pile group (mm) COMMENTARY C10.7.23.3 ‘The provisions are based upon the use of empirical correlations proposed by Meyerhof (1976). 10-65Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS ' influence factor of the effective group embedment (DIM) effective depth taken as 2D,/3 (mm) depth of embedment of piles in layer that provides support, as. specified in Figure 10.7.2.1-4 (mm) Tepresentative average corrected _for ‘overburden SPT blow count over a depth X below the equivalent footing (Blows/300 mm) ‘measured SPT blow count within the seat of settlement (Blows/300 mm) effective vertical stress (MPa) @, = _ average static cone resistance over a depth X below the equivalent footing (MPa) 10.7.2.4 HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT ‘The horizontal displacement of a pile foundation shall not exceed the tolerable lateral displacement, as selected according to Section 10.7.2.2. The horizontal displacement of pile groups shall be estimated using procedures that consider sol-structure interaction. 10.7.2.5 PRESUMPTIVE VALUES FOR END BEARING ‘The provisions of Article 10.6.2.3 shall apply. 10.7.3 Resistance at the Strength Limit State 10.7.3.1 GENERAL The resistances that shall be considered include: © Bearing resistance of piles, © Uplift resistance of piles, © Punching of piles through strong soil into a weaker layer, and © Structural resistance of the piles. COMMENTARY C10.7.2.4 ‘The lateral displacement of pile groups can be estimated using the procedures described in Barker et al. (1991) and Reese (1984). The procedure was developed through a parametric study of a large number of pile groups using the theories proposed by Evans and Duncan (1982) and Focht and Koch (1973). c10.7.3.4 ‘The provisions herein and the associated resistance factors apply to the geotechnical resistance of piles. The structural resistance should be based on the applicable provisions of Sections 5, 6, and 8. 10-68Section 10 - Foundations (S!) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 10.7.3.2 AXIAL LOADING OF PILES Preference shall be given to design process based upon static analyses in combination with field monitoring during driving or load tests. Load test results may be extrapolated to adjacent substructures with similar subsurface conditions. The bearing resistance of piles ‘may be estimated using analytical methods or in-situ test methods. ‘The factored bearing resistance of piles, Q,, may be taken as: On=9Q,= 9, Qe (10.7.32-1) or Qn = 9 Q,= Oe + Oy, (10.7.3.2-2) for which: =a, (10.7.32-3) Qa, (10.7.3.2-4) where: %, = resistance factor for the bearing resistance of a single pile specified in Article 10.5.5 for those methods that do not distinguish between total resistance and the individual contributions of tip resistance and shaft resistance = _ bearing resistance of a single pile (N) = pile tip resistance (N) = pile shaft resistance (N) = unit tip resistance of pile (MPa) = _ unit shaft resistance of pile (MPa) = surface area of pile shaft (mmn") = area of pile tip (mmr?) err5re ppp ' = resistance factor for tip resistance specified in Table 10.5.5-2 for those methods that Separate the resistance of a pile into contributions from tip resistance and shaft resistance COMMENTARY C10.7.3.2 ‘The bearing resistance of a pile in soil is derived from the tip resistance andlor shaft resistance, i.e., skin friction. Both the tip and shaft resistances develop in response to foundation displacement. The maximum values of each are unlikely to occur at the same displacement. The shaft resistance is typically fully mobilized at displacements of about 2.5 to 10 mm. The tip capacity, however, is mobilized after the pile settles about 8 percent ofits diameter (Kulhawy et al. 1983). ‘The value of , is dependent upon the method used in estimating the pile bearing resistance and may be different for tip and shaft resistances. 10-67Section 10 - Foundations (S!) ‘SPECIFICATIONS resistance factor for shaft resistance specified in Table 10.5.5-2 for those methods that separate the resistance of a pile into contributions from tip resistance and shaft resistance Pm F 10.733 SEMIEMPIRICAL ESTIMATES OF PILE RESISTANCE 10.7.3.3.1 General Both total stress and effective stress methods may be used, provided that the appropriate soil strength Parameters are available, The resistance factors for the skin friction and point resistance, estimated using semiempirical methods, shall be as specified in Table 1055-2. 10.7.3.3.2 Shaft Re nce, One or more of the three specified procedures identified below may be used, as appropriate. 10.7.3.3.2a a-Method ‘The a-method, based on total stress, may be used to relate the adi between the pile and a clay to the ndrained strength of the clay. The nominal unit skin friction, in MPa, may be taken by: q, = a8, (10.7.3.3.2a1) where: S, = mean undrained shear strength (MPa) ‘adhesion factor applied to S, (DIM) ‘The adhesion factor, a, may be assumed to vary with the value of the undrainad strength, S,, as shown in Figure 4 COMMENTARY 0107.33.20 ‘The a-method Is simple to use. It has been used ‘over many years and gives reasonable results for both displacement and nondisplacement piles in clay. 10-68Section 10 - Foundations (Si) 100) . 7 “Fas Dare an go 7 = cow soe g 075] == § 050] ao 4 § 025 0.00) 0 005 o4 O15 O Undrained Shear Strength Sy (MPa) 1.00 ie — Dpz greater tion 200 gos == fae § 0.50; cose § 025 oad Lt 9.005 005 04 O16 02 Undrained Shear Strength Sy (MPa) = greater Fin aes he Ko i . sa. clay 0,210 — 7 0.00) 0.05 Of 015 02 Undrained Shear Strength Sy (MPa) Figure 10.7.3.3.22-1 - Design Curves for Adhesion Factors for Piles Driven into Clay Soils (after Tomlinson 1987) 10-69‘Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS: 10.7.3.3.2b B-Method ‘The B-method, based on effective stress, may be used for predicting skin friction of prismatic piles. The ‘nominal unit skin friction, in MPa, may be related to the effective stresses in the ground as: 9, = Bo, where: oF B= (10.7.3.3.24) vertical effective stress (MPa) ‘a factor taken from Figure 1 e Se l0 a 00] 30 ocr’ Figure 10.7.3.3.2b-1 - B Versus OCR for Displacement Piles (after Esrig and Kirby 1978) ‘The Nordlund method may be used to extend the B ‘method to nonprismatic piles in cohesive soils, in which case the resistance factor may be taken as that for the B method as specified in Table 10.5.5-2. 10.7.3.3.2¢ A-Method ‘The A-method, based on effective stress, may be used to relate the unit skin friction, in MPa, to passive earth pressure as: Mo, +28,) (10.7.3,3.2¢-1) a + s ge Passive lateral earth pressure (MPa) > ‘an empirical coefficient taken from Figure 1 (DIM) COMMENTARY C10.7.3.3.2b ‘The B-method has been found to work best for piles in normally consolidated and lightly overconsolidated clays. The method tends to overestimate skin friction of piles in heavily overconsolidated soils. Esrig and Kirby (1979) suggested that for heavily overconsolidated clays, the value of B should not exceed 2. The Nordlund and LCPC methods for determining pile resistance have gained wider usage since the LRFD provisions for foundation design were finalized, circa late 1982. Resistance factors should be available for these methods, other than the Nordlund method in cohesive soils, shortly. 010.7.3.3.2c The value of A decreases with pile length and was found empirically by examining the results of load tests on stee! pipe piles. 10-70Section 10 - Foundations (S!) ‘SPECIFICATIONS os ae ty a Figure 10.7.3.3.2c-1 - A Coefficient for Driven. Pipe Piles (after Vijayvergiya and Focht 1972) 10.7.3.3.3 Tip Resistance ‘The nominal unit tip resistance of piles in saturated clay, in MPa, may be taken as: a= 98, (10.7.33.3-4) S, = undrained shear strength of the clay near the pile base (MPa) 10.7.3.4 PILE RESISTANCE ESTIMATES BASED ON IN-SITU TESTS 10.7.3.4.1 General ‘The resistance factors for the skin friction and tip resistance, estimated using in-situ methods, shall be as ‘specified in Table 10.5.5-2. COMMENTARY c10.7.3.4.1 In-situ tests are widely used in cohesionless soils because obtaining good quality samples of cohesionless soils is very difficult. In-situ test parameters may be used to estimate the tip resistance and skin friction of piles. ‘Two frequently used in-situ test methods for predicting pile capacity are the standard penetration test 10-71Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS 10.7.3.4.2 Using SPT This method shall be applied only to sands and nonplastic silts 10.7.3.4.2a Pile Tip Resistance ‘The nominal unit tip resistance, in MPa, for piles driven to a depth D, into a cohesionless soil stratum may be taken (10.7.3.4.2a-1) (10.7.3.4.2a-2) representative SPT blow count near the pile tip corrected for overburden pressure, o', (Blows/300 mm) = measured SPT blow count (Blows/300 mm) = pile width or diameter (mm) depth of penetration in bearing strata (mm) epogz = _ limiting point resistance taken 28 0.4Nexr for sands and 0.3N.q for nonplastic silt (MPa) 10.7.3.4.2b Skin Friction ‘The nominal skin friction of piles in cohesionless soils, in MPa, may be taken as: © For driven displacement piles: q, = 0.0019 0 (10.7.3.4.2b-1) © Fornondisplacement piles (e.9., steel-H piles): @, = 0.00096 (10.7.3.4.2b-2) ‘COMMENTARY (SPT) method (Meyerhof 1976) and the cone penetration test (CPT) method (Nottingham and Schmertmann 1975). €10.7.3.4.26 Displacement piles, which have solid sections or hollow sections with a closed end, displace a relatively large volume of soil during penetration. Nondisplacement piles usually have relatively small cross-sectional areas, e.g., steel-H piles and open ended pipe piles that do not plug. Plugging occurs when the soil between the flanges in a steel-H pile or the soil in the cylinder of an open-ended steel pipe pile adheres fully to the pile and moves down with the pile as itis driven.Section 10 - Foundations (S!) ‘SPECIFICATIONS where: = _unit skin fiction for driven piles (MPa) = average (uncorrected) SPT-blow count along the pile shaft (Blows/300 mm) 10.7.3.4.3 Using CPT 10.7.3.4.3a General CPT may be used to determine: ‘© The cone penetration resistance, g., which can be used to determine the tip capacity of piles, and © Sleeve friction, f,, which can be used to determine the skin friction capacity. 10.7.3.4.3b Pile Tip Resistance Tip resistance, q,, in MPa, may be determined as shown in Figure 1. For which: (10.7.3.4.3b-1) where: average q, over a distance of yD below the pile tip (path-a-b-c); sum q, values in both the downward (path a-b) and upward (path b-c) directions; use actual q, values along path a-b ‘and the minimum path rule along path b-c, compute q,, for y-values from 0.7 to 4.0 and use the minimum q,, value obtained (MPa) average q, over a distance of 8D above the pile tip (path c-e); use the minimum path rule as for path b-c in the q;, computations; ignore any minor "x' peak depressions if in sand but include in minimum path if in clay (MPa) The minimum average cone resistance between 0.7 and 4 pile diameters below the elevation of the pile tip shall bbe obtained by a trial and error process, with the use of the minimum-path rule. The minimum-path rule shall ‘also be used to find the value of cone resistance for the soil for a distance of eight pile diameters above the tip. COMMENTARY C10.7.3.4.3b Nottingham and Schmertmann (1975) found that using a weighted average core resistance gives a good estimation of end bearing capacity in piles for all soil types. 10-73Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY ‘The two results shall be averaged to determine the pile tip resistance. Figure 10.7.3.4.3b-1 - Pile End-Bearing Computation Procedure (after Nottingham and Schmertmann 1975) 10.7.3.4.3¢ Skin Friction C10.7.3.4.36 The nominal skin friction resistance of piles, in N, This process is described in Nottingham and may be taken as: ‘Schmertmann (1975). For a pile of constant cross-section (nontapered), Equation 1 can be writen as: oe | (10.7.3.4.3¢-1) fe (é } Tyg, a ‘sc| oe li=1 | 82,) we it 10-74Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY (C10.7.3.4.30-1) ‘sands from Figure 1 (DIM) = depth to middle of length interval at the point ‘considered (mm) If, in addition to the pile being prismatic, f, is ‘approximately constant at depths below 8D, Equation 1 where: Kj. = cotrection factors: K, for clays and K, for u D, can be simplified to: = pile width or diameter at the point considered (mm) ; Q, > Kyoleefy(2-40)] (C10,7.3.4.3c-2) fy = uit local sleeve friction resistance from CPT at the point considered (MPa) where: @, = pile perimeter at the point considered (mm) Z = total embedded pile length (mm) h, = _Iength interval at the point considered (mm) N, = number of intervals between the ground surface and a point 8D below the ground surface N, = number of intervals between 8D below the (ground surface and the tip ofthe pile a Rue fsin Pa Q ° o1___02 === cone ant i Seales Hit I — seine agemarn To Ochna) (a 08 om Bape ——s. Tota ngnocr Gaye Fork, Wood use 125K, Steel Figure 10.7.3.4.3c-1 - Shaft Friction Correction Factors, “~._Kyand K, (after Nottingham and Schmertmann 1975) 10-75Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 107.35 PILES BEARING ON ROCK The resistance factor for the tip resistance of piles bearing on rock shall be taken as specified in Table 1055-2. ‘Where pile width and rock discontinuity spacing each exceed 300 mm and where unfiled discontinuity thickness is less than 6.4 mm or discontinuities filed with Soil or rock debris are less than 25 mm wide. The nominal unit end bearing resistance, q,, of pil driven to rock, in MPa, may be taken as: 4% * 34,Kgd (107.35-1) for which: (10.7.35-2) d = 1+04HJD,< 3.4 where: = average uniaxial compression strength of the rock core (MPa) d= depth factor (DIM) Ke = bearing resistance coefficient from Figure 1 (om) 84 = spacing of discontinuities (mm) ty = width of discontinuities (mm) D_ = pile width (mm) H, = depth of embedment of pile socketed into rock. taken as 0.0 for piles resting on top of bedrock (mm) diameter of socket (mm) This method shall not be applied to soft stratified rocks, such as weak shale or weak limestone. Piles bearing on weak rocks shall be designed treating the soft rock as soil, specified in Article 10.7.3.3, {for piles bearing on cohesive material and Article 10.7.3.4 for piles bearing on cohesionless material. COMMENTARY C10.7.35 Equation 1 is taken from Canadian Geotechnical Society (1985). When this method is applicable, the rocks are usually ‘80 sound that the structural capacity will govern the design (Fellenius et al. 1989). Weak rocks include some shales and mudstones or poor-quality weathered rocks. The term "weak" has no generally accepted, quantitative definition; therefore, judgment and experience are required to make this determination. The same semiempirical methods 10-76Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS os, sp a cosh e ozt foo 0 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 18 18 ato Dy Figure 10.7.3.5-1 - Bearing Capacity Coefficient - (after Canadian Geotechnical Society 1985) 10.7.3.6 PILE LOAD TEST AND FIELD MONITORING ‘Compressive, tensile, and lateral load testing of piles shall conform to: © Test Method for Piles Under Static Axial Compressive Load - ASTM D 1143 © Method of Testing individual Piles Under Static Axial Tensile Load - ASTM D 3689 ‘© Method of Testing Piles Under Lateral Loads - ASTM D 3966 The resistance factor for the axial compressive resistance and axial uplift capacity obtained from pile load tests shall be as given in Table 10.5.5-2. Pile driving analyzer field tests shall conform to: © Test Method for High Strain Dynamic Testing of Piles - ASTM D 4945 ‘The resistance factor for the axial resistance obtained from the pile driving analyzer shall be as given in Table 10.5.5-2. COMMENTARY described for cohesive and cohesionless soils can be applied to these weak rock materials. 107.36 Load testing can be performed as either a routine load test or a high-level load test. A routine test is usually carried out for the purpose of proof loading. A high-level test is usually carried out before finalizing the design and involves more reliable test data and a detailed analysis of the results. ‘The test load is usually applied by means of a hydraulic jack, which may also act as a load cell However, itis preferable to use a separate load cell. Measurements of the pile compression and, therefore, the movement of the pile end, by means of a telltale should be considered for highevel testing and, wherever possible, for routine tests on long piles. ‘Where the objective is to determine the factored bearing resistance of the pile for a limit state design, the quick test methods, ASTM D 1143, reapproved in 1994, are technically preferable to the slow methods. Tests other than proof tests should be carried to failure. The designated failure load should be based on the shape of the load movement diagram. ‘A lower bound value for vertical pile capacity may be estimated using Davisson's method (NAVFAC 1982). ‘mn the design phase, the anticipated driving stress levels may be estimated by wave equation analysis. ing pile installation, dynamic measurements of forceSection 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS 10.7.3.7 UPLIFT 10.7.3.7.1 General Uplift shall be considered when the force effects, caloulated based on the appropriate strength limit state load combinations, are tensile. When piles are subjected to uplif, they should be Investigated for both resistance to pullout and structural ‘ability to resist tension and transmit it to the footing. 10.7.3.7.2 Single-Pile Uplift Resistance ‘The uplift resistance of a single pile shall be estimated in a manner similar to that for estimating the skin friction resistance of piles in compression specified in Articles 10.7.3.3 and 10.7.3.4. Factored uplift resistance in N may be taken as: Q,=9Q, where: 14 (10.7.3.7.2-4) Q, = nominal uplift capacity due to shaft resistance ) resistance factor for uplift capacity specified in Table 10.5.5-2 ae 10.7.3.7.3 Pile Group Uplift Resistance Pile group factored uplift resistance, in N, shall be taken as: n= 9Q,= 5 Qe (10.7.3.7.3-4) COMMENTARY ‘and acceleration at the pile head may be used to ‘measure driving stress levels. ‘The wave equation models the pile hammer, helmet, and pile section using a series of mass elements connected by weightless springs. The wave equation simulation allows the Designer to confirm that the proposed pile section can be driven to the required Capacity and penetration without damaging driving stress levels. Computer programs, such as Hirsch et al. (1876), ‘0r Goble and Rausche (1987) are required. Dynamic monitoring consists of recording force and ‘acceleration measurements at the pile head during initial pile installation or during restriking. Dynamic measurements of force and acceleration can also be used to determine the pile capacity, resistance distribution, and soll quake and damping parameters (Rausche et al. 1972). 107.372 The factored load effect acting on any pile in a group may be estimated using the traditional elastic strength of. materials procedure for a cross-section under thrust and moment. The cross-sectional properties should be based on the pile as a unit area. ‘The resistance factors for axial tension are lower than those for compression. One reason for this is that piles in tension unload the soil; this reduces the overburden effective stress and hence the uplift skin friction resistance ofthe pile. 10-78Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS where: % = resistance factor specified in Table 10.5.5-2, ,, = nominal uplift resistance of the group (N) The uplift resistance, Q,,, of a pile group shall be taken as the lesser of: ‘© The sum of the individual pile uplift resistance, or © The uplift capacity of the pile group considered as a block, For pile groups in cohesionless soil, the weight of the block that will be uplifted shall be determined using a spread of load of 1 in 4 from the base of the pile group taken from Figure 1. Buoyant unit weights shall be used for soll below the groundwater level. In cohesive soils, the block used to resist uplift in tundrained shear shall be taken from Figure 2. The nominal group uplift resistance may be taken as: Q, = Q,,=(2XZ+2YZ)5,+W, (10.7.3.7.3-2) where: = _ width of the group, as shown in Figure 2 (mm) = length of the group, as shown in Figure 2 (mm) = depth of the block of soll below pile cap taken from Figure 2 (mm) go " average undrained shear strength along pile shaft (MPa) W, = weight of the block of soil, piles, and pile cap (N) ‘The resistance factor for the nominal group uplift capacity, Quq, determined as the sum of the individual pile resistance, shall be taken as the same as that for the Uplift capacity of single piles as specified in Table 1055-2. “The resistance factor forthe uplift capacity ofthe pile (group considered as a block shall be taken as specified in Table 10.5.5-2 for pile groups in clay and in sand. ‘COMMENTARY 10-79‘Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS Figure 10.7.3.7.3-1 - Uplift of Group of Closely Spaced Piles in Cohesionless Soils (after Tomlinson 1987) Block of soil ited by piles Figure 10.7.3.7.3-2 - Uplift of Group of Piles in Cohesive Soils (after Tomlinson 1987) 10.7.3.8 LATERAL LOAD For piles subjected to lateral loads, the pile heads shall be fixed into the pile cap. Any disturbed soil or Voids created during the driving of the piles shall be replaced with compacted granular material. ‘The effects of soil-structure or rock-structure interaction between the piles and ground, including the number and spacing of the piles in the group, shall be accounted for in the design of laterally loaded piles. COMMENTARY c107.38 ‘The Florida Department of Transportation has made a recent study (Shahawy and Issa 1992) of the requirements for embedment of piles in pile caps to achieve full moment capacity. The resistance of piles to carrying lateral loads is usually govemed by lateral movement criteria at the service limit state, as specified Article 10.7.2, or by structural failure of the piles at the strength limit state, The response of piles to lateral loads can be estimated through P-Y analyses (Barker et al. 1991). When groups of piles are subjected to lateral loads, there is interaction among the piles through the ground between them, As a result, groups of piles deflect more, 10-80‘Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 10.7.3.9 BEARING RESISTANCE OF BATTER PILES The bearing resistance of a pile group containing batter piles may be determined by treating the batter piles as vertical piles, 10.7.3.10 GROUP AXIAL LOAD RESISTANCE 10.7.3.10.1 General Pile group factored resistance, in N, shall be taken as: 2, = 9, = 4,2, (10.7.3.10.1-1) where: Q, = nominal resistance of the group (N) % = group resistance factor specified herein 10.7.3.10.2 Cohesive Soil If the cap is in firm contact with the ground, no reduction in efficiency shall be required. If the cap is not in firm contact with the ground and if the soil is stif, no reduction in efficiency shall be required, If the cap is not in firm contact with the ground and if the soil at the surface is soft, the individual resistance of each pile shall be multiplied by an efficiency factor n, taken as: 0.65 for a center-to-center spacing of 2.5 diameters, © n= 1.0 for a center-to-center spacing of 6.0 diameters. © For intermediate spacings, the value of n may be determined by linear interpolation. ‘The group resistance shall be the lesser of: COMMENTARY than single piles subjected to the same lateral load per pile, and the bending moments in the piles in the group are also larger. These factors should be accounted for in design. Practical design procedures are described in Barker et al. (1991) and Reese (1984) The P-Y analysis method, with representative soilrock response curves, can be used for many design issues involving single or group pile behavior. As of 1996, resistance factors for the strength limit state had not been developed. if a jurisdiction has suitable resistance factors, they can be used to extend the use of P-Y analysis to other situations. €10.7.3.10.2 The efficiency of pile groups in cohesive soll may be diminished from the individual pile due to overlapping zones of shear deformation in the soil surrounding the piles. In cohesive soils, the resistance of a pile group depends on whether the cap is in firm contact with the ground beneath. If the cap is in firm contact, the soil between the pile and the pile group behave as a unit. ‘At small pile spacings, a block type failure mechanism may prevail, whereas individual pile failure may occur at larger pile spacings. It is necessary to ccheck for fallure mechanisms and design for the case that yields the minimum capacity. Fora pile group of width X, length Y, and depth Z, 2s ‘shown in Figure C1, the bearing capacity for block failure is given by: Q,=(2X+2Y)Z5,+XYN,S, — (C10.7.3.10.2-1) 10-81Section 10 - Foundations (S!) SPECIFICATIONS © The sum of the modified individual resistance of each pile in the group, or © The resistance of an equivalent pier consisting of the piles and the block of soil within the area bounded by the piles. ‘When determining the equivalent pier: © The full shear strength of soil shall be used to determine the skin friction resistance, © The total base area of the equivalent pier shall be used to determine the end bearing resistance, and © The additional resistance of the cap shall be ignored. ‘The resistance factor for an equivalent pier or block failure shall be as given in Table 10.5.5-2 and shall apply ‘where the pile cap is or is not in contact with the ground. The resistance factors for the group resistance calculated using the sum of the individual resistances are the same as those for the single pile resistance, as given in Table 10.5.5-2. 10.7.3.10.3 Cohesionless Soil ‘The bearing capacity of pile groups in cohesionless soil shall be the sum of the resistance of all the piles in the group. The efficiency factor, n, shall be 1.0 where. the pile cap is or is not in contact with the ground. COMMENTARY for which: Z .o6: for Z<28: noo (-%) (C10.7.3.10.2-2) iz) for 3725: (C10.7.3.10.2-3) nra( 1-224) = average undrained shear strength along the depth of penetration of the piles (MPa) undrained shear strength at the base of the group (MPa) AL oO. ae? TOL ° Figure C10.7.3.10.2-1 - Pile Group Acting as a Block Foundation 610.7.3.10.3 For piles driven into sand, the group resistance is ever less than the sum of the individual pile capacities because of the increase in density caused by driving. ‘Thus, the efficiency factor is always taken as 1.0 for pile ‘groups in sand, 10-82Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS ‘The resistance factor is the same as that for single piles, as specified in Table 10.5.5-2. 10.7.3.10.4 Pile Group in Strong Soil Overtying ‘a Weak or Compressible Soil If a pile group is embedded in a strong soil deposit overlying a weaker deposit, consideration shall be given, to the potential for a punching failure of the pile tips into the weaker soil stratum. If the underlying soll stratum consists of a weaker compressible soil, consideration shall be given to the potential for large settlements in that, weaker layer. In lieu of local guidance, the investigation of the capacity of underlying soft soils may be based on computation of the superimposed load, assuming that the distribution of pressure spreads out below the pile tips by projecting the area bounded by the pile tips on a. slope of two vertical to one horizontal. The resistance at any depth below the pile tips shall be determined based on the projected size of a notional footing. Bearing capacity shall be based on criteria for spread footing specified herein. 10.7.3.11 GROUP LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE Pile group factored resistance for lateral loads, in N, shall be taken as: O92, =19,2Q, (10.7.3.11-1) where: Q, = nominal lateral resistance of a single pile (N) Q,,= nominal lateral resistance of the group (N) @ = pile group resistance factor specified in Table 10.5.4-2 1) = group efficiency factor as defined herein ‘The individual resistance of each pile shall be ‘multiplied by an efficiency factor, n, taken as: © 11=0.75 for cohesioniess soll © = 0.85 for cohesive soil ‘The lateral resistance of the group shall be taken as, the sum of the modified individual resistance of each pile in the group. COMMENTARY C10.7.3.10.4 ‘The method can be visualized using Figure 10.7.2.1- 1 with the equivalent, or notional, footing taken at the elevation of the pile tips. The choice to take the footing at the pile tip is somewhat conservative where a significant portion of the pile resistance comes from shaft resistance but is specified as stated for simplicity. 10.73.11 ‘The lateral capacity for pile groups is less than the ‘sum of the capacities of the individual piles in the group. This group effect, known as pile-soll-pile ‘interaction, causes groups of piles to defect more than single piles subjected to the same lateral load per pile and causes the bending moments in the piles in the group to be larger. The efficiency factors are based on the Group ‘Amplification Procedure by Ooi and Duncan (1984); they are taken as the inverse of the moment amplification factor. The values were developed from several numbers of piles in a group and most closely equal the efficiencies for a nine-pile group. The factors are not influenced significantly by the pile spacing-to-diameter ratio. ‘The efficiency factors are dependent on the lateral load on a single pile in the group. The lateral loads used to calculate the factors were estimated from the load- moment relationships for driven piles in Barker et al. (1991) at the ultimate moment of the pile. The angle of internal friction for sand was assumed to be 35°, and the average undrained shear strength of clay was assumed tobe 0.072 MPa. 10-83Section 10 - Foundations (S!) SPECIFICATIONS 10.7.4 Structural Design 10.7.4.1 GENERAL ‘The structural design of driven concrete, steel, and timber piles shall be in accordance with the provisions of Sections 5, 6, and 8, respectively. 10.7.4.2 BUCKLING OF PILES Piles that extend through water or air shall be assumed to be fixed at some depth below the ground. Stability shall be determined in accordance with provisions for compression members in Sections 5, 6, and 8 using an equivalent length of the pile equal to the laterally unsupported length, plus an embedded depth to, fixity ‘The depth to fixity below the ground may be taken as: © Forclays: le) 02s 1422 (mm) (10.7.42-1) © For sands: E,I,|° 1.8 eo (10.7.4.2-2) ™ where: E, = modulus of elasticity of pile (MPa) |, = moment of inertia of pile (mm*) E, = soll modulus for clays = 67 S, (MPa) S, = _undrained shear strength of clays (MPa) COMMENTARY 107.44 Articles 5.7. contain specific provi piles. Design of piles supporting axial load only requires an allowance for unintended eccentricity. This has been ‘accounted for by: 5.13.4, 6.9.4.1, 8.4.1.3, and 8.5.2.2 for concrete, steel, and wood ‘© Limits on the usable compression capacity in Article 6.9.4.1 for stee! piles, © Use of the equations in Article 5.7.4.4 for concrete columns that already contain an eccentricity allowance, and ‘© The resistance factor in Article 8.5.2.2 as augmented in Article C8.5.2.2 for wood piles. c10.7.42 ‘This procedure is taken from Davisson and Robinson (1985). In Equations 1 and 2, the loading condition has been assumed to be axial load only, and the piles are assumed to be fixed at their ends. Because the equations give depth to fixity from the ground line, the Engineer must determine the boundary conditions at the top of the pile to determine the total unbraced length of the pile. If other loading or pile tip conditions exist, see Davisson and Robinson (1965). ‘The effect of pile spacing on the soll modulus has been studied by Prakash and Sharma (1990), who found that, at pile spacings greater than 8 times the pile width, neighboring piles have no effect on the soil modulus or buckling capacity. However, at a pile spacing of 3 times the pile width, the effective soil modulus is reduced to 25, percent of the value applicable to a single pile. For intermediate spacings, modulus values may be estimated by interpolation. 10-84‘Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS 1 = rate of increase of soil modulus with depth for sands as specified in Table 1 (MPa/mm) Table 10.7.4.2-1 - Rate of increase of Soil Modulus with Depth n, (MPaimm) for Sand ne] 8 [am CONSISTENCY. MOIST SUBMERGED 47x10* 10.8 DRILLED SHAFTS: 10. General 10.8.1.1 SCOPE ‘The provisions of this section shall apply to the design of drilled shafts other than drilled piles installed with continuous flight augers that are concreted as the ‘auger is being extracted. 10.8.1.2 EMBEDMENT Shaft embedment shall be sufficient to provide suitable vertical and lateral load capacities and acceptable displacements. 10.8.1.3 SHAFT DIAMETER AND ENLARGED BASES Where rock-socketed shafts require casing through the overburden soils, the contract documents shall specify that the socket diameter be at least 150 mm less, than the inside diameter of the casing. For rock-socketed shafts not requiring casing through the COMMENTARY c10.8.1.4 Drilled shafts may be an economical altemative to spread footing or pile foundations, particularly when spread footings cannot be founded on suitable soil or rock strata within a reasonable depth or when driven piles are not viable. Drilled shafts may be an economical alternative to spread footings where scour depth is large. Drilled shafts may also be considered to resist high lateral or uplift loads when deformation tolerances are ‘small. A bascule movable bridge is a bridge for which ‘small deformations would be desirable. Drilled shafts are classified according to their primary mechanism for deriving load resistance either as floating (friction) shafts, Le., shafts transferring load primarily by side resistance, or end-bearing shafts, ie., shafts transferring load primarily by tip resistance. c10.8.1.2 ‘The top of the drilled shaft should generally be placed within about 100 mm of the ground line, for structures on dry land and no more than 150 mm above normal water elevation for structures in water. This will enhance constructability c10.8.1.3, In drilling rock sockets, it is common to use casing through the soil zone to temporarily support the soil to allow inspection and to effect a seal along the soil-rock contact to minimize infitration of groundwater into the socket. Accordingly, it is necessary that the diameter of the rock socket be sized smaller than the nominal casing 10-85Section 10 - Foundations (S!) SPECIFICATIONS ‘overburden soils, the socket diameter may be equal to the shaft diameter through the soil. In stiff cohesive soils, an enlarged base, bell, or tunderream may be used at the shaft tip to increase the tip bearing area to reduce the unit end bearing pressure (to provide additional resistance to uplift loads. ‘Where the bottom of the drilled hole is cleaned and inspected prior to concrete placement, the entire base area may be taken to be effective in transferring load. 10.8.1.4 RESISTANCE ‘The provisions of Article 10.7.1.3 and Table 10.5.4-3, shall apply with the substitution ofthe term "Dried Shaft” for "Pile," as applicable. ‘The method of construction may affect’ the driled shaft resistance and shall be considered as part of the design process. Drilled shafts shall be constructed using the dry, casing, or wet method of construction or a combination of these methods. In every case, hole excavation, concrete placement, and all other aspects of shaft construction shall be performed in conformance with the provisions of these Specifications and the AASHTO LRED Bridge Construction Specifications. 10.8.1.5 DOWNDRAG Downdrag loads shall be evaluated, as specified in ‘Article 10.7.1.4 For end bearing shafts where downdrag is a strength limit state issue, the load factors for the downdrag load shall be the reciprocal of the resistance factor used for, the method of estimating the shaft resistance, as specified in Table 10.5.5-3. COMMENTARY ize to permit seating of casing and insertion of rock dling equipment. ‘Where practical, consideration should be given to extension of the shaft to a greater depth to avoid the difficulty and expense of excavation for enlarged bases. c108.1.4 ‘The performance of drilled shaft foundations can be greatly affected by the method of construction, Particularly side resistance. The Designer should consider the effects of ground and groundwater conditions on shaft construction operations and delineate, where necessary, the general method of construction to be followed to ensure the expected performance. Because shafts derive their capacity from side and tip resistance, which is a function of the condition of the materials in direct contact with the shaft, it is important that the construction procedures be consistent with the material conditions assumed in the design. Softening, loosening, or other changes in soil land rock conditions caused by the construction method could result in a reduction in shaft capacity and an. increase in shaft displacement. Therefore, evaluation of the effects of shaft construction procedure on resistance should be considered an inherent aspect of the design. Use of slurries, varying shaft diameters, and post ‘grouting can also affect shaft resistance. Soil parameters should be varied systematically to model the range of anticipated conditions. Both vertical ‘and lateral resistance should be evaluated in this manner. C10.8.4.5 See Article C10.7.1.4 for additional commentary. Relative downward soil movements of about 2.6 to 12.0 mm are sufficient to mobilize full downdrag loading on shafts, Downdrag loads can be estimated using the a method, as described in Article 10.8.3.3.1, for calculating positive shaft resistance. As with ‘positive shaft resistance, the top 1500 mm and a bottom length taken ‘as one shaft diameter do not contribute to downdrag loads. When using the a method, an allowance should be made for a possible increase in the undrained shear strength as consolidation occurs. 10-86Section 10 - Foundations (8!) SPECIFICATIONS 10.8.1.6 GROUP SPACING ‘The center-to-center spacing of drilled shafts should be the greater of 3.0 diameters or the spacing required to avoid interaction between adjacent shafts. If closer spacing is required, the sequence of construction shall be specified in the contract documents, and the interaction effects between adjacent shafts shall be evaluated. 10.8.1.7 BATTER SHAFTS Batter shafts should be avoided. Where increased lateral resistance is needed, consideration should be given to increasing the shaft diameter or increasing the ‘umber of shafts. 10.8.1.8 GROUNDWATER TABLE AND BUOYANCY ‘The provisions of Article 10.7.1.7 shall apply as applicable. 10.8.1.9 UPLIFT ‘The provisions of Article 10.7.1.9 shall apply as applicable. ‘Shafts designed for expansive soil shall extend to a depth into moisture-stable soils sufficient to provide adequate anchorage to resist uplif. Sufficient clearance ‘should be provided between the ground surface and underside of caps or beams connecting shafts to preclude the application of uplift loads at the shafticap ‘connection due to swelling ground conditions. COMMENTARY 108.16 Larger spacings may be required where driling operations are anticipated to be difficult. 1081.7 Due to problems associated with hole stability during excavation, installation, and with removal of casing and with installation of the rebar cage and concrete placement, construction of batter shafts is made difficut than that of vertical shafts, c10.8.1.8 See Article C10.7.1.7. c108.1.9 Evaluation of potential uplit loads on drilled shafts extending through expansive soils requires evaluation of the swell potential of the soil and the extent of the soll strata that may affect the shaft. One reasonably reliable method for identifying swell potential is presented in Table C1, which classifies swell potential as a function of the Atterberg Limits, soll suction, and percent swell from ‘odometer tests (Reese and O'Neill 1988). The thickness of the potentially expansive stratum must be identified by: ‘© Examination of soil samples from borings for the presence of jointing, slickensiding, or a blocky structure and for changes in color, and ‘© Laboratory testing for determination of soil moisture content profiles. Table C10.8.1.9-1 - Method for Identifying Potentially Expansive Soils (Reese and O'Neill 1988) > 0.38 0.14- 0.38 <0.14