2008 Workshop Deep Foundation Types Design and Construction Issues

DEEP FOUNDATION TYPES
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

ISSUES
OFFICE OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAWDAT SIDDIQI P.E.
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
#&
#&
Reliability Index
!"
!"
#
$ %
$ %
The LRFD philosophy provides a more uniform,

systematic, and rational approach to the selection
of load factors and resistance factors than LFD.
LRFD: Load & Resistance Factor Design
For Safety:
i i Qi Rn = Rr
Qi - Load Effect
Rn - Component Resistance
i - Load Factor
- Resistance Factor
i - Load Modifier (Ductility, Redundancy
and Operational Importance)
Rn - Factored Resistance
'()&
*% +
Variability of Loads and Resistances
Variability of Loads and Resistances
( R Q ) = R 2 + Q 2
Mean ( R Q )
( R Q )
Reliability Index
P(Failure)
1.0
2.0
2.3
3.0
3.5
15.9%
2.28%
1.00%
0.135%
0.0233%
Reliability Index
AISC:
D+(L or S)
D+L+W
D+L+E
Members
3.0
2.5
1.75
Connections
4.5
4.5
4.5
AASHTO:
= 3.5 Super/Sub Structures
= 2.3 Foundations
For Safety:
i i Qi Rn = Rr
Qi - Load Effect
Rn - Component Resistance
i - Load Factor
- Resistance Factor
i - Load Modifier (Ductility, Redundancy
and Operational Importance)
Rn - Factored Resistance
Table 3.4.1-1 Load Combinations and Load Factors.

DC
DD
DW
EH
EV
ES
EL
LL
IM
CE
BR
PL
LS
WA
WS
WL
FR
TU
CR
SH
1.75
1.00
1.00
STRENGTH II
1.35
1.00
STRENGTH III
1.00
1.40
STRENGTH IV
1.00
STRENGTH V
1.35
EXTREME
EVENT I
EXTREME
EVENT II
Load Combination
Limit State
STRENGTH I (unless
noted)
Use One of These at a Time
TG
SE
EQ
IC
CT
CV
0.50/1.20
TG
SE
1.00
0.50/1.20
TG
SE
1.00
0.50/1.20
TG
SE
1.00
0.50/1.20
1.00
0.40
1.0
1.00
0.50/1.20
TG
SE
EQ
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
SERVICE I
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.30
1.0
1.00
1.00/1.20
TG
SE
SERVICE II
1.00
1.30
1.00
1.00
1.00/1.20
SERVICE III
1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00/1.20
TG
SE
SERVICE IV
1.00
1.00
0.70
1.00
1.00/1.20
1.0
0.75
FATIGUELL, IM
& CE ONLY

DC
DD
DW
EH
EV
ES
EL
LL
IM
CE
BR
PL
LS
WA
WS
WL
FR
TU
CR
SH
1.75
1.0
1.0
STRENGTH
II
1.35
1.0
STRENGTH
III
1.0
1.4
STRENGTH
IV
1.0
STRENGTH
V
1.35
1.0
Load
Combination
Limit State
STRENGTH
I (unless
noted)
Use One of These at

a Time
TG
SE
EQ
IC
CT
CV
0.5/1.2
TG
SE
1.0
0.5/1.2
TG
SE
1.0
0.5/1.2
TG
SE
1.0
0.5/1.2
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.5/1.2
TG
SE

Load
Combinatio
n
Limit State
DC
DD
DW
EH
EV
ES
EL
EXTREME
EVENT I
EXTREME
EVENT II
FATIGUE
LL, IM &
CE ONLY
LL
IM
CE
BR
PL
LS
Use One of These at

a Time
WA WS WL
FR
TU
CR
SH
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.50 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.75
EQ
TG
SE
EQ
IC
CT
CV

DC
DD
Load
DW
Combinati EH
on
EV
Limit
ES
State
EL
Use One of
These at a
Time
LL
IM
CE
BR
PL
LS
WA WS
W
L
FR
TU
CR
SH
TG
SE
E I C C
Q C T V
SERVICE
I
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.3 1.0
1.00
1.00/1.20
TG
SE
SERVICE
II
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.00
1.00/1.20
SERVICE
III
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.00
1.00/1.20
TG
SE
SERVICE
IV
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.00
1.00/1.20
1.0
Resistance Factors
Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 Resistance Factors for Geotechnical Resistance of Shallow
Foundations at the Strength Limit State.
Method/Soil/Condition
Bearing Resistance
Sliding
ep
Resistance Factor
Theoretical method (Munfakh et al., 2001), in clay
0.50
Theoretical method (Munfakh et al., 2001), in sand, using CPT
0.50
Theoretical method (Munfakh et al., 2001), in sand, using SPT
0.45
Semi-empirical methods (Meyerhof, 1957), all soils
0.45
Footings on rock
0.45
Plate Load Test
0.55
Precast concrete placed on sand
0.90
Cast-in-Place Concrete on sand
0.80
Cast-in-Place or precast Concrete on Clay
0.85
Soil on soil
0.90
Passive earth pressure component of sliding resistance
0.50
Resistance Factors
Table 10.5.5.2.3-1 Resistance Factors for Driven Piles.
Condition/Resistance Determination Method
Nominal Resistance of Single

Pile in Axial Compression
Dynamic Analysis and Static
Load Test Methods, dyn
Resistance Factor
Driving criteria established by static load test(s); quality control

by dynamic testing and/or calibrated wave equation, or minimum
driving resistance combined with minimum delivered hammer
energy from the load test(s). For the last case, the hammer used
for the test pile(s) shall be used for the production piles.
Values in
Table 2
Driving criteria established by dynamic test with signal matching

at beginning of redrive conditions only of at least one production
pile per pier, but no less than the number of tests per site
provided in Table 3. Quality control of remaining piles by
calibrated wave equation and/or dynamic testing.
0.65
Wave equation analysis, without pile dynamic measurements or

load test, at end of drive conditions only
0.40
FHWA-modified Gates dynamic pile formula (End of Drive

condition only)
0.40
Engineering News Record (as defined in Article 10.7.3.8.5)

dynamic pile formula (End of Drive condition only)
0.10
Resistance Factors
Table 10.5.5.2.3-1 Resistance Factors for Driven Piles (continued).

Nominal Resistance of
Single Pile in Axial
CompressionStatic
Analysis Methods, stat
Skin Friction and End Bearing: Clay and Mixed Soils

-method (Tomlinson, 1987; Skempton, 1951)
-method (Esrig & Kirby, 1979; Skempton, 1951)
-method (Vijayvergiya & Focht, 1972; Skempton, 1951)
Skin Friction and End Bearing: Sand
Nordlund/Thurman Method (Hannigan et al., 2005)
SPT-method (Meyerhof)
Resistance Factor
0.35
0.25
0.40
0.45
0.30
CPT-method (Schmertmann)
End bearing in rock (Canadian Geotech. Society, 1985)
0.50
0.45
Block Failure, b1
Clay
0.60
Uplift Resistance of Single

Piles, up
Nordlund Method
-method
-method
-method
SPT-method
CPT-method
Load test
0.35
0.25
0.20
0.30
0.25
0.40
0.60
Group Uplift Resistance, ug
Sand and clay
0.50
Horizontal Geotechnical
Resistance of Single Pile or
Pile Group
All soils and rock
1.0
Structural Limit State
Steel piles
Concrete piles
Timber piles
See the provisions of Article 6.5.4.2

See the provisions of Article 5.5.4.2.1
See the provisions of Article 8.5.2.2 and 8.5.2.3
Pile Drivability Analysis,

da
Steel piles
Concrete piles
Timber piles
In all three Articles identified above, use identified as resistance during pile driving
Resistance Factors
Nominal
Resistance of
Single Pile in
Axial
Compression
Static
Analysis
Methods, stat
Skin Friction and End Bearing: Clay and Mixed

Soils
-method (Tomlinson, 1987; Skempton, 1951)
-method (Esrig & Kirby, 1979; Skempton,
1951)
-method (Vijayvergiya & Focht, 1972;
Skempton, 1951)
Skin Friction and End Bearing: Sand
Nordlund/Thurman Method (Hannigan et al.,
2005)
SPT-method (Meyerhof)
CPT-method (Schmertmann)
End bearing in rock (Canadian Geotech. Society,
1985)
Resistance
Factor
0.35
0.25
0.40
0.45
0.30
0.50
0.45
Resistance Factors
dyn x Rn = stat x Rnstat (C10.7.3.3-1)
where:
dyn =
the resistance factor for the dynamic method

used to verify pile bearing resistance during
driving specified in Table 10.5.5.2.3-1
Rn =
the nominal pile bearing resistance (kips)
stat =
the resistance factor for the static analysis method used

to estimate the pile penetration depth required to
achieve the desired bearing resistance specified in
Table 10.5.5.2.3-1
Rnstat =
the predicted nominal resistance from the static analysis

method used to estimate the penetration depth required (kips)
Resistance Factors
The Ultimate Bearing Value for each pile to be shown
in the plans shall be determined as follows:
R ndr =
i i Q i
DYN
Where:
Rndr = Ultimate Bearing Value (Kips)
i i Q i
DYN
DYN
= Total factored load for highest loaded pile

at each substructure unit (Kips)
= Resistance factor for driven piles
= 0.70 for piles installed according to CMS 507 and CMS 523.
Resistance Factors
Resistance Factor
Block Failure, b1
Clay
0.60
Uplift Resistance of
Single Piles, up
Nordlund Method
-method
-method
-method
SPT-method
CPT-method
Load test
0.35
0.25
0.20
0.30
0.25
0.40
0.60
Sand and clay
0.50
Group Uplift
Resistance, ug
Resistance Factors

Structural
Limit State
Pile
Drivability
Analysis, da
Resistance
Factor
Steel piles
Concrete piles
Timber piles

See the provisions of Article 8.5.2.2 and 8.5.2.3
Steel piles
Concrete piles
Timber piles

In all three Articles identified above, use identified as resistance

during pile driving
Resistance Factors
6.5.4.2 Resistance Factors
For axial resistance of piles in compression and subject to damage due to

severe driving conditions where use of a pile tip is necessary:
H-piles
c = 0.50
pipe piles
c = 0.60
For axial resistance of piles in compression under good driving conditions
where use of a pile tip is not necessary:
H-piles
c = 0.60
pipe piles
c = 0.70
For combined axial and flexural resistance of undamaged piles:
axial resistance for H-piles

c = 0.70
axial resistance for pipe piles c = 0.80
Flexural resistance
f = 1.00
Resistance Factors
Table 10.5.5.2.3-2 Relationship between Number of Static Load
Tests Conducted per Site and (after Paikowsky et al., 2004).
Resistance Factor,
Site Variabilitya
Number of Static
Load Tests per Site
Lowa
Mediuma
Higha
0.80
0.70
0.55
0.90
0.75
0.65
0.90
0.85
0.75
>4
0.90
0.90
0.80
Resistance Factors
Table 10.5.5.2.3-3 Number of Dynamic Tests with Signal Matching
Analysis per Site to Be Conducted During Production Pile Driving
(after Paikowsky et al., 2004).
Site Variabilitya
Number of Piles
Located Within
Site
Lowa
Mediuma
Higha
Number of Piles with Dynamic Tests and Signal Matching

Analysis Required (BOR)
<15
1625
2650
51100
10
101500
12
>500
12
Resistance Factors
Table 10.5.5.2.4-1 Resistance Factors for Geotechnical Resistance of Drilled Shafts.
Nominal Axial Compressive Resistance

of Single-Drilled Shafts, stat
Block Failure, b1
Single-Drilled Shafts, up
Resistance Factor
Side resistance in clay
-method (ONeill and Reese, 1999)
0.45
Tip resistance in clay
Total Stress (ONeill and Reese, 1999)
0.40
Side resistance in sand
-method ONeill and Reese, 1999)
0.55
Tip resistance in sand
ONeill and Reese (1999)
0.50
Side resistance in IGMs
0.60
Tip resistance in IGMs
0.55
Side resistance in rock
Horvath and Kenney (1979) ONeill and Reese (1999)
0.55
Carter and Kulhawy (1988)
0.50
Tip resistance in rock
Canadian Geotechnical Society (1985)

Pressuremeter Method (Canadian Geotechnical Society,
1985) ONeill and Reese (1999)
0.50
Clay
0.55
Clay
0.35
Sand
0.45
Rock
Horvath and Kenney (1979) Carter and Kulhawy (1988)
0.40
Group Uplift Resistance, ug
Sand and clay
0.45
Horizontal Geotechnical Resistance of

Single Shaft or Shaft Group
All materials
1.0
Static Load Test (compression), load
All Materials
Values in Table 10.5.5.2.3-2,

but no greater than 0.70
Static Load Test (uplift), upload
All Materials
0.60
Resistance Factors
Nominal
Axial
Compressive
Resistance of
SingleDrilled
Shafts, stat
Block
Failure, b1
Resistance Factor
Side resistance in clay
0.45
Tip resistance in clay
Total Stress (ONeill and Reese, 1999)
0.40
Side resistance in sand
-method ONeill and Reese, 1999)
0.55
Tip resistance in sand
0.50
Side resistance in IGMs
0.60
Tip resistance in IGMs
0.55
Horvath and Kenney (1979) ONeill

and Reese (1999)
0.55
0.50
Tip resistance in rock
Canadian Geotechnical Society (1985)
0.50
Clay
Pressuremeter Method (Canadian Geotechnical Society,

1985) ONeill and Reese (1999)
0.55
Resistance Factors
Single-Drilled
Shafts, up
Group Uplift
Resistance, ug
Resistance
Factor
Clay
-method (ONeill and

Reese, 1999)
0.35
Sand
-method (ONeill and

Reese, 1999)
0.45
Rock
Horvath and Kenney (1979)

0.40
Sand and clay
0.45
Resistance Factors
All materials
Horizontal
Geotechnical
Resistance of Single
Shaft or Shaft
Group
Static Load Test
(compression), load
All Materials
Static Load Test All Materials

(uplift), upload
Resistance
Factor
1.0
Values in
Table
10.5.5.2.3-2,
but no greater
than 0.70
0.60
Intermediate Geo Materials

10.8.2.2.3 Intermediate Geo
Materials (IGMs)
For
detailed
settlement
estimation of shafts in
IGMs,
the
procedures
provided by ONeill and
Reese (1999) should be
used.
C10.8.2.2.3
IGMs are defined by ONeill
and Reese (1999) as follows:
Cohesive IGMclay shales
or mudstones with an Su of 5
to 50 ksf, and
Cohesionlessgranular
tills or granular residual soils
with N160 greater than
50 blows/ft.
Intermediate Geo Material (IGM)

10.8.3.5.2b Side Resistance
qs = 4.0 for 0.25 1.2
(10.8.3.5.2b-1)
in which, for sandy soils:

= 1.5 0.135 z
for N60 15:

for N60 < 15:
N 60
15
(10.8.3.5.2b-2)
(1.5 0.135 z )
(10.8.3.5.2b-3)
in which, for IGMs:

for N60 50:
= 2.0 0.06 ( z )
0.75
(10.8.3.5.2b-4)
Intermediate Geo Material (IGM)

10.8.3.5.2c Tip Resistance
for sandy soils:
for N60 < 50:
for IGMs:
for N60 50:
(10.8.3.5.2c-1)
qp = 1.2 N60
q p = 0.59 N 60
pa
'
v
0.8
(10.8.3.5.2c-2)
Scour Assessment of Rocks

Bridges on
aggressive
steams and
waterways
Thank You

2008 Workshop Deep Foundation Types Design and Construction Issues

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2008 Workshop Deep Foundation Types Design and Construction Issues

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

DEEP FOUNDATION TYPES

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

The LRFD philosophy provides a more uniform,

LRFD: Load & Resistance Factor Design

Variability of Loads and Resistances

Variability of Loads and Resistances

LRFD: Load & Resistance Factor Design

LRFD: Load & Resistance Factor Design

Table 3.4.1-1 Load Combinations and Load Factors.

Use One of These at a Time

LRFD: Load & Resistance Factor Design

Use One of These at

LRFD: Load & Resistance Factor Design

Use One of These at

LRFD: Load & Resistance Factor Design

Theoretical method (Munfakh et al., 2001), in clay

Theoretical method (Munfakh et al., 2001), in sand, using CPT

Theoretical method (Munfakh et al., 2001), in sand, using SPT

Semi-empirical methods (Meyerhof, 1957), all soils

Plate Load Test

Precast concrete placed on sand

Cast-in-Place Concrete on sand

Cast-in-Place or precast Concrete on Clay

Passive earth pressure component of sliding resistance

Nominal Resistance of Single

Driving criteria established by static load test(s); quality control

Driving criteria established by dynamic test with signal matching

Wave equation analysis, without pile dynamic measurements or

FHWA-modified Gates dynamic pile formula (End of Drive

Engineering News Record (as defined in Article 10.7.3.8.5)

Table 10.5.5.2.3-1 Resistance Factors for Driven Piles (continued).

Skin Friction and End Bearing: Clay and Mixed Soils

Uplift Resistance of Single

Group Uplift Resistance, ug

Sand and clay

All soils and rock

Structural Limit State

See the provisions of Article 6.5.4.2

Pile Drivability Analysis,

Table 10.5.5.2.3-1 Resistance Factors for Driven Piles (continued).

Condition/Resistance Determination Method

Skin Friction and End Bearing: Clay and Mixed

the resistance factor for the dynamic method

the nominal pile bearing resistance (kips)

the resistance factor for the static analysis method used

the predicted nominal resistance from the static analysis

= Total factored load for highest loaded pile

Condition/Resistance Determination Method

Sand and clay

Condition/Resistance Determination Method

See the provisions of Article 6.5.4.2

See the provisions of Article 6.5.4.2

In all three Articles identified above, use identified as resistance

For axial resistance of piles in compression and subject to damage due to

axial resistance for H-piles

Number of Piles with Dynamic Tests and Signal Matching

Nominal Axial Compressive Resistance

Side resistance in clay

-method (ONeill and Reese, 1999)

Tip resistance in clay

Total Stress (ONeill and Reese, 1999)

Side resistance in sand

-method ONeill and Reese, 1999)

Tip resistance in sand